Hmmm,

I smell sour grapes.

I wonder if a Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies aims to illuminate and promulgate means for avoiding and resolving major conflict, and acts, or should act, to provide informed advice to governments on means for achieving lasting peace? Or, does it only review history with an interest in identifying errors in strategy and in laying blame? Which interest is paramount - evaluating conflict, or developing strategies for peace?

Perhaps our esteemed Professor could offer an opinion on appropriate international action (or even an avoidance of same) to resolve the situations in Syria, Iran and Israel/Palestine?

John Howard may not have been a perfect Prime Minister, but he was effective, led Australia to fiscal security, and fought effectively for national sovereignty and security. The author ignores the positive and unfairly emphisizes negatives, and ignores operative international context. In result, the article is a poor example of headlining. (Did the author forget that Sadaam invaded Kuwait, and poisoned portion of his country's populace with chemical weapons?)

If the author has some suggestions for achieving world peace we would love to hear them.

Jaylex says...

# Perhaps the next reward from the British monarchy will be a peerage to Lord Howard of Wollstonecraft #...

…Wraps it up pretty well me-thinks!

…John Howard was one of the most “hated” politicians amongst the working-class I have witnessed. Sadly, the traditional working class alternative has proven a match!

...Maybe an award for the most despised politician would be of some interest to the community. This award is a “Joke”

Diver, come up for air mate, you've been down for too long. When your brain becomes starved for oxygen it becomes addled. There is a real chance you will start to believe your own bull dust when that happens.

No mate the "working class loved him, how else could he have had those landslides?

It was the long haired radical ratbag far left, the public servants, particularly the welfare community, lefty academics & other lazy no hopers who didn't like him. They all hated him because he could see through their cr4p to the crux of most things, a real problem for those with only bull dust to offer.

What exactly did John Howard do, to be given recognition by a foreign head of state.

No, i think Howard did a pretty good job, although his record was also not perfect.

I suppose focused concerns on individual issues may lead some to despise him.

For myself, judging his govt's response on the many issues, i think he did quite well.

It is always harder for a centre-right leader, less prone to make as many populist decisions than say Labor.

As a person, who would i prefer Howard or Rudd? No contest, I would rather have a beer with Howard any day.