January 25th 2003

  Buy Issue 2649

Articles from this issue:

COVER STORY: Defence: Time for a reality check

EDITORIAL: The flight from fatherhood

CANBERRA OBSERVED: Iraq another divisive issue for the ALP

IRAQ: The case against Saddam Hussein

STRAWS IN THE WIND: The hard questions

COMMENT: Abortion-cancer row continues

LETTERS: Mutual concerns

LETTERS: Dealing with Asia

LETTERS: Protecting the Australian way of life

LETTERS: Free trade

LETTERS: 'Dumbing down'

COMMENT: Sean Penn, Blue Heelers: the politics of celebrity

PROFILE: Why Belloc still matters

BOOKS: The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, by Keith Windschuttle

BOOKS: Culture of Life: Culture of Death, edited by Luke Gormally

Books promotion page

Iraq another divisive issue for the ALP

by News Weekly

News Weekly, January 25, 2003
The Federal Opposition remains deeply divided over the looming war with Iraq and Simon Crean seems to be walking into another trap set by John Howard.

Up until very recently, Mr Crean has steadfastedly refused to declare whether Labor would support military action without a United Nations mandate.

He has been all over the shop, accusing the Prime Minister of being too compliant with the direction of the US, and could not say whether he would back Australian troops being deployed even under "UN sanctioned action".

Labor's "non-position"

The non-position has allowed him to take occasional pot shots at the Government without committing himself to a position which will hurt him with one of two sections of the party.

It is true that only a small but influential section of the ALP is unequivocally in favour of supporting the United States' determined position to stop Saddam Hussein ever using weapons of mass destruction, and they include former leader Kim Beazley, foreign affairs spokesman Kevin Rudd and Victorian MP Michael Danby.

There are others but the pro-US section of the party is significant and backed by a well thought-out foreign policy position which is based on the premise that terror and the agents of terror must be eliminated.

But there is general ambivalence across most of the right wing of the party with Rudd's predecessor Laurie Brereton urging Labor to take a clear line against the war.

Mr Brereton's position that there should be no commitment outside explicit UN-sanctioned action has widespread caucus support, but he goes further and has been insisting that no Australian ground troops be sent even under a UN mandate.

Brereton had to be disciplined recently for speaking out of turn on the issue.

But many of Brereton's warring colleagues in the right, such as New South Wales veteran Leo McLeay, are also strong supporters of the Palestinian cause and are equally unenthusiastic about participating in a war likely to excite more troubles in the Middle East.

Of course, the further across the political spectrum one moves, the less enthusiasm for the war there is.

Virtually no one in the left supports a war against Iraq - with or without endorsement from the United Nations.

This leaves Crean in an untenable position.

If he supports Howard he will alienate the vast majority of his support base and the Labor Party will be as split, possibly even more deeply split, than they were over the Tampa issue.

If Crean opposes Howard he risks losing the confidence of the Australian people who will, despite their own ambivalence about a war in the Middle East, lend their support to troops and sailors going to Iraq.

Crean has already accused Howard of being a "warmonger". How will he look if he suddenly joins him in a war?

Labor is again paying the price for not having a clearly enunciated foreign policy position, or any other position for that matter - except on the sale of Telstra.


Labor has fallen into the trap of believing it can play politics with foreign policy issues, that it can use matters of international importance to hurt the Government, and that it can avoid making the hard decisions.

Admittedly, the ALP is in a difficult position.

There is a general unease in the community that a war against Iraq will exacerbate rather than contain the war on terror, and a sense that the US, having missed Osama bin Laden, is simply moving to a more accessible target.

There is something in such arguments and it could be suggested that there has not yet been the justification for a just war against a country that is potentially an aggressor rather than an actual one.

Yet Labor is not putting forward any of these, or arguing an alternative solution or strategy should the "peace" route be chosen instead.

The truth is that after September 11 peace has never been an option for Western nations whether a country decides to participate in a war or not.

Join email list

Join e-newsletter list

Your cart has 0 items

Subscribe to NewsWeekly

Research Papers

Trending articles

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Memo to Shorten, Wong: LGBTIs don't want it

COVER STORY Shorten takes low road to defeat marriage plebiscite

COVER STORY Reaper mows down first child in the Low Countries

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Kevin Andrews: defend marriage on principles

CANBERRA OBSERVED Coalition still gridlocked despite foreign success

ENVIRONMENT More pseudo science from climate

COVER STORY Bill Shorten imposes his political will on the nation

News and views from around the world

Menzies, myth and modern Australia (Jonathan Pincus)

China’s utterly disgraceful human-rights record

Japan’s cure for childlessness: a robot (Marcus Roberts)

SOGI laws: a subversive response to a non-existent problem (James Gottry)

Shakespeare, Cervantes and the romance of the real (R.V. Young)

That’s not funny: PC and humour (Anthony Sacramone)

Refugees celebrate capture of terror suspect

The Spectre of soft totalitarianism (Daniel Mahoney)

American dream more dead than you thought (Eric Levitz)

Think the world is overcrowded: These 10 maps show why you’re wrong (Max Galka)

© Copyright NewsWeekly.com.au 2011
Last Modified:
November 14, 2015, 11:18 am