The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Domestic politics shape Australian foreign policy > Comments

Domestic politics shape Australian foreign policy : Comments

By Bruce Haigh, published 22/8/2007

Howard is planning to pull the bulk of Australian troops out of Iraq over the next six months beginning the month in the run up to the election.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Sound analysis, Bruce Haigh. I think you're very likely to be proven correct on both major points: Howard is likely to withdraw the troops as a pre-election ploy, but it won't help him because a sufficient proportion of the electorate has finally woken up to the fact that he and his government are cynical, dishonest and interested only in remaining in power - whatever the cost.

Interesting diplomatic perspective on Haneef - I hadn't connected that failed political stunt with the subsequent obsequiousness to India's nuclear demands. Makes sense.

What a bunch of boofheads.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 10:10:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A great deal of my own detestation of John Howard is due to his obsequious association of Australia with George Bush and the neocons. His absolutely unqualified admiration of the American Right seems to have blinded him to the real advantages of creating a more moral, more principled relationship. I'm quite sure Bruce is correct: the UK will start pulling troops out in October and Howard will take this as justification. Given the size and location of the permanent bases the US has built in Iraq, the likelihood that a majority of US troops will ever be withdrawn seems remote, no matter who the President is. However, there seems to be so much stress among the combat troops in Iraq that Bush will be forced to start pulling back from Baghdad in the next year.
Posted by Johntas, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 10:52:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I had expected this stunt for quite some time. It doesn't take a political genius to determine there will be a stunt, Howard is nothing but true to form. But this one is not an election winner, it will be an admission of guilt and failure. The Australian public showed me their disinterest in this issue in 2004, when we re-elected Howard despite his war and the lies. I understand the war is on the nose these days, for all the reasons we said before the war, but Australians vote with their wallets. Work Choices is killing Howard, and he can't back track. Not only will the Chamber of Commerce have a fever fit, but this has been Howard's agenda for his entire life. Not only trapped in the 1950's, but the 1850's. Even a terrorist attack would probably backfire on him, as it did the Spanish government after the Madrid bombings.

Well may we say God save the Queen, but nothing (hopefully) can save John Winston Howard.
Posted by Earthrise, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 1:09:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would suggest this item has been written in haste and the author did not bother to check facts as against fiction.

I detest Howard and yes he has started this chat simply to test the water. It was rough so he has cancelled such plans. It wouldn't fly and would ruin any chance he has. Which is minimal anyway.

The reason I say this is that today the leading Democrat contenders in the US have stated that they would want a commitment for another 3 years and , NO they haven't taken into account who might be the govt here. Lap dogs follow anyway don't they?

So whoever wins the US job the US will still be in Iraq. So Howard cannot pull out prior to an election. Or even indicate he will do so. Note his hasty denial of the possible intent of that letter.

After the election? I still doubt it as the public would finally know (those that haven't woken up yet) that Howard has used troops as vote buyers.
Posted by RobbyH, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 1:49:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
WITHRAWAL - BUT ONLY PARTIAL UNDER HOWARD OR RUDD

I think Bruce's scenerios are plausible however I suggest a bit of fine-tuning:

I don't think there is time before the election to actually withdraw any troops. Its more likely Howard will make promises BEFORE the election that "units will be withdrawn" But this will be intentionally vague and will only effect some units.

Looking at the Defence Departments deployment fact sheet http://www.defence.gov.au/opcatalyst/default.htm :

- the Overwatch Battle Group-West (OBG-W)of 515 troops, based in Dhi Qar province, may be the most likely unit withdrawn. However this may be part of a deal with the US for an equivalent battalion sized unit to be deployed in Afghanistan to boost Australia’s growing commitment there.

This switch to Afghanistan would put Australian troops in greater danger then there relatively quiet time in Iraq.

- Australian Joint Task Force Headquarters of about 70 personnel may simply move directly to Afghanistan.

The term "withdrawal" will only ever be partial under Howard OR Rudd because I think the following guard force will always be retained in Baghdad ie:

- The Security Detachment (SECDET) of about 110 personnel including infantry personnel and Australian Light Armoured Vehicles (ASLAVs) to provide protection and escort for Australian Government personnel working in our Embassy in Baghdad.

Its very unclear what would happen to the 800= personnel in Logistics, IED research, secondments, Training Team , RAAF elements and the RAN Frigate that service the Iraq region.

I think therefore any "withdrawal" will not be an absolute term. It will only be partial stepped withdrawals over years from Iraq and in any case a similar or greater number of Australian troops will be sent to Afghanistan.

Pete
(based on much direct and indirect contact with the military over the years)
Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 3:08:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Plantagenet has it mostly right. But I just wish everyone would take a look at Rudd's and Labor's various positions on withdrawal from Iraq.

Remember the furore after Rudd had a go at Howard when Howard criticised Obama's call for an immediate withdrawal?
It continued until one dim witted interviewer actually asked Rudd what was his position on withdrawal from Iraq.

Remember he dodged the issue but left the impression he was agreeing with Obama and that he'd want a withdrawal.

I remember because at the time I actually checked the Labor Party position on a withrawal from Iraq . Want to know what it was?

Rudd will hope it allows him to dodge any obrium from his original evasivenes.
Labor policy is to withdrawal the combat troops leaving the diplomat protection force, trainers, the RAAF and the RAN in place. A withdrawal you'd have when you want both a withdrawal and a non-withdrawal.

Politically sneaky and grubby but what else can we expect from 'an uppitty, snotty and rowdy' labor leader.

Jeez and he criticises the Exclusive Brethern for their duplicity.
Posted by keith, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 6:38:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Bruce

You forgot to mention Howard's, Downer's and Kelty's bullying of Indonesia. You remember forcing them to give independence to East Timor, forcing them to stop the people smuggling that led to the 'boatpeople invasion', forcing them to implement anti terror policy, [The formation of the AFP backed anti-terrot Unit 88 (?)], forcing them to put on trial Bashir and to jail him.

Did you forget those things or would that simply have given the Howard Government some good press?

It is astonishing to see all the Labor apologists in the media excusing Rudd his faux pax's and condemning the Government for doing all the things the Labor Party does as a simple matter of course. Bruce's article is simply another in a long line of such unbalanced rubbish.

Just to have a look at the polls re Rudds grubby little episode in NY. I checked the odds with the gambling outfits this week. The vast bulk of money this week was going on Howard to win.
One other curious little thing I noticed. All those minimising Rudd's gubby little episode were middle aged men and obviously 30+ labor women. Someone ought to do a poll of younger women ... you know those between 18 and 30, and grandmothers. I think the results would absolutely stun most pundits. My mum used to refer to men, Rudd's age, indulging in Rudd's antic's 'dirty old men'. The term is still used...extensively.

And the silliest comment this week was on Sky News and repeated in the commercials and the ABC that the rise in interest rates had hurt the Government ... when...that's right ... the two-party preferred gap between Labor and the Coalition actually closed.

Some are so biased they think we are all silly enough to swallow their 'spin' when the facts clearly show the real position.
Posted by keith, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 7:03:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In my opinion you have it in one plantagenet.But why does Howard need to do a deal with the US over Afghanistan? What are they going to deliver to him that might help in the run up to the election? And if he wins,even despite his love for Bush, Howard is sufficiently hard headed to know that he doesn't have to give anything more, other than words, to a lame duck President.
From a military(training,health and morale) point of view he needs to bring home the OBG-W troops and as many others that he can without leaving the SECDET high and dry. Sending OBG-W or equivalent to Afghanistan will require extra logistic and helicopter support.
Keith, calm down, I don't hold a brief for Rudd. But surely you can see that a majority of voters have seen through Howard, Downer, Ruddock, Andrews, Abbot et al., just as they saw through Beazley, Crean and Latham. If your point is that we are badly served by the quality of our elected representatives I would agree, none of them should be playing A Grade.
RobbyH you will note that US Democrat Adviser, Michele Flournoy, was quoted in the SMH today as saying that increased American engagement in Indonesia could be conducted through Australia.
"It may be much more effective for the US to support Australia to take the lead in capacity building there, whether it's sending aid workers or troops."
Troops for heavens sake. It seems that little will change in the US in terms of arrogance and ignorance under the Democrats.
They also see us as their lap dog or is it Deputy Sherif.
Peter Hartcher seems to think that if the Democrats articulate this role for Australia it must be OK.
Where would we be without the mainstream media intellectual hard hitters of the likes of Sherridan and Hartcher?
Bruce Haigh
Posted by Bruce Haigh, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 10:16:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Bruce and keith

I think that regardless of electoral benefits Howard and Rudd (will be/have been) persuaded that Australian troops can do a little more good in Afghanistan than being oil security guards in Iraq.

While being a war of attrition Afghanistan:
- was/is literally the the training base of al Qaeda (Saudi Arabia remains the spiritual base)
- is the base of the Taliban - AQ's support group.
- is as close to AQ's sanctuary in Pakistan as Western troops can get.
These Western troops breathe down the neck of Pakistan's Muslim extremists and the Pakistani leadership who, in turn, are a little too close to Pakistan's nuclear weapons.

So if the US insists that there should be Aussie troops in the Middle East (as part of our ANZUS premium) I think Afghanistan is the most useful place for counter-terrorism and to influence the direction of Pakistan. But its more dangerous than Iraq.

If the Australian Embassy remain then they need reliable protection (not Yanks, Iraqis or merceneries). Hence I think retaining the company sized SECDET seems reasonable and, in such an environment, is cost effective diplomatic protection. However if our Embassy closes (due to constant danger) then SECDET should also be withdrawn.

So what I'm saying is that electoral politics isn't the COMPLETE driver of deployment decisions. However any Akubra wearing city lawyer/politician who gains electorally from sending the troops off to war has got to bare the responsibility of digging their graves.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 11:29:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes Pete that sums it up. However an increased military commitment to Afghanistan raises the question of diplomatic representation. If we are fighting for them shouldn't we have a presence so that we can influence decision making and other aspects of government?
Bruce
Posted by Bruce Haigh, Thursday, 23 August 2007 3:23:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bruce

What you say is sensible and given DFAT's limited diplomatic resources it may be better to close up shop in Baghdad and move the Embassy (and the SECDET military unit) to Kabul (Afghanistan).

Australia's interests in Iraq could be represented by a third country Embassy. I'm sure the Yanks (with thousands in their Embassy - world's largest) would agree to this role.

The Embassy move and transfer of Aussie military units to Afghanistan would be symbolic and tangible actions indicating that counterterrorism and putting pressure on a wayward Pakistan are more important than securing IRAQI oil supplies by force.

However I don't think Howard or Rudd have the stomach to actually do this. The tiny little Aussie flag is too important to America's Anglo Occupation of Iraq.

Both Howard/Rudd have been made aware that Iraq means oil - a major concern of a key constituency and tax source - the Big End of Town :)

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 23 August 2007 4:50:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Plantagenet

I wonder what you think will happen ( given your vast and clearly superior experience in military;/strategic affairs ) in Iraq if we all just pull out?

Lets say I now believe that Iraq didn’t ship what was left of its WMD capability to Syria ( another bathist state) and that therefore the invasion was illegitimate. Just for arguments sake.

What happens when Iraq descends into total civil war. Do we go back? Do you really think we will be able to get America to send troops back to Iraq to prevent genocide? Because no other country has the resources to do such a job

Opponents of staying the course pretend that what we have now is a full scale civil war. But that is not true at all. Whilst Iraq is by no means at peace, there is the potential for death and destruction on a much larger scale. Think thousands dying each week instead of tens or hundreds

Iran would not stand by and watch as its Shia allies were massacred or driven from their homes and cities. Likewise, Syria and Saudi and others won’t watch while their Sunni relations are attacked.

New evidence from Iraq seems to suggest that the surge has been successful in reducing the level of violence. Obviously the violence has not stopped but it may be it has been reduced to a level where a real rebuilding of Iraq can begin.

Sarkozy has intimated that he would like France to be involved with a UN effort in Iraq. With more troops, and a UN resolution, Iraq may have a last best chance.

As for Afghanistan, I agree that we should fully support operations there as it is vital in the war on terror.

Give the oil arguments a rest though. Whilst they may have had some validity at the time of the invasion, the massive cost to the US has far outweighed any benefit it can now hope to receive
Posted by Paul.L, Thursday, 23 August 2007 10:53:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Paul

I recognise you as my OLO nemesis.

Your sour, yet petulant, tone has been remarked on by others in OLO and its really rather sad.

I can see you are again parroting the US/Israeli neocon line on what MAY happen to the Iraqi people if they are not continually protected (when not being shot) by the guns of Uncle Sam. A bit like your inspiration (George Bush II’s) oration today on the shame of NOT continuing the Vietnam war.

However, Craig, Keith and I are attempting to discuss what may happen to the relatively tiny Australian forces (on the ground) in Iraq and trying to nut out whether they may be more effectively used in Afghanistan.

Now, concentration on Australians may be foreign to your grand American derived visions but think outside the square old chap.

Regards

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 23 August 2007 11:47:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whatever the USA does in Iraq you can bet Mr. Howard will suport it. It is my opinion Mr. Howard has been using weazel words just trying to soften his the stance that he has previously taken. His aim being to provide an impression that troops may be withdrawn from Iraq without creating the definite expectation that it will happen.

It's been poor decision making that involved Australia in Iraq; we now have an opportunity to change who administers Australia, let's make a better choice for the future at the next election. Iraq being but one example, of many, of poor administration by the Coalition Government.
Posted by ant, Friday, 24 August 2007 7:58:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Bruce,

I find it incredible you so misread my post that it resulted in you suggesting I thought 'we are badly served by the quality of our elected representatives.'

Just to make it clear for you I will simplify my comment:

We are badly served by the lack of bias from our 'experts' and the media.

My point was commentators, like yourself, and many in the media are loathe to give the Howard Government any credit at all for any of their successes in any field. As can be seen you overlook in your commentary any of the positives in foreign affairs...your field of expertise. That makes your commentary and opinion biased. It makes it look as though you'd carry a brief for anyone opposed to the Howard Government.

I don't agree the majority have yet seen through 'Howard, Downer, Ruddock, Andrews, Abbot et al.' but they will see through the labor leader, 'just as they saw through (his labor colleagues) Beazley, Crean and Latham' once the election rolls around.

You ought to check on the betting on the election outcome. This week saw a huge amount of money going on Howard to win.
NB the date of the revelation of that grubby little episode in NY for it truely is the turning point.

As for my current view on Afghanistan and Iraq. I think our forces will remain in Iraq until the US is shown a genuine attempt by the Iraqis to govern themselves and to control their own security. At that point led by the US we'll withdraw regardless of who is PM. At that point we'll also up our representation in Afghanistan and possibly become involved in covert operations in parts of Pakistan.
Posted by keith, Friday, 24 August 2007 8:13:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
keith,

Oh I really hope we do not get involved in Pakistan. The country is teetering on the knife edge of islamic fundamentalism and any move by the US or allies to cross the border is likely to see it fall into the arms of the fundamentalists.

Then we're going to see what everyone has been trying to avoid, a nuclear armed islamic fundamentalist nation. Never mind Iran, Pakistan already has the nuke and if Shareef is toppled and replaced with hardliners, the possibility of such nukes being used against either western forces or India becomes so much higher.
Posted by James Purser, Friday, 24 August 2007 8:47:16 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yep I agree Pete, putting pressure on Pakistan is important,but how to do it is the question.NWF Province, Baluchistan and much of The Sind are no go zones for the Pakistani Army.
As you know these are poor areas and lack of money/economic oportunity
drives the political/religious agenda.The same can be said for much of Afghanistan.
Dealing with a harsh environment has shaped ethnic, tribal, clan, village and family life as well as outside threat including invasion and occupation.
Topography has also shaped responses and outlook and continues to do so. The Hazaras, Tadjiks, Uzbeks and Pathans all have a different outlook on life with the former three sharing a dislike of the latter.
It's hard to see Afghanistan becoming a united state in the modern sense of the word. Should the occupying forces seek to treat them all differently?
During the war against the Russians the British did.
Should we concentrate on the Pathans and the politics/military stategies of the border region?
Should we look at the creation of a new state containing all of the Pathans?
That would mean a loss of Peshawar and Quetta to Pakistan. Would Pakistan accept that? Could it be made to accept that? What sweetners could the international community offer?
A post in Kabul need not be large. That would reduce the number of troops needed to provide protection.(Perhaps we could employ a platoon of Ghurkas!).
The post might comprise one DFAT official as head of mission, one allied DFAT official,two Military Attaches,two AusAid officials and one Immigration official.
Anyway as you indicate Bush has demonstrated just how out of touch his Administration is with its non-sensical reference to Vietnam. Does Howard go along with this rubbish?
The graffiti is on the wall in Iraq and it is not pretty to read.
The die is cast Paul.
Keith do tell me where Howard has had a foreign policy success. Don't cite East Timor where he was dragged kicking and screaming.
What is your understanding of Australian foreign polcy under Howard and Downer?
Define what you mean by the war on terror?
Bruce Haigh
Posted by Bruce Haigh, Friday, 24 August 2007 9:45:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hmm... interesting piece and interesting comments. Pete seems on the money, though I can't help but wonder if Howard really wants to play an Iraq card. I suspect unless pressed by Rudd, he'd rather keep the whole affair low-key, which would indicate we won't even get vague statements before the election.

For my two bob, I'm particularly interested in developments in Pakistan.
I can't help but wonder what kind of reaction any uranium deal with India is going to provoke north of the Indian border.
Given that Saudi Arabia represents the financiers of AQ, Afghanistan the front line and Pakistan appears to be the centre of operations, it would appear to me at least, that sooner or later either Pakistani proxies or US forces are going to have to undertake some form of engagement in Pakistan. Probably not for a few years yet, but soon enough.

It'd be interesting to see what role India plays in any Pakistani manoeuvres. They can't play an overt role, that would inflame the situation immeasurably, but I doubt they would merely take a back seat either.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 24 August 2007 11:02:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Howard/Downer have continued the Liberal tradition of engagement with Asia. That is in Australia's greatest long term interest. Joe Lyons, had the support of Menzies, sdtarted it with the eventually aborted Pacific Pact of 1937. Menzies before and during his first Government clearly stated we should look to our north for our future.

'Our primary responsibilities are around the fringes of the Pacific Ocean ... setting up of real machinery for the cultivation of friendship
R.G. Menzies (Address, Town Hall, Sydney, 15 March 1939, cited in Hudson 1974, pp.105-106).'

During Chifley's time the Labor Party decided our relationships with the rest of the world were best centered on UN.

Currently our Asian involvement was due to Foreign Ministers Spender and Casey. With Japan mostly due to Frazer/Howard. China was first recognised by Whitlam but our significant relationships have developed under Howard/Downer.

US relationships started under Curtin. All Australian PM's and Foreign Ministers since have been cognisant of the importance of that relationship. But Howard/Downer, with our support in Iraq and Afghanistan, have succeeded in creating a 'very special place' for us in the US political establishment regardless of control by Democrat or Republican.

The most significant success of Howard/Downer is the establishment of significant relationships with countries who are traditional enemies, China and Japan, and with traditional (relatively new) super power rivals, the US and China. They have significantly enhanced our traditional Asian friendships and created a workable and mutually respectful relationship with Indonesia.

The most dangerous region in the world is the Central Asian countries of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

China and the US worked together in remeding the situation in Korea and that has established the basic nature of their relationship for years to come. Both want peace so their economies can grow.

Howard/Downer have had remarkable success in positioning us in an amicable and powerful position among our friends in our Asia Pacific region.

Involvement in Vietnam enhanced our relationships with many other Asian countries. Involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is doing the same for us in other regions.
Posted by keith, Friday, 24 August 2007 11:25:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Keith, most enlightening.
TRTL, depending on the threat posed to the region by radical Islamic groups in the Provinces of Pakistan and strategic assessments, perhaps there might be some common cause develop between the Pakistan Army or a significant section of it and influential elements in India.
Bruce
Posted by Bruce Haigh, Friday, 24 August 2007 5:15:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bruce and TRTL

You're right that its unclear what Australian forces can contribute to keeping extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan under control.

Bruce, as you've detailed Afghanistan is a fragmented place that is basically uncontrollable by a central Government.

In that country Australia can only contribute to the allied effort to deny the Taliban control over large parts of it and keep them out of Kabul. Bombing, capturing and generally disrupting al Qaeda training camps is the other holding action that may be useful. I don't think anyone can actually "win" in Afghanistan but preventing its return to being a vast al Qaeda training grown may be worth it.

Australian and (quietly NZ) SAS contribute way beyond their numbers to chasing Taliban/AQ guerillas.

I've noticed that Afghanistan actually has an Australian Embassy http://www.dfat.gov.au/missions/countries/af.html . It'd be pretty small and could be augmented by diplomats and SECDET transfering from a closed Embassy Baghdad.

On Pakistan an allied US/NATU/Antipodean military force close to its border reminds the Pakistan military and ISI how destabilising it could be if that force spilled over the border in "hot pursuit". Therefore its up to these two nasties to keep their Muslim extremists under control. I think the US/NATO are actually pursuing this strategy. Its the threat rather than the follow through that is more effective.

Keith - reckon thats an interesting rundown - showing that both sides of Australian politics do build (even if they never acknowledge it) on each other's foreign policy efforts.
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 24 August 2007 5:49:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Plantageant

That is not what happens. In my view, I will confine it to the Asian region:

The Labor Party tend towards multilateral arrangements and grand gestures with security the main aim. eg's of the former Evatt's involvement in the UN, Keating's emphasis on APEC, Evan's dalliances with the UN. eg's of the latter Whitlam's recognition of China, Hawke's granting of visas after Tianiniamin Square, and Keating and Beazley's Security Pact with Indonesia.

While the Liberal/Nationals tend to unilateral arrangements with trade the first object coupled with an intent that tends to result in friendship and security. eg's Casey's establishment of relations with many Asian countries after WW11, Frazer and Howard's establishment of relations with Japan, Howard and Downer's formation of a mutually respectful relationship with Indonesia.

Now what I believe occurs is that once a relationship has been initiated the Foreign Affairs Department takes over and fosters the relationships regardless of who is in power and regardless of the overall policy direction. The Department while implementing the policy of the Government of the day just applies the mechanics of diplomacy to existing relationships.

Of course some PM's and Government policy have a detrimental effect on some relationships when their policy is like a bull in a China shop and without significant advantage to Australia. A prime example was Keating with APEC and Mahithar with the East Asia Group. China and Hawke was another. Whitlam's recognition of China affected our relations with others. However longer term wiser heads and practicalities hold sway and damage is minimal.

Having said all that there have been exceptions. Spender's fostering of the Columbo Plan springs readily to mind.

But with Rudd well who knows as he has given no indication of an overall policy.

However generally I believe the Liberal /National approach is the one that has served us best over the past 70 years and has seen our relations within our Asian region develop without major disruptions or ... headlines. Typically Australian. Understated and over-achieved. :-)

Bruce, only interesting?...350 words was limiting and didn't allow for my provoctative understanding to be fully detailled.
Posted by keith, Saturday, 25 August 2007 11:01:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Plantagenet, After reading over many of your replies to me petulance, vanity and indeed arrogance have been the hallmarks.

Its pointless accusing me of ‘parroting’ anyone. I can just as easily accuse you of parroting the soft-left rubbish that all war is about imperialist ambition. It gets us nowhere.

There is a lot of support from military analysts for the idea that Iraq will degenerate into full scale civil war if the US leave without ensuring a reasonably solid represenative gov’t and a defence force able to protect the country. No small task, I know.

I notice that you decided to ridicule me instead of making any comment on what you thought a rapid reduction and withdrawl of troops from Iraq would precipitate.

Your ideological bent gets in the way of reasoned analysis every time. The idea that Australian troops are “oil security guards in Iraq” is preposterous

Overwatch Battle Group West have been involved in numerous reconstruction efforts in Al Muthanna and Dhi Qhar province as well as training the new Iraqi security forces. They are a force for good in Iraq. The way Australian soldiers/service personnel go about their business in a professional and successful manner can only be a good thing and one hopes a little might rub off on our coalition allies.

Without doubt Australians are also playing an important role in Afghanistan. You are correct in your assertion that the Islamic fascists are engaging in a war of attrition. They rightly suspect that our ability to sustain casualties is limited politically. But the divisiveness of the current debate and the willingness of many on the left to publicly suggest we should throw the towel in gives the terrorist renewed hope for victory and encourages them to prolong the conflict.

The shame of the Vietnam war wasn’t the troop withdrawal, it was Congress cutting the funding to South Vietnam so that in the end they did not even have the bullets to defend themselves. The idea being, of course, that South Vietnam fighting on alone would have been a dreadful embarrassment
Posted by Paul.L, Saturday, 25 August 2007 3:39:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul.L

As reconciliation by stealth I inflict on you the following:

I agree with your “parroting - counter parroting’ argument in the sense that its better for us to agree to disagree.

I don’t think the West artificially structured Iraq in the 1920 to ever achieve “ a reasonably solid representative gov’t and a defence force able to protect the country”. Quite the opposite. In the 1920s the provinces (largely delineated on ethnic lines) were squashed together to from Iraq to keep them weak and divided (UNLESS some outside force could keep them together). Iraq’s potential was seen by the West (and Russia) as a subject territory, containing oil and a few Arabs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Mesopotamia#Oil_concession

Why isn’t OIL a consideration for the US and its allies? Its the world’s most valuable commodity – politically, strategically and economically.

The extreme expense of the war fought so far (for counter-terrorism, military lodgment (yes there are other reasons) and oil) supports the argument that American’s see their control of Iraqi oil as a way of repaying the cost of the war over future decades.

Only a breakup of the country along ethnic lines will resolve the civil war question. Nothing else has worked. There are no deep democratic roots – least of all from foreign guns.

The Coalition occupation of Iraq has had no demonstrable effect in dampening civil war tensions over the years. The Americans are admitting this. Military and civilian casualties are steadily increasing. The Coalition presence appears to be acting as a magnet for Saudi, Iranian and Kurdish money to feed and arm insurgents from the 3 sides (Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish).

Hence their is unlimited insurgent support, across porous borders…like Vietnam. Yet the Iraqi army and police have infinitely less ethnic unity and patriotism than South Vietnamese troops had. It seems most Iraqi energies go into fighting each other.

More to follow:
Posted by plantagenet, Sunday, 26 August 2007 4:58:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PART TWO:

US attempts to train the Iraqi police and army have failed so far and continually fall below hopes. According to the Washington Post “The Pentagon lost track of about 190,000 AK-47 assault rifles and pistols given to Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005, according to a new government report, raising fears that some of those weapons have fallen into the hands of insurgents fighting U.S. forces in Iraq.

The author of the report from the Government Accountability Office says U.S. military officials do not know what happened to 30 percent of the weapons the United States distributed to Iraqi forces from 2004” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/05/AR2007080501299.html

The US occupation is clearly not working. Why does Australia need to be part of it?

“Overwatch Battle Group West have been involved in numerous reconstruction efforts…” Yes Australian’s (Reconstruction Task Force, Operation Slipper http://www.defence.gov.au/opslipper/ continue to do that in Afghanistan as well.

My contention is that Australian forces can do more good fighting terrorism in Afghanistan. Moving there can free up more US troops for the US’s Iraqi imperative. So Australia’s ANZUS premium is still being paid.

“gives the terrorist renewed hope for victory…” Not that Australia's small forces (smaller than several “contractor” units) pulling out of Iraq would cause a terrorist victory.

The US is building walls in Baghdad to separate Shiites and Sunnis. Carrying the separation concept further is the possible solution of allowing Iraqi’s to split into 3 countries: Shiites in the south, Sunnis in centre and west, Kurds in north.

The Shiite and Kurds would probably eliminate what we class as Sunni international al Qaeda aligned terrorists in ways that the Americans could only dream of. The fate of a Sunni nation is more difficult and would rely greatly on Saudi money and leadership.

Even if you disagree with much of the above I hope we can agree that this is an interesting debate ;)

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Sunday, 26 August 2007 5:03:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks plantagenet. Seems Australia has what would be termed 'a presence' in Kabul. Must be a bit ordinary operating out of a couple of hotel rooms. Also not much of a statement of confidence in the future of the country.
Yes a good discussion. I have nothing to add to your last comments with which I agree.
Bruce
Posted by Bruce Haigh, Monday, 27 August 2007 2:27:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Plantagenet

I-agree this is an interesting debate.

I don’t pretend oil is irrelevant to the conflict. I just don’t believe it is the only, or even the most important, explanation for going to war. And the idea that America wants to stay the course in Iraq to recoup its expenditure is laughable.

I can accept that the there are good arguments for whether the coalition should even have gone to Iraq. My point is that regardless of the legality or illegality of the original decision we have a duty to do what is best for the Iraqis now.

It seems to me that after promising Iraqis for five years that we would bring them democracy, peace and progress, it would be unconscionable to just give up and abandon them to their fate.

I wonder how you think a break up of Iraq could be achieved peacefully in the absence of US and coalition forces? Especially since the oil wealth is not distributed evenly across the ethnic homelands. The Sunnis especially are not going to be too enthusiastic. With support from Al Qaeda, who are intent on causing as much trouble as possible, a military conflict is inevitable. Just look what happened when India and Pakistan separated.

Whilst I would agree that up until recently the coalition has not had much success in eliminating the civil conflict, I think that we will see a positive report from Petraeus on the results of the surge.

With the departure of Rumsfeldt from Defence and the ascension of Petraeus/Mcmaster to command in Iraq, the situation has improved significantly.

With the new Clear, Hold and Build tactics, the coalition has finally hit on a winning strategy after years of search and destroy style tactics.

Clear, Hold and Build however, takes time. It only works if the community actually believes that the security forces are there to stay. If there is regular debate about the prospects of the coalition pulling out, what person is going to stand against the insurgents, since it is only a matter of time before they are back to square the ledger.
Posted by Paul.L, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 1:07:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I find the direction of this debate all too limiting. It is not about domestic politics or even the formation of foreign policy. It is a rehash of all the old arguments about our involvement in Iraq. It is only a miniscule part of our overall Foreign Policy> Australians are clever enough to work that out and to appresciate a the much broader brush of our Foreign Affairs Policy.

Given that Labor continues to concentrate on Iraq and isn't prepared to tell the rest of us what is their overall Foreign Policy, these types of discussions don't do anything much other than re-inforce Labor's verty limiting absense of policy and demean our greater and wider traditions.
Posted by keith, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 1:46:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
COVERT ACTION AS AN ANSWER?

Paul L

The good thing about democracy is that the public debating of issues (eg Iraq strategy) is a strength rather than a sign of lack of resolve.

In any case, from the day it entered Baghdad overall US strategy and street tactics have consistently been ill considered and counter productive. The failures are due to failed strategy not a failure to adhere to a correct strategy.

US Generals and politicians may attempt to blind failure with patriotism but oddly I think success lies more in covert action as well as secret political deals with the various factions in the Iraq question. Overt religion and politics in the US and Iraq are simply incompatible.

Robert Gates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gates#Intelligence_career ) a former CIA Director and current Defence Secretary has the record and qualities to "swing" a solution in Iraq but we won't know how he and his strategy did it. If partition is the result I agree with it. If Gates is talking to his old mates, the Saudis, then there may be ways to find a solution acceptable to the Sunni's (noting large oil reserves are suspected to be in western (Sunni) Iraq. Gates may also have a past with the Iran's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair so might effectively negotiate with them.

Covert action (or at least secret politics) is a bad, bad phrase for most Australian, but in Afghanistan and Poland it achieved outstanding results is combatting the Russians/communism.

Like my "soft left" advocacy of nuclear weapons for Australia open support for a well considered US covert action program in Iraq is anathema to most but thats life.

Keith

I think Rudd realises that setting out a comprehensive foreign policy platform may distract people from his, so far, successful campaign to pick away at Howard's domestic weaknesses. Rudd and Howard have said less than they could have about Iraq because its an issue politically dangerous for both of them.

Pete
see http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/2006/10/covert-action-program-in-iraq.html and

http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/2007/07/saudis-unsung-suicide-bombers-in-iraq.html
Posted by plantagenet, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 3:09:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So what is Rudd's foreign policy? Is he going to go to the electorate without a policy?

We know his Policy on Iraq (You know the withdrawal you have when you aren't having a withdrawal...and deternined by the US and not by domestic considerations) but what about the rest of the World? Is he going to align us more closely to the UN and it's agencies and treaties or is he going to continue our successful bilateral approach?

If he doesn't set out a comprehensive policy what happens after he's elected? (If he's elected) Does he then turn around and claim to have a mandate to do anything he pleases?

I suspect he'll be a typical Labor PM. Leave our policy up to the UN and indulge in spectactular but empty gestures.

'I think Rudd realises that setting out a comprehensive foreign policy platform may distract people from his, so far, successful campaign to pick away at Howard's domestic weaknesses. '

And I suspect once the election proper starts this negative carping and inability to form reasonable, consistant and understandable policy will become evident as Rudd's greatest weakness... and not just in foreign affairs.

And just one word on Iraq. Now that the 'surge' is evidently working, the situation in Iraq has changed ...drastically. US action there appears to be curbing the violence...now what remains to be seen is how effective is the pressure being exerted on the Iraq PM and politicians. I think we will see in the not too distant future a change in the attitude of that set of people.
Posted by keith, Wednesday, 29 August 2007 7:45:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Plantagenet

You said “ The failures are due to failed strategy not a failure to adhere to a correct strategy.” What?

For the first time in Iraq the coherent Clear Hold and Build strategy is being implemented. Recent reports from Iraq have been guardedly optimistic on the results of this change in policy. In some places Iraqi insurgents have assisted the coalition in fighting Al Qaeda.

For anyone not familiar with clear, hold and build I would highly recommend Bing Wests “ The Village” which is the story of a combined action platoon in Vietnam. It is non-political and has nothing to say about the morality or otherwise of that conflict. It does, however, document the highly successful Combined Action Platoons, which were composed of 15 Marines and about 30 Vietnamese villagers.

The current calls to stay the course aren’t blind calls to patriotism.

1. More time should be given to Petraeus if he reports that Clear Hold and Build is working.
2. Failure in Iraq emboldens more than just the insurgents in Iraq. It would be a setback that might be insurmountable in Afghanistan, where insurgents could rightly assume that there is a time limit on coalition involvement there. It also encourages other enemies of the West to implement their vile policies, safe in the knowledge that the US/coalition now has very limited resolve. Ie we are weak.
3. If we can win in Iraq we owe it to the people of Iraq to do so.
4. Victory in Iraq would be a massive blow to Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

I agree that 3 autonomous states within an Iraqi federation might be a possible solution. The danger in this is that the balkanisation process might just bring more Balkan’s like trouble.

I don’t believe that this type of policy could be implemented in the absence of coalition forces
Posted by Paul.L, Wednesday, 29 August 2007 6:28:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul L.

Probably better to agree to disagree for the moment.

I suggest we see General Petraeus' report (on Iraq) later this month and see how Bush reponds.

Hopefully there'll be an OLO article about it as a fresh vehicle for discussion.

Regards

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 31 August 2007 10:38:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy