Home   >   Opinion   >   Louise Dodson   >   Article     

Uniting Australia, the PM's greatest challenge

March 21 2003

The country is proud of its soldiers, but has doubts about sending them to this war, writes Louise Dodson.

As the first bombs of Gulf War II fell yesterday, an emotional John Howard recognised he was presiding over an Australia still deeply divided over his decision to commit troops to war.

"It was a difficult debate, but it had to be had," he said in Parliament at the end of the three-day debate on Iraq that ended with a historic Senate vote against the Government's decision to send troops to war.

Howard has admitted the decision was the most difficult of his prime ministership.

On the day war began, the Prime Minister was desperate to try to unite the Australian people behind his decision.

After a raucous parliamentary question time during which Howard was accused by Labor MP Gavan O'Connor of having "blood on his hands", the Prime Minister did not give in to the temptation to denigrate Labor leader Simon Crean over his vehement opposition to the war.

"We are all proud and patriotic Australians with respect for each other," he said, asking the ALP and others who disagreed with his position to respect "the passion and commitment I have brought to this issue".

They were the words of a man who knows he has just entered the most challenging time of his career. A man who knows his place in history will be fundamentally shaped by the war, whether or not it ends up being supported by most Australians. At present most Australians oppose the war - some very passionately - but there are indications this may be changing.

Government backbenchers report that opposition is strongest among constituents in the Coalition's safer seats, among middle-class, well-educated elites. Constituents are more likely to support the war in Coalition-held outer-suburban marginal seats, MPs say.

But all constituents are united in their support for the Australian troops in the war - a point not lost on Howard as his campaign to explain and win support for his decision entered a new phase.

Since the fighting began, the Prime Minister has been asking the Australian people to put aside their differences over the war to simply support the troops in the field.

The focus is purely the love and pride Australians have for the military men and women who have in the past created the Anzac spirit, the Gallipoli legend and, more than anything else, framed our national identity.

At the same time Howard, like United States President George Bush, has been at pains to proffer sympathy and support to the Iraqi people - as opposed to their oppressor, Saddam Hussein.

This underlines the argument of Bush and Howard that the war is not aggressive, but rather to liberate the Iraqi people from a dangerous regime and to protect the world from danger.

Bush said while announcing the bombing had begun in Iraq: "We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens."

Howard's message was that Iraq would be a happier and better country without Saddam, and Australia would play a significant role in the peaceful reconstruction of Iraq, with greater funding to be detailed over coming days.

And the Prime Minister tried to win a measure of bipartisan support for the Iraq issue - if not the war - by suggesting a parliamentary committee oversee Australia's contribution to rebuilding Iraq.

In his televised address to the nation last night, Howard reiterated his arguments for war that he made last week.

He made one new point - which is the most crucial in his decision to back the US against Iraq. He said a key element of the new and far closer relationship with Britain and the US had been "our full and intimate sharing of intelligence material".

Nothing is more crucial for fighting terrorism than this access to such intelligence, Howard told the nation.

Also crucial to him are his briefings by Bush and US Secretary of State Colin Powell, who rang Howard early yesterday to tell him of the war plans announced hours later by the President.

Howard regards the reshaping of the American alliance as the best defence against the new and unpredictable foe - international terrorism. But as he struggles to demonstrate independence from the US, the closer, warmer relationship is a double-edged sword.

The Prime Minister's case for war rests on the contentious argument that the threat of terrorism is so severe it alters the rules on what constitutes offensive and defensive action.

Bush in his address to the American people yesterday described the bombing of Iraq as necessary to "defend the world from grave danger" - necessary for "our common defence". The threat must be met now "so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities", the President said.

Howard also invoked September 11, as well as Bali, and warned: "International terrorism knows no borders. We have learnt that to our cost. Australia and Australians anywhere in the world are as much targets as any other Western country and its people."

This invites the question of why many of those other Western countries are not also contributing troops to the war in Iraq.

The case depends on the claim that the al-Qaeda terrorist network and the Iraqi regime are directly linked - a case Howard has not made.

The other part of his case is simpler and more compelling - the moral argument for taking action against the brutal and unpredictable Saddam regime.

As well as these two main arguments, Howard has listed as reasons for military action, the failure of diplomatic means of disarming Saddam.

As the war unfolds over the coming days, Howard's most difficult decision will become his greatest challenge as he seeks to unite the country behind him and the war.

Louise Dodson is chief political correspondent of The Age.



Also in Opinion

Weapons 'evidence' ignores growing scepticism

Risks in US-led recovery

Museum looting: it didn't happen

Strictly 9 to 5. That's most of us at work

Alston's media dream hits Senate reality

America's nightmare: is Iraq the new Vietnam?

Follow the leader or pay the price

Now for a Crean makeover

Labor needs to stand and deliver on defence

Why Iraqis are not embracing Western values

Residents deserve better than outdated Kew Cottages

Iraq scandal a threat to democracy

A test that George Bush means to pass

Roosters today, feather dusters tomorrow?

Can we afford the Parkville Games village?

Why the new funding system for schools is a scandal

No triumph in this dogfight

How the system abuses the abused

The Senate ain't broke: now watch Howard fix it

The green, green grass of home

Crean or Beazley? It's a joke choice

Labor's wasteful battle

The real challenge for a Labor leader

Discrimination is alive and well

There are simply not enough jobs

We're listening, Mr Costello

Labor is sick. Crean's woes are just a symptom

Why generosity is the only humane policy on refugees

The AgeMost viewed articles
From midnight AEST

  1. Rose makes sure it counts