With the Australian political parties deeply divided over Iraq policy heading into an election later this year, similarities can be drawn between the situation in Australia and that which existed in Spain earlier this year.
During a White House press conference following last weeks talks with Australian Prime Minister John Howard, President George Bush, in an unprecedented and highly controversial move, appeared to take sides in the upcoming Australian election.
Answering a question from an Australian journalist regarding the Opposition Labor partys policy of withdrawing the countrys 850 troops from Iraq, Mr Bush said, "That would be disastrousit would dispirit those who love freedom in Iraq. It would say that the Australian government doesn't see the hope of a free and democratic society leading to a peaceful world. It would embolden the enemy to believe that they could shake our will." The question which was prompted by Mr. Howard came after the Prime Minister restated his commitment to maintaining the Australian presence in Iraq.
This apparent reward for the Howard governments long-term policy of unquestioning obedience to the White House has many commentators in Australia claiming interference by George Bush in Australian domestic affairs while also highlighting the policy differences between the two major Australian parties on Iraq.
Furious Labor party members, accusing PM John Howard of influencing the Presidents comments, maintained that their policy of "bringing the troops home by Christmas" was best for the security of the country. Opposition Leader Mark Latham refused to back down and issued a statement declaring, "The best role Australia can play in Iraq is through humanitarian, economic and civilian aid, not a long-term military roleLabor never wanted the troops there in the first place." Mr. Latham restated his pledge to return Australian troops to the country by Christmas and added, "Nothing President Bush has said today changes our hopes and expectations about the future."
Australian Greens leader Senator Bob Brown was also scathing in his criticism of the President. "How dare this popinjay of a president interfere in Australian affairs Australian domestic political affairs? He should pull his head in," said Dr. Brown in a statement to ABCs World Today program. "The Australian people are quite able to judge our political leaders and the diversity of opinion in this country, and we don't need President Bush, from his biased and quite small-minded point of view in Washington, telling the Australian people what they should think or what they should do."
A delighted Mr. Howard who led Australia into Iraq as an original member of the "coalition of the willing" - denied allegations that he influenced the President and defended Mr. Bushs right to speak out. "Obviously he feels very strongly and I understand that," said Mr. Howard.
However, the Presidents controversial comments have thrown sharply into focus one important aspect of the upcoming Australian election: the gulf that exists between the two parties on Iraq policy. Almost the only major difference between the Liberal/National coalition and the Labor party discernible to the voting public, comparisons can now be drawn between the present political situation in Australia and the circumstances of another Bush ally earlier this year: Spain.
On March 11 this year, in the midst of the countrys election campaign, as many as 10 bombs ripped through the Madrid underground railway network killing over two hundred people and injuring thousands. Centred on the main Atocha train station in Madrids city centre during peak hour, the bombings shocked the nation and marked a turnaround in popularity for the ruling conservative Popular Party (PP), allowing the Socialist Workers Party (PSOE), under Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, to claim a surprise election victory. Initially blamed by the government on the Basque separatist group ETA, later evidence concluded that the bombings were the work of Al-Qaeda sympathisers.
In analysing the election result, one compelling though arguable school of thought is that Spanish voters, angry that Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar had brought Al-Qaeda terrorist activity to Spain by closely aligning Spain with Washington, chose to elect the candidate who had promised to bring Spanish forces home. Newly elected Prime Minister Zapatero was good to his word, withdrawing Spanish troops in May, to the dismay of his coalition allies. *
Terrorism Debate in Australia
Earlier this year Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty created a political storm by inferring that the bombing of Madrid was a direct result of Prime Minister Aznars support for the war in Iraq. Interviewed on Channel Nines Sunday program, Keelty replied to a question asking if he thought a similar type of attack could occur in Australia by saying, " The reality is, if this turns out to be Islamic extremists responsible for this bombing in Spain, it's more likely to be linked to the position that Spain and other allies took on issues such as Iraq. And I don't think anyone's been hiding the fact that we do believe that ultimately one day, whether it be in one month's time, one year's time, or ten years' time, something will happen (in Australia)."
Prime Minister Howard immediately denounced Keeltys comments saying the Police Commissioner was only "in charge of operational police matters, and the question of this analysis is not something that directly comes in that area." Other high-ranking ministers followed suit with Foreign Minister Downer, in an attack on the Police Commissioners integrity, accused him of "expressing a view which reflects a lot of the propaganda we're getting from Al-Qaeda." Attorney-General Philip Ruddock called his views "fairly simplistic" and not backed up by evidence.
Believed by many commentators to have been threatened with dismissal after a call from the PMs office, Keelty backed down; stating to the press that he believed his views has been taken "out of context" and agreed with government statements that Australia had been a terrorist target well before September 11.
However, Keeltys view has received fairly broad support from counter-terrorism experts. Dr. Rohan Gunaratna- head of terrorism study at Singapore's Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies spoke to reporters at the 2004 Conference of Commissioners of Police of Australasia and the South West Pacific Region, "Australia continues to face a certain level of threat. This scale of threat has increased since Australia's high-profile participation in Afghanistan and in the Iraq campaigns."
The FBIs Executive Assistant Director for Counter Terrorism John Pistole agreed with this analysis in an interview on Sydneys Radio 2UE. "I would agree with the statement that an attack is likely inevitable. Any Western nation that is not an Islamic state is a terror target for Al-Qaedaany country that allies itself with the US, unfortunately, is a target."
Are Australians at Greater Risk?
Al-Qaeda extremists, having already successfully intervened in the democratic process in Spain, may look to repeat their actions on Australian soil. Already shaken by the tragic events of 12 October 2002 when 202 people including 88 Australians - were killed by bomb blasts in two nightclubs on the popular Indonesian island resort of Bali, Australians now look to the forthcoming election campaign with more than a little trepidation.
Opinion polls show the election result as being finely balanced. Howard, until recently, has been able to brush off both criticism of his support for the war in Iraq and questions as to why no weapons of mass destruction - the reason given for the war - have been found. However, under the new leadership of US critic Mark Latham he once referred to Bush as being "incompetent and dangerous" the Opposition Labor Party has successfully questioned the governments pro-US policy. With the majority of the Australian public now disagreeing with the way the war is being conducted, Iraq policy may hold the key to success or failure at the ballot box.
However, the government has repeatedly denied that its automatic support for the US has increased the risk of a terrorist attack, muzzling any critics and apparently preferring to score political points on the lawn of the Rose Garden in Washington. It remains to be seen whether or not Prime Minister Howard and his Liberal/National party will pay the ultimate electoral price, as did Spanish PM Jose Aznar though all Australians hope that the country will not pay the price of a Madrid-style terrorist attack.
* For further information, refer Spanish Elections Sweep New Party Into Power by Marjo Moore
|
Some of our content may be related to gambling.    |