The Greens have picked up on comments by former chief of the Australian army, Peter Leahy, for parliamentary approval to be required for Australian troops to go to war:
Former Australian army chief Lieutenant General Peter Leahy has backed calls for a parliamentary debate ahead of any move to despatch troops to any foreign conflict.
Mr Leahy, now director of the National Security Institute at the University of Canberra, said it was desirable to have the broader parliament and the Australian population involved in such decisions….
…”My view is that as a matter of principle the parliament should discuss these issues as we are going and then discuss them periodically throughout the deployment,” he told Sky News on Thursday.
The Australian Democrats, and the Greens, have tried to pass legislation requiring such parliamentary approval, the first attempts to do so dating back to 1985. The latest attempt is the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2008 [No. 2]. Both the major parties oppose such a change; some of their public objections can be found in the Senate committee report on the bill.
The report makes much of the fact that Parliament might not have access to all the classified information available to the executive (Prime Minister and Cabinet), quoting Senator Linda Kirk from a debate on the 2003 version of the same bill:
There will often be cases where information simply cannot be made public. If it were to be made public it could very much undermine our strategic position when we are about to embark on a war. This could not even be overcome by holding a secret session of parliament, or something of the like, because that is contrary to our system of government and it would not be the proper manner in which to do this.[33]
For the major parties, the problems were serious—the inability of Parliament to have access to all the information needed to make critical decisions concerning the deployment of Australian ADF members or disclosing information that could jeopardise the safety and success of a military operation.
Frankly, this strikes me as dissimulation. The legislation doesn’t require the government to lay out its entire military strategy to the Parliament, just that we’re deploying troops and the reasons for doing so. The whole “we should go to war on the basis of secret intelligence that can’t be fully shared” thing worked out oh so well in Iraq, didn’t it?
When it comes down to it, the most substantive objection to such provisions – aside from the desire to sweep awkward questions about alliance politics under the carpet – probably lies with the activities of the covert branches of the Australian military, particularly the SAS. That the SAS were in Iraq before hostilities officially started is relatively well known. That they were, apparently, performing reconnaissance in East Timor in mid-1999, months before INTERFET went in, is not.
If one accepts the premise (and it’s not to say that I do so unreservedly) that such operations are legitimate uses of military force, it’s hard to see how to square them with the need for overt parliamentary approval.
But then, plenty of other countries manage to run a military while requiring parliamentary approval for war, as discussed in this extensive Parliamentary Library summary on the topic, which also provides a historical rundown of parliamentary debates on wars through our history.
In principle, I’m very much with Leahy and the Greens on this – the current situation gives far too much untrammeled power to the executive to make the gravest of decisions, and in recent years it has not been used wisely. But actually making this change will require some honest discussion about areas that nobody likes to discuss too deeply.
There will often be cases where information simply cannot be made public. If it were to be made public it could very much undermine our strategic position when we are about to embark on a war.
Yeah, I can’t believe anyone could say this with a straight face after Iraq, and the litany of lies that accompanied it. I believe every Australian should have a say in whether we go to war or not. It wouldn’t be necessary if the government cared, but Howard’s pigheaded entry to Iraq in the face of massive opposition puts paid to that notion.
There will often be cases where information simply cannot be made public. If it were to be made public it could very much undermine our strategic position when we are about to embark on a war.
Yeah, I can’t believe anyone could say this with a straight face after Iraq, and the litany of lies that accompanied it. I believe every Australian should have a say in whether we go to war or not. It wouldn’t be necessary if the government cared, but Howard’s pigheaded entry to Iraq in the face of massive opposition puts paid to that notion.
Robert it seems to me one problem is that we no longer fight wars. We are therefore faced with definitional problems in deciding what kinds of military commitments require parliamentary approval and which ones fall under the heading of routine operations.
In the good old days, countries did nice methodical things like issue ultimatums and formal declarations of war. I don’t know if that has ever occurred since 1941 but it certainly hasn’t happened in any of our recent military adventures. We simply invaded Iraq in consort with the USA and a few other countries and made some fatuous argument that it was all authorised by some UN resolutions. Other troop commitments such as Timor Leste and the Solomon Islands have been legitimised by their own combinations of local and bipartite and international arrangements.
In short, everyone could agree to the need for parliamentary approval prior to a declaration of war without it making a jot of practical difference to what happens already. Unless approval is stipulated for any deployment of forces overseas no matter the circumstances, I can foresee all kinds of semantic arguments about whether approval was required. Perhaps the answer is to require approval for any and every offshore deployment, because in principle I support transparency and accountability in the use of the military, but I don’t know enough about the practical implications to have a definite opinion.
Robert it seems to me one problem is that we no longer fight wars. We are therefore faced with definitional problems in deciding what kinds of military commitments require parliamentary approval and which ones fall under the heading of routine operations.
In the good old days, countries did nice methodical things like issue ultimatums and formal declarations of war. I don’t know if that has ever occurred since 1941 but it certainly hasn’t happened in any of our recent military adventures. We simply invaded Iraq in consort with the USA and a few other countries and made some fatuous argument that it was all authorised by some UN resolutions. Other troop commitments such as Timor Leste and the Solomon Islands have been legitimised by their own combinations of local and bipartite and international arrangements.
In short, everyone could agree to the need for parliamentary approval prior to a declaration of war without it making a jot of practical difference to what happens already. Unless approval is stipulated for any deployment of forces overseas no matter the circumstances, I can foresee all kinds of semantic arguments about whether approval was required. Perhaps the answer is to require approval for any and every offshore deployment, because in principle I support transparency and accountability in the use of the military, but I don’t know enough about the practical implications to have a definite opinion.
OTOH, The US congress did vote for that same war, so by your measure legislatures are no more infallible than executives are.
If all parties rely on the same information to make a decision, then it isn’t really shocking if they produce the same outcome.
OTOH, The US congress did vote for that same war, so by your measure legislatures are no more infallible than executives are.
If all parties rely on the same information to make a decision, then it isn’t really shocking if they produce the same outcome.
Yes, more important would be strong parliamentary oversight of intelligence services.
If that form of scrutiny existed then at least the consent of the legislature for war could be informed consent.
Ratty, Blair and the Imbecile relied on spy lies to trick their nations into war. (Let us never forget Howard’s accusation concerning Saddam’s dreaded human-shredding machine. Howard’s spies allegedly told him about this infernal device.)
Of course, in Australia at least, we would go to war along party lines just like all other decisions are ratified along party lines. The Libs would have voted for war even if the shredding machine had been exposed as the blatant lie it was.
But at least if parliamentary committees were able to interrogate intelligence heads before voting for war, then occasionally PMs might be shamed out of relying on intel lies.
Yes, more important would be strong parliamentary oversight of intelligence services.
If that form of scrutiny existed then at least the consent of the legislature for war could be informed consent.
Ratty, Blair and the Imbecile relied on spy lies to trick their nations into war. (Let us never forget Howard’s accusation concerning Saddam’s dreaded human-shredding machine. Howard’s spies allegedly told him about this infernal device.)
Of course, in Australia at least, we would go to war along party lines just like all other decisions are ratified along party lines. The Libs would have voted for war even if the shredding machine had been exposed as the blatant lie it was.
But at least if parliamentary committees were able to interrogate intelligence heads before voting for war, then occasionally PMs might be shamed out of relying on intel lies.
But then the veracity of “lies” (elsewhere known as “mistakes”), are often like the fate of Schrödinger’s Cat. They can’t be divined without opening the box.
But then the veracity of “lies” (elsewhere known as “mistakes”), are often like the fate of Schrödinger’s Cat. They can’t be divined without opening the box.
There is no such thing as a perfect solution, just better solutions.
I predict there would be fewer intel “mistakes” if the actual intel lies faced some chance of being exposed. Scrutiny and transparency can be effective means for exposing lies.
There is no such thing as a perfect solution, just better solutions.
I predict there would be fewer intel “mistakes” if the actual intel lies faced some chance of being exposed. Scrutiny and transparency can be effective means for exposing lies.
Not quite. The Congress abdicated its responsibility by delegating the decision to the President. A lot of US libertarians see this as one (among many) reasons that the war was unlawful — Congress never specifically declared war.
Not quite. The Congress abdicated its responsibility by delegating the decision to the President. A lot of US libertarians see this as one (among many) reasons that the war was unlawful — Congress never specifically declared war.
In other words they approved. Semantics aren’t really the point here, are they?
In other words they approved. Semantics aren’t really the point here, are they?
The government is already having a massive fight with the media and the mining companies. I doubt they want one with the Department of Defense as well.
The government is already having a massive fight with the media and the mining companies. I doubt they want one with the Department of Defense as well.
In theory, it sounds like a good idea, but in practice, it is hard to see it making a difference. The ruling party will decide and the other side won’t dare not “support the troops” or risk “dividing the nation” still less take responsibility for saying that every death was “part of a fool’s errand”.
This side of a parliament that was composed of people who represented the population rather than political parties or perhaps a vote by the population as a whole (direct democracy) the whole thing is pointless.
In theory, it sounds like a good idea, but in practice, it is hard to see it making a difference. The ruling party will decide and the other side won’t dare not “support the troops” or risk “dividing the nation” still less take responsibility for saying that every death was “part of a fool’s errand”.
This side of a parliament that was composed of people who represented the population rather than political parties or perhaps a vote by the population as a whole (direct democracy) the whole thing is pointless.
I doubt even that would really make a difference, Fran. Classical Athens went to war quite readily, and for similar reasons as we do today.
I doubt even that would really make a difference, Fran. Classical Athens went to war quite readily, and for similar reasons as we do today.
Am surprised no one has recalled the notorious “debate” back in the early two thousands when Howard announced Australian participation in the Iraq invasion, with it all culminating in hysterical attacks under privilege in parliament itself, on Crean and Latham for requesting exactly the sort of legitimate backgrounding information both for themselves and the public, that Merkel talks of.
“Weapons of Mass Destruction”, indeed!
Am surprised no one has recalled the notorious “debate” back in the early two thousands when Howard announced Australian participation in the Iraq invasion, with it all culminating in hysterical attacks under privilege in parliament itself, on Crean and Latham for requesting exactly the sort of legitimate backgrounding information both for themselves and the public, that Merkel talks of.
“Weapons of Mass Destruction”, indeed!
That’s as maybe, Tim. At least then it would be clear that a consensus really existed as opposed to being manufactured for the occasion.
It is worth noting that Ancient Athens was a slaveholders’ democracy. None of them had the benefit of the last few thousand years of history to reflect upon either.
That’s as maybe, Tim. At least then it would be clear that a consensus really existed as opposed to being manufactured for the occasion.
It is worth noting that Ancient Athens was a slaveholders’ democracy. None of them had the benefit of the last few thousand years of history to reflect upon either.
Yes to the House of Representatives having new guidelines for what kind of resolution must be passed in order to declare hostilities. In fact, I’d like to see the government of the day forced to put itself forward for a vote of confidence in order to even begin to debate a resolution that is styled explicitly and sombrely as a declaration of war.
I would have the current parliament write a ‘generic’ declaration of war that is kept in reserve for the future events of future parliaments, a standard type of declaration that cannot be rewritten for base political purposes, i.e. the insertion of political nonsense about innocent US naval destroyers being victimised by the evil communists in the Gulf of Tonkin, or the moral imperative to remove WMDs from that nasty Hitleresque Saddam Husssein. The parliamentary debate over specific events can flesh things out without changing the basic pre-prepared language that would apply to this resolution. Amendments should be kept to a minimum.
No, no, no, no, no to a genuine Act of Parliament being needed to declare war.
Warmaking is an executive action, it isn’t legislation. The Senate should not be allowed to amend a declaration of war that has been passed by the government which commands a majority in the reps, just as they are not allowed to amend the budget that has been passed by the government which commands a majority in the lower house.
The upper house shouldn’t be allowed to bring down the government over matters they (the unrepresentative swill) don’t have clear constitutional legitimacy over, whether it be the blocking of supply or the blocking of a war resolution.
They shouldn’t be allowed to do anything beyond symbolically tabling a war resolution vote that has already been passed by the chamber of responsible government.
All this can be done by adopting new conventions in our system of government as it is now. You want to go further? Then change the constitution.
Yes to the House of Representatives having new guidelines for what kind of resolution must be passed in order to declare hostilities. In fact, I’d like to see the government of the day forced to put itself forward for a vote of confidence in order to even begin to debate a resolution that is styled explicitly and sombrely as a declaration of war.
I would have the current parliament write a ‘generic’ declaration of war that is kept in reserve for the future events of future parliaments, a standard type of declaration that cannot be rewritten for base political purposes, i.e. the insertion of political nonsense about innocent US naval destroyers being victimised by the evil communists in the Gulf of Tonkin, or the moral imperative to remove WMDs from that nasty Hitleresque Saddam Husssein. The parliamentary debate over specific events can flesh things out without changing the basic pre-prepared language that would apply to this resolution. Amendments should be kept to a minimum.
No, no, no, no, no to a genuine Act of Parliament being needed to declare war.
Warmaking is an executive action, it isn’t legislation. The Senate should not be allowed to amend a declaration of war that has been passed by the government which commands a majority in the reps, just as they are not allowed to amend the budget that has been passed by the government which commands a majority in the lower house.
The upper house shouldn’t be allowed to bring down the government over matters they (the unrepresentative swill) don’t have clear constitutional legitimacy over, whether it be the blocking of supply or the blocking of a war resolution.
They shouldn’t be allowed to do anything beyond symbolically tabling a war resolution vote that has already been passed by the chamber of responsible government.
All this can be done by adopting new conventions in our system of government as it is now. You want to go further? Then change the constitution.
What about a joint sitting of both houses? That would prevent the Senate from undermining any Act of Parliament (should an Act of Parliament be deemed necessary in all the circumstances). It would also add a further layer of accountability.
What about a joint sitting of both houses? That would prevent the Senate from undermining any Act of Parliament (should an Act of Parliament be deemed necessary in all the circumstances). It would also add a further layer of accountability.
I don’t think a joint sitting really helps SL as the division will largely reflect the division in the house but probably somewhat favour the government of the day which would be the proposer of hostilities.
Perhaps it should be a direct action referendum with a simple declaration of the basic cause under which hostilities were demanded, expressed in the language of Chapter 7 of the Security Council. That’s pretty unambiguous.
I don’t think a joint sitting really helps SL as the division will largely reflect the division in the house but probably somewhat favour the government of the day which would be the proposer of hostilities.
Perhaps it should be a direct action referendum with a simple declaration of the basic cause under which hostilities were demanded, expressed in the language of Chapter 7 of the Security Council. That’s pretty unambiguous.
Oops … see what too much Abbott in the news does?
[It should be decided through direct democracy -- in this case a referendum, expressed in ....]
Oops … see what too much Abbott in the news does?
[It should be decided through direct democracy -- in this case a referendum, expressed in ....]
A technical point – according to the Parliamentary Library report, we haven’t declared war since 1939.
Why?
Because declaring war is illegal without a Security Council resolution, apparently…so we just send in the troops without officially declaring war.
Nickws, the constitutional situation is clear, according to what I’ve read so far; Parliament can restrict the executive’s ability to go to war if it chooses. The question is whether it should.
As for letting Parliament have a go at the spooks, bloody oath, but that’s a question for another day.
As to the “Opposition would always fall in line” line, note that they didn’t in 2003.
A technical point – according to the Parliamentary Library report, we haven’t declared war since 1939.
Why?
Because declaring war is illegal without a Security Council resolution, apparently…so we just send in the troops without officially declaring war.
Nickws, the constitutional situation is clear, according to what I’ve read so far; Parliament can restrict the executive’s ability to go to war if it chooses. The question is whether it should.
As for letting Parliament have a go at the spooks, bloody oath, but that’s a question for another day.
As to the “Opposition would always fall in line” line, note that they didn’t in 2003.
I don’t see why minor parties and independents from the senate couldn’t be included in a joint committee to draft a house resolution (or preamble to a house resolution), the parliament can set whatever precendent they want with reforms like this. The executive advisory council from WWII springs to mind.
But I do believe that a minority vote in such a committee shouldn’t have the same weight as a vote in the House of Reps.
Fran, I take it you don’t think our nation state should ever be able to wage war?
Slippery-slope-to-Godwin’s alert: the pre-war American isolationists wanted the POTUS to have to win a national referendum in order to be able to declare war.
Some of those advocates were pacifists, but many just didn’t want FDR to fight Hitler.
If there’s no such thing as a just war then there’s no such thing as a popular mandate for just war. All there is is obstructionism.
I don’t see why minor parties and independents from the senate couldn’t be included in a joint committee to draft a house resolution (or preamble to a house resolution), the parliament can set whatever precendent they want with reforms like this. The executive advisory council from WWII springs to mind.
But I do believe that a minority vote in such a committee shouldn’t have the same weight as a vote in the House of Reps.
Fran, I take it you don’t think our nation state should ever be able to wage war?
Slippery-slope-to-Godwin’s alert: the pre-war American isolationists wanted the POTUS to have to win a national referendum in order to be able to declare war.
Some of those advocates were pacifists, but many just didn’t want FDR to fight Hitler.
If there’s no such thing as a just war then there’s no such thing as a popular mandate for just war. All there is is obstructionism.
@8 – the rise of undeclared wars after WW2, and in particular the backlash over the Vietnam War, led the US Congress to pass the War Powers Resolution in 1973:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
@8 – the rise of undeclared wars after WW2, and in particular the backlash over the Vietnam War, led the US Congress to pass the War Powers Resolution in 1973:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
Robert, the parliament could have voted against any of the warlike resolutions put forward by Menzies or Hawke or Howard, but the fact that it never removed its confidence from those PMs is because… well, it’s because we have a two-party elected dictatorship, as people here are desperately trying not to say (or at least they’re saving that card for later in the debate).
My criticism of the senate stands. They shouldn’t have a veto over the ministry that commands a majority in the lower house. If you think otherwise you should state your support for a constitutional amendment, as there is no point in looking to our obligations RE international treaties or to legal thought experiments by the likes of Elizabeth Evatt or Brigadier Adrian d’Hagé. Those things don’t change the way our government functions.
I think we owe a debt of gratitude to Simon Crean for opposing Howard’s excellent adventure in 2003, but I fear the then Labor leader would have backed down if he was confronted by the possiblity of using a senate veto to nix that war. If I’m right about that then I think that proves that the current system actually gives the Opposition a free hand to focus on the policy merits of going to war.
Robert, the parliament could have voted against any of the warlike resolutions put forward by Menzies or Hawke or Howard, but the fact that it never removed its confidence from those PMs is because… well, it’s because we have a two-party elected dictatorship, as people here are desperately trying not to say (or at least they’re saving that card for later in the debate).
My criticism of the senate stands. They shouldn’t have a veto over the ministry that commands a majority in the lower house. If you think otherwise you should state your support for a constitutional amendment, as there is no point in looking to our obligations RE international treaties or to legal thought experiments by the likes of Elizabeth Evatt or Brigadier Adrian d’Hagé. Those things don’t change the way our government functions.
I think we owe a debt of gratitude to Simon Crean for opposing Howard’s excellent adventure in 2003, but I fear the then Labor leader would have backed down if he was confronted by the possiblity of using a senate veto to nix that war. If I’m right about that then I think that proves that the current system actually gives the Opposition a free hand to focus on the policy merits of going to war.
“As to the “Opposition would always fall in line” line, note that they didn’t in 2003″
If there had been a formal vote in 2003 I think it is likely that the ALP would have been under considerable political pressure not to vote against it. IMHO the most likely scenario would have been the bulk of ALP MPs and Senators voting for with a select few either abstaining or voting against.
“As to the “Opposition would always fall in line” line, note that they didn’t in 2003″
If there had been a formal vote in 2003 I think it is likely that the ALP would have been under considerable political pressure not to vote against it. IMHO the most likely scenario would have been the bulk of ALP MPs and Senators voting for with a select few either abstaining or voting against.
Furthering on from Nick’s very good last paragraph, you only have to look to the US in the run-up to, during and after the Iraq war to see the dangers for the main non-government party stemming from a formal vote. Without that, Democrats might have been freer to debate the merits of the conflict or the terms by which the conflict was being fought, without the simplistic focus on who voted for what and when. Both Kerry and Clinton found themselves in all sorts of difficulty trying to rationalise their earlier stances.
Furthering on from Nick’s very good last paragraph, you only have to look to the US in the run-up to, during and after the Iraq war to see the dangers for the main non-government party stemming from a formal vote. Without that, Democrats might have been freer to debate the merits of the conflict or the terms by which the conflict was being fought, without the simplistic focus on who voted for what and when. Both Kerry and Clinton found themselves in all sorts of difficulty trying to rationalise their earlier stances.
Agreed; it’s not at all clear what the ALP would have done if their opposition had been more than symbolic.
Agreed; it’s not at all clear what the ALP would have done if their opposition had been more than symbolic.
Maybe I didn’t express myself clearly @ 2. What, precisely, is parliament supposed to authorise, given Robert’s pertinent (and far from ‘technical’) comment @ 18?
Like I said, we have not been engaged in a war, properly described, for more than 60 years.
Maybe I didn’t express myself clearly @ 2. What, precisely, is parliament supposed to authorise, given Robert’s pertinent (and far from ‘technical’) comment @ 18?
Like I said, we have not been engaged in a war, properly described, for more than 60 years.
Ken, that’s precisely what the proposed bill does. Quoting from the bill:
There are a few exceptions, but the idea is to ban all foreign deployments without parliament giving the say-so.
Ken, that’s precisely what the proposed bill does. Quoting from the bill:
There are a few exceptions, but the idea is to ban all foreign deployments without parliament giving the say-so.
@25 – that’s one of the reasons I raised the War Powers Resolution issue, Ken. I can’t see any particular case against the Australian Parliament being required to authorise any military action, not just a declaration of war.
@25 – that’s one of the reasons I raised the War Powers Resolution issue, Ken. I can’t see any particular case against the Australian Parliament being required to authorise any military action, not just a declaration of war.
Sorry, crossed with Rob @ 26.
Sorry, crossed with Rob @ 26.
Apart from the SAS being in Iraq before H-Hour, and the already referred to surfing trips to ET by some very fit young men, what about situations like the INdonesian Konfrontasi? Do we need a debate every time one oour Submarines is deployed on an Operational Patrol? Other uses of JORN and other EW assets are often warlike but classified.
Most of the pacifists and anti-Howard/Bush/Blair types really have little understanding of the scope of military operations that we undertake that could be considered warlike and any disclosure of them would be negative for the Nation and the service personnel involved.
Next they’ll want us to have our ASIS agents declaring their presence and operations.
Apart from the SAS being in Iraq before H-Hour, and the already referred to surfing trips to ET by some very fit young men, what about situations like the INdonesian Konfrontasi? Do we need a debate every time one oour Submarines is deployed on an Operational Patrol? Other uses of JORN and other EW assets are often warlike but classified.
Most of the pacifists and anti-Howard/Bush/Blair types really have little understanding of the scope of military operations that we undertake that could be considered warlike and any disclosure of them would be negative for the Nation and the service personnel involved.
Next they’ll want us to have our ASIS agents declaring their presence and operations.
sounds like a good idea to me, Razor
sounds like a good idea to me, Razor
@29 – You might like to read the parliamentary library paper Rob’s linked to, Razor, to see how the Australian parliament dealt with the Indonesian Konfrontasi.
@29 – You might like to read the parliamentary library paper Rob’s linked to, Razor, to see how the Australian parliament dealt with the Indonesian Konfrontasi.
So if Intell finds Indonesian fighters heading towards oz , we need a Parliamentary debate …..during which bombs may be landing in Darwin just at time Bob Brown is moving his 14th Amendment opposing War until a Senate comittee cheks this out
proposal of this Thread is mad theory of a fringe anti war Group clashing with reality , and its impracticol nature obvious on numerous counts
So if Intell finds Indonesian fighters heading towards oz , we need a Parliamentary debate …..during which bombs may be landing in Darwin just at time Bob Brown is moving his 14th Amendment opposing War until a Senate comittee cheks this out
proposal of this Thread is mad theory of a fringe anti war Group clashing with reality , and its impracticol nature obvious on numerous counts
I’m looking at the senate committee report, and I’m paying a lot of attention to points 2.86 to 2.93, aka ‘Other concerns—position of Governor-General, summoning parliament, joint sitting and consequential amendments’. And I think there are some additional concerns they’ve missed.
Not only is my concern about the Spirit Of 11/11/75 not addressed, but there also appears to be the little problem that the bill under discussion (indeed every bill of its type for the last quarter century) is all about legislating—binding by law—the parliamentary procedures of futures parliaments. That is what is being called for when it’s proposed that both House and Senate must pass separate resolutions to enable the use of the ADF for combat overseas.
At least that allays my concern that the old ADs and the modern Greens want an actual War Bill passed through both chambers before war can be be made. They merely want to establish totally new governing conventions without precedent in any part of our government. Or indeed without precedent from Westminster.
I see George Williams tried to square the circle by neutering the proposal that the senate have equivalent status to the House (he’s thinking along my lines?)
But… The rest of the proposed legislation could at least be passed, even if I think it might be susceptible to some kind of constitutional challenge, and possibly might simply be ignored by future governments. A joint sitting, on the other hand, requires a constitutional amendment, as there is no provision for anything like it outside of a DD election.
The secret parliamentary sessions of the Second World War, as well as the Advisory War Council, show that there is a tradition of advise and consent at Canberra. Though I suppose that is from the era before Tom Clancy-porn, so it may no longer be operative, as we hairy-chested armchair generals like to say.
Anyway, if you read the senate committee report at aph.gov.au Robert Merkel links to you’ll find that it’s nineteen eighties Gareth Evans that is the minister cited as the leading opponent of this proposal in its various incarnations.
Personally I wouldn’t be invoking such a loser group of strategists (the 2003 mob) to try and prove I’m the serious one about national security issues around here…
I’m looking at the senate committee report, and I’m paying a lot of attention to points 2.86 to 2.93, aka ‘Other concerns—position of Governor-General, summoning parliament, joint sitting and consequential amendments’. And I think there are some additional concerns they’ve missed.
Not only is my concern about the Spirit Of 11/11/75 not addressed, but there also appears to be the little problem that the bill under discussion (indeed every bill of its type for the last quarter century) is all about legislating—binding by law—the parliamentary procedures of futures parliaments. That is what is being called for when it’s proposed that both House and Senate must pass separate resolutions to enable the use of the ADF for combat overseas.
At least that allays my concern that the old ADs and the modern Greens want an actual War Bill passed through both chambers before war can be be made. They merely want to establish totally new governing conventions without precedent in any part of our government. Or indeed without precedent from Westminster.
I see George Williams tried to square the circle by neutering the proposal that the senate have equivalent status to the House (he’s thinking along my lines?)
But… The rest of the proposed legislation could at least be passed, even if I think it might be susceptible to some kind of constitutional challenge, and possibly might simply be ignored by future governments. A joint sitting, on the other hand, requires a constitutional amendment, as there is no provision for anything like it outside of a DD election.
The secret parliamentary sessions of the Second World War, as well as the Advisory War Council, show that there is a tradition of advise and consent at Canberra. Though I suppose that is from the era before Tom Clancy-porn, so it may no longer be operative, as we hairy-chested armchair generals like to say.
Anyway, if you read the senate committee report at aph.gov.au Robert Merkel links to you’ll find that it’s nineteen eighties Gareth Evans that is the minister cited as the leading opponent of this proposal in its various incarnations.
Personally I wouldn’t be invoking such a loser group of strategists (the 2003 mob) to try and prove I’m the serious one about national security issues around here…
Nail me if you want Scepticlawyer, #15, it would be interesting to hear your view as a lawyer, if not thinking citizen, on the likely implentation and outcome of a joint sitting: would it push Labor too much into the Greens camp, or make them captive to, or in unholy alliance with, the Coalition against the Greens, a bit like Tassie for all intents and purposes back in the ‘nineties?
Nail me if you want Scepticlawyer, #15, it would be interesting to hear your view as a lawyer, if not thinking citizen, on the likely implentation and outcome of a joint sitting: would it push Labor too much into the Greens camp, or make them captive to, or in unholy alliance with, the Coalition against the Greens, a bit like Tassie for all intents and purposes back in the ‘nineties?
Razor, as far as subs and EW assets, it wouldn’t seem beyond our parliamentarians to craft a resolution that permits their continuing deployment, in suitably vague terms.
Razor, as far as subs and EW assets, it wouldn’t seem beyond our parliamentarians to craft a resolution that permits their continuing deployment, in suitably vague terms.
The old deductio ad absurdum ploy. A constant but boring favourite.
Answer: If these actions are likely to provoke an outbreak of hostilities, the answer is Yes. The biggest and most expensive wars of the 20th century were precipitated by provocations of that kind. Taxpayers and citizens have every right to know what is being done in their name.
Razor’s argument is based on the proposition that the potential enemy is more ignorant about the activities of our forces than Australian citizens. This, of course, is arrant nonsense. As an Australian citizen and a taxpayer, I’d like to know at least as much about our deployments as our potential enemies.
The Philby case is a classic example of this state of affairs. Philby, of course, scarpered off to the Soviet Union with the deepest secrets of the Western Allies. All those secrets were absolutely blown. Yet the British public weren’t allowed to know these shocking facts, not because of the danger of the enemy finding out. The enemy already knew! No, these secrets were kept from the British public to protect the idiots who allowed Philby to do so much damage to Western interests.
Why should idiots, liars and traitors be protected by official lies?
The old deductio ad absurdum ploy. A constant but boring favourite.
Answer: If these actions are likely to provoke an outbreak of hostilities, the answer is Yes. The biggest and most expensive wars of the 20th century were precipitated by provocations of that kind. Taxpayers and citizens have every right to know what is being done in their name.
Razor’s argument is based on the proposition that the potential enemy is more ignorant about the activities of our forces than Australian citizens. This, of course, is arrant nonsense. As an Australian citizen and a taxpayer, I’d like to know at least as much about our deployments as our potential enemies.
The Philby case is a classic example of this state of affairs. Philby, of course, scarpered off to the Soviet Union with the deepest secrets of the Western Allies. All those secrets were absolutely blown. Yet the British public weren’t allowed to know these shocking facts, not because of the danger of the enemy finding out. The enemy already knew! No, these secrets were kept from the British public to protect the idiots who allowed Philby to do so much damage to Western interests.
Why should idiots, liars and traitors be protected by official lies?
Former Senator Linda Kirk said: ‘This could not even be overcome by holding a secret session of parliament, or something of the like, because that is contrary to our system of government and it would not be the proper manner in which to do this.’
My knowledge of parliamentary procedure is admittedly very basic, but isn’t there already procedures in places that allow sessions of parliament to be conducted in private, i.e. the pubilc and media galleries can be cleared, etc. Although I’m not sure about the extent to which the proceedings are then recorded on Hansard.
Nonetheless, if there isn’t a provision for a secret session of parliament, surely if we are going to debate a major change to executive/legislative power like this, then such a provision could be introduced.
A secret parliamentary session may be less than ideal, but at least it permits decisions to be discussed among a wider range of people, ie the whole Parliament not just Cabinet. Even without the greater public transparency, exposing the decision to go to war to a parliamentary debate and vote, will increase accountability.
Former Senator Linda Kirk said: ‘This could not even be overcome by holding a secret session of parliament, or something of the like, because that is contrary to our system of government and it would not be the proper manner in which to do this.’
My knowledge of parliamentary procedure is admittedly very basic, but isn’t there already procedures in places that allow sessions of parliament to be conducted in private, i.e. the pubilc and media galleries can be cleared, etc. Although I’m not sure about the extent to which the proceedings are then recorded on Hansard.
Nonetheless, if there isn’t a provision for a secret session of parliament, surely if we are going to debate a major change to executive/legislative power like this, then such a provision could be introduced.
A secret parliamentary session may be less than ideal, but at least it permits decisions to be discussed among a wider range of people, ie the whole Parliament not just Cabinet. Even without the greater public transparency, exposing the decision to go to war to a parliamentary debate and vote, will increase accountability.
I rather like the proposed law. Japan seems to get by OK with a similar one, and it’s in a rather more dangerous part of the world than we are. Of course it would interfere with covert measures to support the USA’s innumerable military adventures, a development the conservatives would presumably regard with horror, but to me that would be one of its outstanding benefits.
I rather like the proposed law. Japan seems to get by OK with a similar one, and it’s in a rather more dangerous part of the world than we are. Of course it would interfere with covert measures to support the USA’s innumerable military adventures, a development the conservatives would presumably regard with horror, but to me that would be one of its outstanding benefits.
Well that should keep the Parliament busy.
It could be a problem for our blue water navy though. I mean it could be just a bit awkward for them to have to seek a Parliamentary vote every time they want to go more than 20 kilometres off our coast.
Well that should keep the Parliament busy.
It could be a problem for our blue water navy though. I mean it could be just a bit awkward for them to have to seek a Parliamentary vote every time they want to go more than 20 kilometres off our coast.
#39
given approx 90% of australians would think this whole far left anti war proposal is nutty , it shows how disconected this Thread’s bloggers is to reality , let alone practical national security issues
#39
given approx 90% of australians would think this whole far left anti war proposal is nutty , it shows how disconected this Thread’s bloggers is to reality , let alone practical national security issues
The Liberal Democrats (LDP) have a policy to amend the constitution so that wars need to be approved by 2/3rds of the parliament. In essence this would mean wars need bipartisan support. Such a requirement would have put the brakes on Australias involvement in the Iraq invasion.
http://www.LDP.org.au
The Liberal Democrats (LDP) have a policy to amend the constitution so that wars need to be approved by 2/3rds of the parliament. In essence this would mean wars need bipartisan support. Such a requirement would have put the brakes on Australias involvement in the Iraq invasion.
http://www.LDP.org.au
Sorry. Here is the direct link to the LDP defence policy:-
http://www.LDP.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1218:policy-on-defence&catid=101:policies&Itemid=290
Sorry. Here is the direct link to the LDP defence policy:-
http://www.LDP.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1218:policy-on-defence&catid=101:policies&Itemid=290
gregm, do you think it might just be possible, maybe, to perhaps come up with a piece of legislation which allows the navy to continue doing what they do, while preventing the govt from declaring war or deploying forces in military engagements without parliamentary approval?
I mean, I know it means thinking in ways that require more intelligence than you,razor, craigmc and ron can gather between you, but perhaps you could try and imagine that people as bright as our top defence analysts and constitutional lawyers might be able to come up with such a thing?
gregm, do you think it might just be possible, maybe, to perhaps come up with a piece of legislation which allows the navy to continue doing what they do, while preventing the govt from declaring war or deploying forces in military engagements without parliamentary approval?
I mean, I know it means thinking in ways that require more intelligence than you,razor, craigmc and ron can gather between you, but perhaps you could try and imagine that people as bright as our top defence analysts and constitutional lawyers might be able to come up with such a thing?
Razor, CraigMc & Ron seem to have grasped the principle that discussing urgent national security concerns in open parliament would rather defeat the purpose.
Catch up anytime you develop the intelligence to grasp that principle Sg. Better people than you are fighting for you, don’t make their job any harder than it already is (ie, by putting your brainpower onto “improving” how they protect you)
Razor, CraigMc & Ron seem to have grasped the principle that discussing urgent national security concerns in open parliament would rather defeat the purpose.
Catch up anytime you develop the intelligence to grasp that principle Sg. Better people than you are fighting for you, don’t make their job any harder than it already is (ie, by putting your brainpower onto “improving” how they protect you)
yeah sure, SATP. Because the private discussions that went on before the most recent engagements were so terribly fruitful, weren’t they? Led to what craigmc would like to call, euphemistically, “mistakes.”
But what, anyway, is it about an “urgent national security concern” that prevents it from being discussed in parliament? Do you mean to say that people can’t talk about a war in parliament? Or do you mean to say that they can’t talk about secret intelligence matters in parliament? If the former, you seem to be saying you think the govt should be able to declare war in secret. If the latter, why call secret intelligence matters “urgent national security concerns”? They’re two completely different things.
yeah sure, SATP. Because the private discussions that went on before the most recent engagements were so terribly fruitful, weren’t they? Led to what craigmc would like to call, euphemistically, “mistakes.”
But what, anyway, is it about an “urgent national security concern” that prevents it from being discussed in parliament? Do you mean to say that people can’t talk about a war in parliament? Or do you mean to say that they can’t talk about secret intelligence matters in parliament? If the former, you seem to be saying you think the govt should be able to declare war in secret. If the latter, why call secret intelligence matters “urgent national security concerns”? They’re two completely different things.
Chopped logic.
Service people who may or may not be “better” than sg, are required to follow the orders of the Prime Minister of Australia, who also may or may not be a “better person” than sg.
SATP appears to be ignorant of the fact that service personnel have no say at all about whom and where they may fight. Service personnel relinquish that right to the PM.
What is so different from their point of view of relinquishing that right to the entire parliament? After all the PM is PM only because s/he is a member of that parliament.
Chopped logic.
Service people who may or may not be “better” than sg, are required to follow the orders of the Prime Minister of Australia, who also may or may not be a “better person” than sg.
SATP appears to be ignorant of the fact that service personnel have no say at all about whom and where they may fight. Service personnel relinquish that right to the PM.
What is so different from their point of view of relinquishing that right to the entire parliament? After all the PM is PM only because s/he is a member of that parliament.
To be fair, the boundaries between intelligence gathering and warfighting can get a bit blurry.
There are also covert deployments of special forces troops to send messages to political leaderships which would probably harm relations if more widely broadcast.
Consider, for instance, the deployment of SAS troops to the Timor Leste border because people who shouldn’t have been crossing it. If that goes through an overt parliamentary approval process, imagine what happens in the tabloid medias of both Indonesia and Australia.
To be fair, the boundaries between intelligence gathering and warfighting can get a bit blurry.
There are also covert deployments of special forces troops to send messages to political leaderships which would probably harm relations if more widely broadcast.
Consider, for instance, the deployment of SAS troops to the Timor Leste border because people who shouldn’t have been crossing it. If that goes through an overt parliamentary approval process, imagine what happens in the tabloid medias of both Indonesia and Australia.
Being stationed on the territory of an ally or a friend (East Timor) with the consent of that ally or friend is not a warlike act. Such a deployment is of no particular interest to the parliament. If, however, those troops were to attempt to cross clandestinely the border into Indonesian West Timor, that would be potentially a warlike act and therefore one of vital concern to the parliament and the people of Australia.
Being stationed on the territory of an ally or a friend (East Timor) with the consent of that ally or friend is not a warlike act. Such a deployment is of no particular interest to the parliament. If, however, those troops were to attempt to cross clandestinely the border into Indonesian West Timor, that would be potentially a warlike act and therefore one of vital concern to the parliament and the people of Australia.
And in any event Katz, exigent circumstances and declarations of war are different things. Plainly, if Australian military forces need to act swiftly to deal with some serious emergency affectign national security, the need for pariamentary review would not be an obstacle because the matter can be examined after the fact, and a judgement made about the wisdom of the matter.
If with hindsight, a Declaration of War seems necessary then this can be done and if it turns out that the military acted unwisely then the government can chart a path to unpick the action.
In practice of course, Declarations of War rarely come as bolts from the blue. Australia was not facing exigent circumstances in Afghanistan in late 2001 or October of 2002 when the Iraq escalation got onto the agenda. The referendum-related violence in Timor L’Este might have qualified but of course no Declaration of War was relevant.
And in any event Katz, exigent circumstances and declarations of war are different things. Plainly, if Australian military forces need to act swiftly to deal with some serious emergency affectign national security, the need for pariamentary review would not be an obstacle because the matter can be examined after the fact, and a judgement made about the wisdom of the matter.
If with hindsight, a Declaration of War seems necessary then this can be done and if it turns out that the military acted unwisely then the government can chart a path to unpick the action.
In practice of course, Declarations of War rarely come as bolts from the blue. Australia was not facing exigent circumstances in Afghanistan in late 2001 or October of 2002 when the Iraq escalation got onto the agenda. The referendum-related violence in Timor L’Este might have qualified but of course no Declaration of War was relevant.
And in any case, Australia’s presence in East Timor during the referendum (INTRTFET) was under a UN mandate. Any warlike acts under those circumstances would have involved Indonesia going to war against the community of nations, not Australia. Australia would not have needed to declare war on Indonesia so long as Australia did not violate the territory of Indonesia.
It should not be forgotten that INTERFET forces were in East Timor with the consent of the Indonesian government.
And in any case, Australia’s presence in East Timor during the referendum (INTRTFET) was under a UN mandate. Any warlike acts under those circumstances would have involved Indonesia going to war against the community of nations, not Australia. Australia would not have needed to declare war on Indonesia so long as Australia did not violate the territory of Indonesia.
It should not be forgotten that INTERFET forces were in East Timor with the consent of the Indonesian government.
Katz, under the current proposal a parliamentary resolution would be required for the deployment, unless Parliament already had a resolution that covered such deployments.
But you’re missing the point here. There’s a whole lot of places in the region where SAS troops could feasibly be deployed on intelligence-gathering missions. To pick a contemporary example, PNG.
You will note that the reason I raised the original example of the SAS in East Timor is that it occurred months before INTERFET was authorized. That’s the good military action, right? Well, guess what. The SAS were doing dodgy secret stuff well before it was authorized by the UN.
Katz, under the current proposal a parliamentary resolution would be required for the deployment, unless Parliament already had a resolution that covered such deployments.
But you’re missing the point here. There’s a whole lot of places in the region where SAS troops could feasibly be deployed on intelligence-gathering missions. To pick a contemporary example, PNG.
You will note that the reason I raised the original example of the SAS in East Timor is that it occurred months before INTERFET was authorized. That’s the good military action, right? Well, guess what. The SAS were doing dodgy secret stuff well before it was authorized by the UN.
… dodgy secret intelligence gathering which was used ineffectively (or not at all) by the govt in planning for the referendum, and would conceivably have further destabilized a difficult situation had it been discovered. Imagine if a couple of SAS soldiers had been caught and dragged through the streets of Dili, with the Indonesian government using them to prove that the whole independence referendum was an Australian plot to undermine sovereignty. That would have inflamed the subsequent militia attacks and ruined any chance of INTERFET being authorised. Those SAS were supposedly scouting for landing sites and military installations. Had they been captured, any legitimacy Australia had in the discussions about the referendum or attempts to stop the violence afterwards would have been lost.
This doesn’t strike me as the sort of decision that we should be allowing our government to make in secret.
… dodgy secret intelligence gathering which was used ineffectively (or not at all) by the govt in planning for the referendum, and would conceivably have further destabilized a difficult situation had it been discovered. Imagine if a couple of SAS soldiers had been caught and dragged through the streets of Dili, with the Indonesian government using them to prove that the whole independence referendum was an Australian plot to undermine sovereignty. That would have inflamed the subsequent militia attacks and ruined any chance of INTERFET being authorised. Those SAS were supposedly scouting for landing sites and military installations. Had they been captured, any legitimacy Australia had in the discussions about the referendum or attempts to stop the violence afterwards would have been lost.
This doesn’t strike me as the sort of decision that we should be allowing our government to make in secret.
I’m not missing the point at all. These SAS troops were wearing an Australian uniform and were bearing arms in a foreign country. That was an act of war.
If they had been captured they would be entitled to be treated under international protocols as POWs. To put them against a wall and shoot them would be a war crime. To charge and convict them of espionage or terrorism would also be a war crime.
The object of Australia’s hostile actions, in return, is entitled to expect that Australia would acknowledge these captured troops as Australian troops on an authorised mission. If the Australian government refused to acknowledge these troops then the hostile government would be entitled to punish these troops as spies, terrorists, or saboteurs.
If the Australian parliament were to openly acknowledge that Australian assets were to be committed to missions like those you described, then this would serve as a safeguard for the welfare and safety of such troops.
And again, as I suggested @ #36, it is naive to assume that other powers know less about the activities of Australian troops than the citizens and taxpayers of Australia. The secrecy that you portray as desirable serves to fool Australians not foreign governments.
I’m not missing the point at all. These SAS troops were wearing an Australian uniform and were bearing arms in a foreign country. That was an act of war.
If they had been captured they would be entitled to be treated under international protocols as POWs. To put them against a wall and shoot them would be a war crime. To charge and convict them of espionage or terrorism would also be a war crime.
The object of Australia’s hostile actions, in return, is entitled to expect that Australia would acknowledge these captured troops as Australian troops on an authorised mission. If the Australian government refused to acknowledge these troops then the hostile government would be entitled to punish these troops as spies, terrorists, or saboteurs.
If the Australian parliament were to openly acknowledge that Australian assets were to be committed to missions like those you described, then this would serve as a safeguard for the welfare and safety of such troops.
And again, as I suggested @ #36, it is naive to assume that other powers know less about the activities of Australian troops than the citizens and taxpayers of Australia. The secrecy that you portray as desirable serves to fool Australians not foreign governments.
Well they couldn’t do worse than the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2008 [No. 2], could they? It shows no intelligence at all.
Well they couldn’t do worse than the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2008 [No. 2], could they? It shows no intelligence at all.
Depends what you mean by ‘war’, really.
Depends what you mean by ‘war’, really.
Katz, that’s a defensible position, if you’ll pardon the pun.
It’s an imperfect world out there, though, and it’s not hard for me to imagine scenarios where quietly sailing in a Collins-class sub, dropping in some SAS troops, and taking some pictures (or doing a photo pass in a fighter jet – or sitting in the harbour in a Collins-class with the mast up collecting signals intelligence) before drawing public attention to the issue is a reasonable response. And I can’t see how such things could be done under the proposed rules.
If your view is that we should stop doing such things, fine. It’d be nice if the world moved on from some of the infantile game-playing that states indulge in.
But are we really there yet?
Katz, that’s a defensible position, if you’ll pardon the pun.
It’s an imperfect world out there, though, and it’s not hard for me to imagine scenarios where quietly sailing in a Collins-class sub, dropping in some SAS troops, and taking some pictures (or doing a photo pass in a fighter jet – or sitting in the harbour in a Collins-class with the mast up collecting signals intelligence) before drawing public attention to the issue is a reasonable response. And I can’t see how such things could be done under the proposed rules.
If your view is that we should stop doing such things, fine. It’d be nice if the world moved on from some of the infantile game-playing that states indulge in.
But are we really there yet?
I think Robert that in the case of East Timor we could have been better served by not doing that sort of thing. I’m sure there is a way you could define the sorts of activities that went on in East Timor as “espionage” and exempt them from the requirement of a parliamentary sitting – which would make a lot of grey areas available for defence hawks while still preventing the government from embarking on an illegal war of choice without the scrutiny of parliament. It’s pretty obvious that this type of legislation is aimed at preventing more Iraqs, not for quibbling over minor intelligence tasks.
The whole debate would play out very differently, though, wouldn’t it, if those troops in East Timor had cocked up and created an international incident. People would now be pointing out the consequences for Australia and East Timor of a small number of individuals making cowboy decisions to send troops under cover of darkness onto foreign soil, etc. Which is exactly the point – less oversight by parliament increases the risk that people will send troops in without considering the consequences of failure, etc.
I think it’s safe to say that Howard’s ability to make decisions on military matters was shown to be very poor, and the parliament (particularly the Greens) had a much better idea of what the best course of action would be. I still remember that day in 2003 when Howard decided to attack Iraq, and Bob Brown’s rightful fury at what a staggering failure of democracy it represented. We really need to be able to prevent that happening again.
I think Robert that in the case of East Timor we could have been better served by not doing that sort of thing. I’m sure there is a way you could define the sorts of activities that went on in East Timor as “espionage” and exempt them from the requirement of a parliamentary sitting – which would make a lot of grey areas available for defence hawks while still preventing the government from embarking on an illegal war of choice without the scrutiny of parliament. It’s pretty obvious that this type of legislation is aimed at preventing more Iraqs, not for quibbling over minor intelligence tasks.
The whole debate would play out very differently, though, wouldn’t it, if those troops in East Timor had cocked up and created an international incident. People would now be pointing out the consequences for Australia and East Timor of a small number of individuals making cowboy decisions to send troops under cover of darkness onto foreign soil, etc. Which is exactly the point – less oversight by parliament increases the risk that people will send troops in without considering the consequences of failure, etc.
I think it’s safe to say that Howard’s ability to make decisions on military matters was shown to be very poor, and the parliament (particularly the Greens) had a much better idea of what the best course of action would be. I still remember that day in 2003 when Howard decided to attack Iraq, and Bob Brown’s rightful fury at what a staggering failure of democracy it represented. We really need to be able to prevent that happening again.
Bob Brown’s idea of democracy is that his party would have the right of veto over every thing that ever comes before the Parliament. I shudder to think that his party would ever have the balance of power in the Senate. Bob Brown’s “rightful fury” was at missing an opportunity to be the dictator he wants to be.
Bob Brown’s idea of democracy is that his party would have the right of veto over every thing that ever comes before the Parliament. I shudder to think that his party would ever have the balance of power in the Senate. Bob Brown’s “rightful fury” was at missing an opportunity to be the dictator he wants to be.
GregM, is there any situation on this earth you can’t disingenuously turn into an opportunity for a hate-filled and disingenuous rant?
GregM, is there any situation on this earth you can’t disingenuously turn into an opportunity for a hate-filled and disingenuous rant?
Some of these actions constitute an act of war and some of them do not. I have no objection to the latter without parliamentary scrutiny.
Remember that under international law an SAS incursion and a Pearl Harbor-style massive sneak attack differ from each other only in degree, not kind. As the situation stands there is nothing to prevent Rudd from ordering a sneak attack on the New Zealand Navy.
Indeed, in the run-up to war in the Pacific Winston Churchill plotted to sink a Japanese ship to provoke war between Britain and Japan. This was Operation Marchioness. It was aborted only when Churchill’s own Cabinet jacked up on Churchill’s bellicosity. This murky affair is detailed in David Stafford, “Churchill and Roosevelt: Men of Secrets” (2000).
The requirement that a declaration of war be ratified by Parliament would not necessarily stop such adventurism but at least it provides a hurdle and it also provides service personnel with a forum to voice disquiet that their executive government was requiring them to break international law.
Some of these actions constitute an act of war and some of them do not. I have no objection to the latter without parliamentary scrutiny.
Remember that under international law an SAS incursion and a Pearl Harbor-style massive sneak attack differ from each other only in degree, not kind. As the situation stands there is nothing to prevent Rudd from ordering a sneak attack on the New Zealand Navy.
Indeed, in the run-up to war in the Pacific Winston Churchill plotted to sink a Japanese ship to provoke war between Britain and Japan. This was Operation Marchioness. It was aborted only when Churchill’s own Cabinet jacked up on Churchill’s bellicosity. This murky affair is detailed in David Stafford, “Churchill and Roosevelt: Men of Secrets” (2000).
The requirement that a declaration of war be ratified by Parliament would not necessarily stop such adventurism but at least it provides a hurdle and it also provides service personnel with a forum to voice disquiet that their executive government was requiring them to break international law.
It’s worth noting that this secretive process of military people being the only people privy to decisions on military matters (as happened with the SAS in East Timor, according to the reports, if they’re to be trusted) is a small part of the complicated clusterf*ck that was the Japanese march to its own destruction in the 30s. Military folks may be the best qualified to judge what is good and bad for military action, but acts outside of declarations of war may have non-military consequences (or, in Japan’s case, myriad horrific consequences) that non-military people might be better qualified to judge.
It’s worth noting that this secretive process of military people being the only people privy to decisions on military matters (as happened with the SAS in East Timor, according to the reports, if they’re to be trusted) is a small part of the complicated clusterf*ck that was the Japanese march to its own destruction in the 30s. Military folks may be the best qualified to judge what is good and bad for military action, but acts outside of declarations of war may have non-military consequences (or, in Japan’s case, myriad horrific consequences) that non-military people might be better qualified to judge.
They’ve only got two warships. It would hardly be worth the bother.
They’ve only got two warships. It would hardly be worth the bother.
actually ships being sunk in NZ harbours outside of a declaration of war are a good example of why even espionage-type activities need to be subject to a little more consultation than a few men in a closed room. Sinking the Rainbow Warrior benefited the French not at all, it didn’t discourage the Paul Watsons and Greenpeaces of the world, and it damaged the French reputation in the pacific pretty badly, as well as showing them up to be a bunch of incompetents who don’t have the stomach for war, and would rather make love with their faces.
Perhaps if the people responsible for that action had been forced to subject their decision-making to a little more scrutiny, some lives would have been saved and some egg wouldn’t have got on some faces.
actually ships being sunk in NZ harbours outside of a declaration of war are a good example of why even espionage-type activities need to be subject to a little more consultation than a few men in a closed room. Sinking the Rainbow Warrior benefited the French not at all, it didn’t discourage the Paul Watsons and Greenpeaces of the world, and it damaged the French reputation in the pacific pretty badly, as well as showing them up to be a bunch of incompetents who don’t have the stomach for war, and would rather make love with their faces.
Perhaps if the people responsible for that action had been forced to subject their decision-making to a little more scrutiny, some lives would have been saved and some egg wouldn’t have got on some faces.
anti war brigade here amaturishly dressing up there arguments in “democracy concerns” , reveal there complete ignoranse of national security issues , defense analysis , immediancy , covert & overt intell and timing…from which a Govt properly and democraticaly makes a decision
And youse wont to rely on a nut like Bob Brown grandstanding moving amendments
But hey , curent system is never going to change so that will cheer you up
anti war brigade here amaturishly dressing up there arguments in “democracy concerns” , reveal there complete ignoranse of national security issues , defense analysis , immediancy , covert & overt intell and timing…from which a Govt properly and democraticaly makes a decision
And youse wont to rely on a nut like Bob Brown grandstanding moving amendments
But hey , curent system is never going to change so that will cheer you up
Robert and others I mentioned the Japanese case as an example of a country that seems to get by OK without engaging in these offshore military adventures. Am I uninformed about things the Japanese military gets up to or is the analogy flawed for some reason?
Robert and others I mentioned the Japanese case as an example of a country that seems to get by OK without engaging in these offshore military adventures. Am I uninformed about things the Japanese military gets up to or is the analogy flawed for some reason?
GregM said:
Hmmm … that’s what dictators want — a power of veto, a balance of power in the senate.
I don’t see that as the kind of benefit that would enthuse many dictators, who after all, want to dictate, but here in Australia, apparently, our dictators are really supplicants.
GregM said:
Hmmm … that’s what dictators want — a power of veto, a balance of power in the senate.
I don’t see that as the kind of benefit that would enthuse many dictators, who after all, want to dictate, but here in Australia, apparently, our dictators are really supplicants.
Ken, I suspect hawks would argue (with some justification) that Japan has the US do its dirty work for it.
Ken, I suspect hawks would argue (with some justification) that Japan has the US do its dirty work for it.
“Antiwar”? Moi?
War is a legitimate instrument of national interest.
And it is the ultimate instrument of national interest. It is a dangerous instrument whose misuse can wreak havoc to national interest.
Since the end of WWII, outside of UN commitments such as Korea, East Timor and GW1, Australian decision makers have used this instrument very poorly. Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, Australia’s three major post WWII non-sanctioned military engagements were or will be failures.
How many times will these decision makers be allowed to fail before the Australian people claim a right to scrutinise the use of the ultimate instrument of national interest?
“Antiwar”? Moi?
War is a legitimate instrument of national interest.
And it is the ultimate instrument of national interest. It is a dangerous instrument whose misuse can wreak havoc to national interest.
Since the end of WWII, outside of UN commitments such as Korea, East Timor and GW1, Australian decision makers have used this instrument very poorly. Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, Australia’s three major post WWII non-sanctioned military engagements were or will be failures.
How many times will these decision makers be allowed to fail before the Australian people claim a right to scrutinise the use of the ultimate instrument of national interest?
Robert @ 67 I suspect the hawks who make that argument are in the camp that holds Japanese interests = US interests. These are the same people who whine that the USA has been thanklessly carrying the burden of defending the free world for 60 years, when in truth the US has largely been promoting its own imperial ambitions under the guise of ‘defending’ Western values. Thus the sneering contempt amongst wingnuts for Europe (gallant Poles and AGW-rejecting Czechs excepted) for its lack of enthusiasm for overseas military adventures and the occasional burst of affection for good old Oz, which can always be relied on to do what it’s told.
Robert @ 67 I suspect the hawks who make that argument are in the camp that holds Japanese interests = US interests. These are the same people who whine that the USA has been thanklessly carrying the burden of defending the free world for 60 years, when in truth the US has largely been promoting its own imperial ambitions under the guise of ‘defending’ Western values. Thus the sneering contempt amongst wingnuts for Europe (gallant Poles and AGW-rejecting Czechs excepted) for its lack of enthusiasm for overseas military adventures and the occasional burst of affection for good old Oz, which can always be relied on to do what it’s told.
Heh, Paul Watson is certainly not above sinking the odd ship or two that he doesn’t like.
Heh, Paul Watson is certainly not above sinking the odd ship or two that he doesn’t like.
Just to be clear, are opponents of the Bill saying the USA has it wrong in requiring Congressional authorisation? They certainly have not foud it difficult to go to war with someone pretty much annually.
Just to be clear, are opponents of the Bill saying the USA has it wrong in requiring Congressional authorisation? They certainly have not foud it difficult to go to war with someone pretty much annually.
GregM @ 39, the blue water navy would not have a problem if their deployment did not involve “hostilities or operations in which hostilities are likely to occur” (50c (11)). If you had read the Bill before commenting, you would know that.
Ron @ 40: so now former Australian army chief Lieutenant General Peter Leahy is a leftwing nutter?
Evetyone else: of course a few amendments could clarify grey areas around covert activities and the like. But Private Members Bills are not normally written to be passed as-is. Even when passed, what always happens is that the government writes their own legislation and passes that. The purpose of PMBs is therefore to get the key issue/s on the table and hopefully get the government engaged with them. Criticising them for failing to get at every scenario is missing the point.
GregM @ 39, the blue water navy would not have a problem if their deployment did not involve “hostilities or operations in which hostilities are likely to occur” (50c (11)). If you had read the Bill before commenting, you would know that.
Ron @ 40: so now former Australian army chief Lieutenant General Peter Leahy is a leftwing nutter?
Evetyone else: of course a few amendments could clarify grey areas around covert activities and the like. But Private Members Bills are not normally written to be passed as-is. Even when passed, what always happens is that the government writes their own legislation and passes that. The purpose of PMBs is therefore to get the key issue/s on the table and hopefully get the government engaged with them. Criticising them for failing to get at every scenario is missing the point.
Katz proposed:
Yet there’s the rub Katz. Firstly, it is not at all clear that “the national interest” is a meaningful concept, most of the time. So trying to work out what it entails is murky at best. Perhaps if we are discussing resisting attacks on the sovereign territory, that might be fair enough, but the farther from the territory one gets, the murkier it gets. Is one entitled to protect sea lanes? Join with allies in protecting theirs on a quid pro quo basis?
Suppose, speaking purely hypothetically, someone doesn’t want to build a canal though their territory linking the Atlantic and the Pacific that would really be in the national interest of your country and maybe one or two others, and you can support with force of arms a secessionist movement that will give you what you want when you want it. It’s “in the national interest”, but is that fair enough? When should you refrain from using force of arms despite it being (arguably) in the national interest?
It seems to me that military power should be used only when one can show that
a) other means of achieving the benefits sought are not feasible
b) the measurable benefits to the entire human community are very likely to exceed the human costs, with a suitable allowance for the massive human displacement cost and collateral damage that comes with occupations of one sovereign territory by another sovereign’s armies.
The mere fact that someone can nod at alliance obligations orsome policy objective as falling within the national interest isn’t really good enough, IMO.
I’m no pacifist, but turning people loose to harm others with state impunity is not a course that should be taken on any but the most compelling of grounds. While I can certainly imagine such grounds, it seems to me that such grounds will almost never obtain in practice, simply because the calculus will almost always be fuzzy enough to be in doubt. Moreover, in those rare cases where it seems warranted at least some of them are likely to be passed over as not being in the sufficient national interest of anyone. One thinks of places like Burma or Zimbabwe (as it was a couple of years back) or the DRC or the DPRK where one can imagine forcing an inhumane regime from power and providing succour to those in terrible distress. And yet even here, the practical reality of mounting and sustaining forces of the size and configuration needed would not work out to be anywhere near as easy as one might suppose. In practice, the human costs would be very high and so we’d have to be sure that in the long run it would be worth it. That kind of calculus with all of the unintended consequences risks rightly makes us all a little queazy.
Katz proposed:
Yet there’s the rub Katz. Firstly, it is not at all clear that “the national interest” is a meaningful concept, most of the time. So trying to work out what it entails is murky at best. Perhaps if we are discussing resisting attacks on the sovereign territory, that might be fair enough, but the farther from the territory one gets, the murkier it gets. Is one entitled to protect sea lanes? Join with allies in protecting theirs on a quid pro quo basis?
Suppose, speaking purely hypothetically, someone doesn’t want to build a canal though their territory linking the Atlantic and the Pacific that would really be in the national interest of your country and maybe one or two others, and you can support with force of arms a secessionist movement that will give you what you want when you want it. It’s “in the national interest”, but is that fair enough? When should you refrain from using force of arms despite it being (arguably) in the national interest?
It seems to me that military power should be used only when one can show that
a) other means of achieving the benefits sought are not feasible
b) the measurable benefits to the entire human community are very likely to exceed the human costs, with a suitable allowance for the massive human displacement cost and collateral damage that comes with occupations of one sovereign territory by another sovereign’s armies.
The mere fact that someone can nod at alliance obligations orsome policy objective as falling within the national interest isn’t really good enough, IMO.
I’m no pacifist, but turning people loose to harm others with state impunity is not a course that should be taken on any but the most compelling of grounds. While I can certainly imagine such grounds, it seems to me that such grounds will almost never obtain in practice, simply because the calculus will almost always be fuzzy enough to be in doubt. Moreover, in those rare cases where it seems warranted at least some of them are likely to be passed over as not being in the sufficient national interest of anyone. One thinks of places like Burma or Zimbabwe (as it was a couple of years back) or the DRC or the DPRK where one can imagine forcing an inhumane regime from power and providing succour to those in terrible distress. And yet even here, the practical reality of mounting and sustaining forces of the size and configuration needed would not work out to be anywhere near as easy as one might suppose. In practice, the human costs would be very high and so we’d have to be sure that in the long run it would be worth it. That kind of calculus with all of the unintended consequences risks rightly makes us all a little queazy.
It only has to have been a meaningful concept once and my argument stands.
It only has to have been a meaningful concept once and my argument stands.
Damn, I just have to see the examples for this howler! Poor Bugger Nazis and Sons of Nippon they were provoked by the evil allies
Damn, I just have to see the examples for this howler! Poor Bugger Nazis and Sons of Nippon they were provoked by the evil allies
Well those dastardly Poles did invade the Fatherland
Well those dastardly Poles did invade the Fatherland
Gosh Oigal. Clearly you are ignorant of the fact that the British declared war on Germany and that the US declared war on Japan.
And why did Britain declare war on Germany? Because Germany invaded Poland. And what was the ostensible cause of the German invasion of Poland? The Gleiwitz Incident. Germany had already done much the same thing to the Rhineland, to Austria and to Czechoslovakia (twice!) without provoking Britain into war. Why Poland? That was Britain’s choice.
As for the Japanese, the US government rejected Japanese sovereignty over French Indochina despite the fact that the US recognised the sovereignty of the Vichy French government over French Indochina when that government was persuaded by the Japanese, with German assistance, to cede sovereignty to Japan. The US expressed its disapprobation of Japanese annexation of French Indochina by imposing embargoes on certain strategically important products. This embargo was designed to either provoke Japan into a humiliating backdown or into war. Japan chose the latter. Pearl Harbor was a provocation of a particularly spectacular kind.
So there you go Oigal — two provocations, two major wars.
Gosh Oigal. Clearly you are ignorant of the fact that the British declared war on Germany and that the US declared war on Japan.
And why did Britain declare war on Germany? Because Germany invaded Poland. And what was the ostensible cause of the German invasion of Poland? The Gleiwitz Incident. Germany had already done much the same thing to the Rhineland, to Austria and to Czechoslovakia (twice!) without provoking Britain into war. Why Poland? That was Britain’s choice.
As for the Japanese, the US government rejected Japanese sovereignty over French Indochina despite the fact that the US recognised the sovereignty of the Vichy French government over French Indochina when that government was persuaded by the Japanese, with German assistance, to cede sovereignty to Japan. The US expressed its disapprobation of Japanese annexation of French Indochina by imposing embargoes on certain strategically important products. This embargo was designed to either provoke Japan into a humiliating backdown or into war. Japan chose the latter. Pearl Harbor was a provocation of a particularly spectacular kind.
So there you go Oigal — two provocations, two major wars.
Further to Katz’s point – we found out after the war that the decisions about how to handle the US’s provocation of Japan were handled by a very small number of people, mostly military, and some of whom (like the general(?) who planned Pearl Harbour) believed from the outset that they could not beat the US. Had they been forced to expand their little groupthink beyond a bunch of banzai-crazy idiots whose idea of the “national interest” extended no further than the warrior class, they might have been convinced to retreat from their worst plans.
Of course we also know that the government of the time was effectively selected by the army, so the chances of a different path being taken were slim. But leaving decisions about how to use Katz’s “legitimate tool for the national interest” in the hands of a very small group of people, not all elected and a lot of them attached to the military, is not good.
Further to Katz’s point – we found out after the war that the decisions about how to handle the US’s provocation of Japan were handled by a very small number of people, mostly military, and some of whom (like the general(?) who planned Pearl Harbour) believed from the outset that they could not beat the US. Had they been forced to expand their little groupthink beyond a bunch of banzai-crazy idiots whose idea of the “national interest” extended no further than the warrior class, they might have been convinced to retreat from their worst plans.
Of course we also know that the government of the time was effectively selected by the army, so the chances of a different path being taken were slim. But leaving decisions about how to use Katz’s “legitimate tool for the national interest” in the hands of a very small group of people, not all elected and a lot of them attached to the military, is not good.
Shorter Katz: Having a pair of balls was “provocation” of the Axis powers.
Shark.Jumped.
Shorter Katz: Having a pair of balls was “provocation” of the Axis powers.
Shark.Jumped.
Shorter SATP: “I can’t read for meaning.”
Shorter Katz: “This fact ceased to surprise me years ago.”
Read it again SATP: it was the Axis Powers who were doing the provoking.
Hint: the Gleiwitz Incident* and the attack on Pearl Harbor* were perpetrated by the Axis Powers.
________________
* both explicitly referred to in my post #77. Capeche?
Shorter SATP: “I can’t read for meaning.”
Shorter Katz: “This fact ceased to surprise me years ago.”
Read it again SATP: it was the Axis Powers who were doing the provoking.
Hint: the Gleiwitz Incident* and the attack on Pearl Harbor* were perpetrated by the Axis Powers.
________________
* both explicitly referred to in my post #77. Capeche?
SATP, despite what you seem to believe, the Left doesn’t always think that the Americans are wrong.
SATP, despite what you seem to believe, the Left doesn’t always think that the Americans are wrong.
Kayz asked:
Strictly speaking Katz … capisci?
Kayz asked:
Strictly speaking Katz … capisci?
Well, apart from the one conservative here who invoked the AUMF as a debating point against a big ‘L’ libertarian who was taking a pseudo-Paulite stance on little Bush’s recent invasion of Iraq, I think you’ll find the Super Patriots here have no opionion whatsoever on the merits of the actual, reallife proposals being debated, except to imply that the Greens and the ADs have never genuinely wanted increased parliamentary oversight and have been trying this last quarter century to impose some kind of dirty hippy, anti-American, anti-war trick that has nothing at all to with constitutional government.
If these Super Patriots had been around a little over a hundred years ago they would have been similarly as furious and incoherent at the suggestion that Australia’s parliament should create a navy for our country. They would have argued that that was some kind of dirty anti-British trick, that our government had no right to insult the Empire like that. Some things never change.
Thankfully the ages when the Australian Super Patriots had the upper hand in public discourse (WWI and its immediate aftermath, then again at the height of the Cold War) are long gone. I don’t think they even came back to the fore under Howard—look how quickly the invasion of Iraq went bad in the eyes of the regular punters.
Well, apart from the one conservative here who invoked the AUMF as a debating point against a big ‘L’ libertarian who was taking a pseudo-Paulite stance on little Bush’s recent invasion of Iraq, I think you’ll find the Super Patriots here have no opionion whatsoever on the merits of the actual, reallife proposals being debated, except to imply that the Greens and the ADs have never genuinely wanted increased parliamentary oversight and have been trying this last quarter century to impose some kind of dirty hippy, anti-American, anti-war trick that has nothing at all to with constitutional government.
If these Super Patriots had been around a little over a hundred years ago they would have been similarly as furious and incoherent at the suggestion that Australia’s parliament should create a navy for our country. They would have argued that that was some kind of dirty anti-British trick, that our government had no right to insult the Empire like that. Some things never change.
Thankfully the ages when the Australian Super Patriots had the upper hand in public discourse (WWI and its immediate aftermath, then again at the height of the Cold War) are long gone. I don’t think they even came back to the fore under Howard—look how quickly the invasion of Iraq went bad in the eyes of the regular punters.
Christians do not send or go to war: so why not make a genuine attempt to become less dependant on fossil fuels?
…maybe it would be simpler to stop saying the Lords Prayer before the nation tuning into question time?!!?
Christians do not send or go to war: so why not make a genuine attempt to become less dependant on fossil fuels?
…maybe it would be simpler to stop saying the Lords Prayer before the nation tuning into question time?!!?
If you are a hypocritical Christian clap your hands!
If you are a hypocritical Christian clap your hands!
TO ARMS – Capitalists, Parsons, Politicians, Landlords, Newspaper Editors and other Stay-At-Home Patriots – YOUR COUNTRY NEEDS YOU IN THE TRENCHES! WORKERS! FOLLOW YOUR MASTERS!
TO ARMS – Capitalists, Parsons, Politicians, Landlords, Newspaper Editors and other Stay-At-Home Patriots – YOUR COUNTRY NEEDS YOU IN THE TRENCHES! WORKERS! FOLLOW YOUR MASTERS!
Hey, Chav (on 86), if we followed our masters, we would be rushing down to our family doctor’s practice to have all of our retrospective rheumatic fever, bedwetting, flat(tish) feet, undiagnosable psychiatric disorders and all manner of ailments, near-ailments, proto-ailments, possessions-by-demons, addictions and quasi-addictions documented so as to make us completely ineligible for military service.
What’s this going into the trenches nonsense? Not us. No way! Somebody else can go. What’s the futures market in scutage like today?
Hey, Chav (on 86), if we followed our masters, we would be rushing down to our family doctor’s practice to have all of our retrospective rheumatic fever, bedwetting, flat(tish) feet, undiagnosable psychiatric disorders and all manner of ailments, near-ailments, proto-ailments, possessions-by-demons, addictions and quasi-addictions documented so as to make us completely ineligible for military service.
What’s this going into the trenches nonsense? Not us. No way! Somebody else can go. What’s the futures market in scutage like today?