What they said ... `This new commitment is a gesture; it's not a real military commitment. Therefore ... we should not seriously risk the lives of Australians ...' Greg Sheridan, foreign editor for The Australian
`No civilised country can support a situation where a rogue state is able to thumb its nose at the rest of the world' Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard
On February 7, 1998, the President of the United States, Mr Bill Clinton, requested that Australia consider making `a contribution toward any military action that might be taken by US-led forces [against] Iraq'.
On February 10 it was announced that Australia would support such action.
On February 11, after Cabinet discussions and consultation with military advisers the Australian Government announced the type of assistance it wished to offer the United States in any action against Iraq. Included in this offer were 110 SAS (Special Air Service) personnel.
The proposal was supported by both the Government and the Opposition, though a few Labor politicians voiced objections.
There were also some commentators and academics who had reservations about Australia's pledged support.
Background
The first Gulf conflict which involved an international force (led by the United States) taking military action against Iraq occurred in 1990-1. This was sanctioned by the United Nations and came about after Iraq invaded a neighbouring state, Kuwait.
Australia offered support in this conflict also.
After the defeat of Iraq, the United Nations imposed a number of conditions. Iraq's capacity to fly over certain areas was restricted. Iraq was also required to allow United Nations inspectors to check for chemical and biological weapons manufacturing and storage sites.
Over the next seven years there was persistent concern that Iraq was not fully complying with United Nations' resolutions and was continuing to develop prohibited weapons.
The most recent crisis began to take shape when Iraq began to deny access to certain United Nations nominated inspectors, including one American inspector whom Iraq claimed was a spy for the United States.
The United States reached an agreement with Britain to take military action against Iraq if diplomacy failed to see Iraq make all potential weapons sites available to all inspectors. The United Nations as a whole and three members of the Security Council (France, Russia and China) did not approve this plan.
The United States sought the support of a number of allies, including Australia.
This particular conflict was resolved when the United Nations Secretary General managed to achieve a last minute diplomatic solution.
There are a large number of Internet sites dealing with Iraq and the unstable situation in the Gulf.
Yahoo! has established an index of links to a range of sites offering media treatments of the situation after the immediate threat of military conflict was avoided. The site gives access to material from sources such as Associated Press, CNN and Reuters. All this material is dated March 2, 1998. It also gives links to a range of sites supplying background information on the recent conflict. It is titled UN Security Council Deliberates on Iraq Weapons Resolution.
Another interesting site presents an argument against military intervention against Iraq. The piece is titled Iraq's weapons: a diminished threat. The argument was written by Tony Avirgan for The Institute for Policy Studies and the Fourth Freedom Forum.
Finally, there is a site reproducing the text of the Security Council Statement on Iraq Weapons Inspections. It is dated December 22, 1997. It can be found in the press section of the USIS Israel site.
Arguments against Australian involvement in the Gulf
One of the arguments offered against Australia becoming militarily involved in the Gulf is that the action is unlikely to achieve its supposed aim of eliminating Iraq's chemical and biological weapons.
This position has been put by Michael O'Connor, the executive director of the Australian Defence Association.
Mr O'Connor asks the question, `Would a campaign of bombing, for example, persuade Saddam to submit to genuine UN inspections and supervised destruction of his arsenal?'
Mr O'Connor believes the most reasonable response to this question is, `The history of [Saddam's] calculated procrastination over the past seven years suggests otherwise.'
According to this line of argument, if the last Gulf war did not force Saddam to co-operate fully with UN inspectors, it is unlikely that a second armed conflict will do so.
It has also been suggested that if Saddam's regime survives another attack it may become even more convinced of its invulnerability and so even less likely to abide by international sanctions.
This point has been made by Norman Schwarzkopf, commander of the United States forces during the last Gulf war.
It has further been claimed that military action against Iraq by the United States (or Australia as an ally of the United States) is inappropriate in the current circumstances as there is insufficient justification to move against Iraq.
According to this line of argument, prior to the last Gulf war Iraq had actually behaved as an aggressor, rather than, as in this instance, simply developed a capacity to do so.
Iraq had invaded a neighbouring Arab state. This action led to the United Nations Security Council authorising military action against Iraq.
The Security Council has not authorised action in this case and so, it has been claimed, neither the United States, nor Australia, should become involved in an attack on Iraq.
It has also been pointed out that compared to the previous Gulf war there is little international support for military action against Iraq. France, Russia and China have opposed military intervention. Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the United States principal allies in the Gulf region have also opposed such action.
All these nations supported the previous Gulf action in 1990.
Why, critics ask, when nations in the Gulf region are not prepared to act against Iraq, should Australia do so?
Critics also point out that any threat Iraq might pose is unlikely ever to directly involve Australia. Those who hold this view suggest that it is wrong to risk Australian lives in a cause that does not involve Australian security. Critics note that even the Australian foreign minister, Mr Alexander downer, has conceded that Australia was not a likely target for Iraq's biological and chemical weapons.
It has further been suggested that any military support that Australia could give would be of symbolic value only.
According to this line of argument, Australia has relatively little to offer that could be of significant assistance in any conflict with Iraq.
This point has been made by Michael O'Connor, who has argued, `Upgrading of airforce units would take more time than is ... available, while Australia's army is so small and under-equipped as to be irrelevant in the military balance.'
Related to this is the argument that if Australia is only capable of making a symbolic gesture of support and if this is all the United States expects, then Australian troops should not have been committed.
This point has been made by Greg Sheridan, foreign editor for The Australian.
Mr Sheridan has stated, `This new commitment is a gesture; it's not a real military commitment. Therefore ... we should not seriously risk the lives of Australians ...'
It has further been suggested that any United States' attempt to force Iraqi compliance with UN resolutions on weapons inspection is likely to involve the massive bombardment of cities and sites such as the presidential palaces.
It has been claimed that such bombardments are likely to result in much loss of life in these population centres. This loss of civilian life is claimed to be morally dubious and likely to harden international opposition to military intervention in the Gulf region.
It has also been argued that all Australia is doing is helping to legitimise American action, by making it appear that the United States decision to use force against Iraq has wider international support.
From an Australian point of view, it has been suggested, supporting the United States is likely to reduce our international prestige by making us appear to be puppets of our more powerful allies. It is also likely to damage our relations with those nations who oppose military action against Iraq.
A number of our regional allies, including Malaysia, are opposed to armed intervention against Iraq.
An additional counter argument made by some critics is that supporting the United States against Iraq will not necessarily guarantee that they would support us in any conflict in our own region in which we were involved.
Canberra historian, Humphrey McQueen has claimed, `It remains to be seen that the US ever repays its debts.'
Finally, it has been argued, United States' interest in the Gulf region stems more from its concern to limit Iraqi exports of oil and gas than it does from a desire to prevent Saddam Hussein using banned weapons of mass destruction.
Humphrey McQueen has stated, `One point is beyond doubt. If the Middle East had no oil and gas, no one would be preparing to bomb Iraq. Its dictators would be as secure from the Pentagon as all the other thugs and torturers the US protects across the globe.'
Opposition to Australian involvement has been summed up by Michael O'Connor, who has claimed, `Clinton is ... under pressure to seek more foreign flags to boost his moral position. Australia's should not be one of them because Clinton's request serves only to alienate important regional friends without any balancing benefit.'
Arguments in favour of Australian involvement in the Gulf
One of the main arguments offered in favour of Australia supporting United States' action against Iraq is that Iraq poses a threat to the rest of the world.
According to this line of argument, while the possibility exists that Iraq is developing and stock-piling biological, chemical and even nuclear weapons then that country endangers international security.
United Nations' estimates apparently suggest that Iraq has sufficient ingredients to make 200,000 litres of a nerve agent called VX. This is said to be enough to kill the entire population of the world.
United Nations' inspectors have also found 2000 litres of aflatoxin, which causes cancer and stores of clostridium, also known as gas gangrene.
The British Foreign Office further claims that Iraq has the capacity to produce 20,000 kilograms of anthrax, relatively small quantities of which can kill millions of people.
It has further been claimed that because Iraq has not co-operated fully and openly with United Nations' inspectors the extent of Iraq's chemical and other weapons stock-pile is likely to have been under-estimated.
It has been maintained that Australia has an obligation to assist in reducing threats to world peace and safety. The Age, in its editorial of February 9, 1998, argued, `as a responsible international citizen, Australia should agree to the [United States'] request for military assistance...'
It has also been suggested that it is important that Australia and other nation's take a stance against Iraq because it has repeatedly ignored United Nation's resolutions.
The Prime Minister of Australia, Mr John Howard, has said, `No civilised country can support a situation where a rogue state is able to thumb its nose at the rest of the world.'
It has further been suggested that the likely loss of Australian lives in any military strike against Iraq would be far less then the lives that would be lost if Iraq were ever to use the weapons it is believed to be developing.
Therefore, it is claimed, the good that could be achieved by military invention in Iraq outweighs the risks posed.
It has also been claimed that every attempt would be made to minimise civilian casualties in Iraq.
According to this line of argument any attack led by the United States against Iraq would aim to be as precise as possible. This means the United States would attempt to target only those sites believed relevant to weapons' construction.
There argument here is that limiting civilian loss of life makes any attack on Iraq less morally problematic.
Another major argument offered is that Australia needs to support the United States because they are very important to Australia as allies.
According to this line of argument, Australia depends heavily on the American presence in the Pacific to guarantee our national security. It is claimed that if Australia expects the United States to come to its aid in the event of any threat from a hostile neighbour, then Australia needs to be prepared to support the United States when asked to do so.
This point has been summed up by Dr J Mohan Malik, a senior lecturer from the School of Australian and International Studies at Deakin University. Dr Malik has claimed, `Australia's defence has been based on what I call the "OPW factor". To ensure that we have allies in the event of trouble in our region, we have had to fight Other People's Wars.'
A similar point has been paraphrased by Gerard Henderson, the executive director of the Sydney Institute. Mr Henderson has noted, `Last year defence specialist Paul Dibb commented that Asia without a viable US presence would be a dangerous place for Australia. According to Professor Dibb, Australia would have to spend vastly more than the current $10 billion defence budget were it not for the Australian-US alliance.'
Gerard Henderson has also noted that as a trading nation, Australia's interests are served by a stable and peaceful Middle East.
Those who hold this position maintain that instability in a region which supplies a significant amount of the world's oil and gas and which is an important trade route would not be in the interests of the world economy nor would it serve Australia's interests.
It has also been claimed that it is in Australia's immediate interests to demonstrate that it will not tolerate the use of biological and chemical weapons.
According to this line of argument, a number of the nations in our region have weapons of mass destruction and so it is important that we indicate our strong opposition to their development and use.
This point has been made by Professor Dibb, who has claimed, `It sends a message, in particular to our region, that we will stand up against weapons of mass destruction. There are already chemical and biological weapons in North Korea and China, so it sends a strong signal to the region.'
Finally, it has been argued, that the readiness on Australia's part to offer troops to support action against Iraq is meant to compliment diplomatic attempts to secure a peaceful solution to the problem.
According to this line of argument, a peaceful solution is more likely to be achieved if Saddam Hussein is forced to recognise that many of the world's nations will act against him if he does not comply with United Nations' resolutions.
This point was made by the Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, in the statement he released announcing the scope of Australia's pledged support for military action against Iraq.
Mr Howard said, `The Government sincerely hopes that military force will not be necessary and that Iraq will respond to the clear message it is being given that the international community expects its to adhere to its UN obligations.'
Further implications
It seems unlikely that the current dispute over Iraq's capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction has been finally resolved.
Iraq is currently adhering to the terms of the most recent agreement, however, there are reservations about the adequacy of these arrangements.
Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, is generally regarded as extremely dangerous and potentially unstable and there remains the fear among a number of nations of the world, including the United States, that he will again not fully comply with United Nations resolutions.
It seems at least possible that there will be further threats of military conflict with Iraq, led by the United States.
Given the strength of the Australian alliance with the United States, and the relative lack of opposition to Australian involvement from within this country, it seems equally likely that Australia will play some part in any such action.
Sources The Age
9/2/98 page 1 news item by Gervase Greene, `PM ready to move over Iraq'
9/2/98 page 10 editorial, `Australia should back US'
10/2/98 page 11 comment by Humphrey McQueen, `A battle in which we don't belong'
10/2/98 page 11 comment by Gerard Henderson, `Why words alone will fail the test of friendship.
11/2/98 page 1 news item by Laura Tingle and Gervase Greene, `SAS on alert for Iraq/Search and rescue mission for troops'
11/2/98 page 1 comment by Laura Tingle, `Why the Prime Minister is saying yes Mr President'
11/2/98 page 8 news item by Ben Mitchell, `Defence analysts back troop decision'
11/2/98 page 8 news item by Gervase Greene, `Special Air Service to tackle a dangerous job'
11/2/98 page 9 news item by Janine MacDonald, `Muslims brace for the next backlash'
12/2/98 page 12 news item by Jennifer Hewett, `US offers thanks to Australia'
13/2/98 page 13 news item by Ed Vulliamy, `Washington accused of hypocrisy'
15/2/98 page 6 news item by Chris McGillon, `Resolve Iraqi crisis, says Anglican chief'
16/2/98 page 5 news item by Gervase Greene, `Strike against Iraq likely'
17/2/98 page 1 news item by Gervase Greene, `Gulf force flies out/Cabinet gives go-ahead to first wave of troops'
18/2/98 page 17 comment by Andy Butfoy, `Australia toes the line'
19/2/98 page 15 comment by Alexander Downer, `Peace or war: the choice is Hussein's'
The Australian
10/2/98 page 15 comment by Michael O'Connor, `Iraq "message" bound to bomb'
10/2/98 page 15 comment by Amin Saikal, `Any blitz on Hussein will threaten the entire region'
11/2/98 page 12 editorial, `Military offer considers our interests'
11/2/98 page 4 statement by Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, `We hope Iraq will respond to the clear message it is being given'
13/2/98 page 17 comment by Greg Sheridan, `It's right to fight, it's wrong to die'
16/2/98 page 4 news item by Georgina Windsor and Ian Henderson, `Iraqi chemicals can kill us all'
17/2/98 page 15 comments by Keith Suter and Greg Sheridan, `Are we too cosy with Uncle Sam?'
17/2/98 page 15 comment by Cameron Forbes, `Answering Clinton's call'
18/2/98 page 15 analysis by Don Greenless, `It's about killing [so] it's an onerous task to send people into war'
18/2/98 page 12 editorial, `Potential risk tempers Gulf farewells'
18/2/98 page 12 letters, `Military strike will leave blood on our hands'
19/2/98 page 11 comment by Frank Devine, `When all questions are considered, we are right to fight'
The Herald Sun
8/2/98 page 5 news item by Peter Rees, `Clinton plea for our troops'
8/2/98 page 5 analysis by Bruce Wilson, `Gulf War `98 a far more dangerous affair'
9/2/98 page 19 comment by Michael O'Connor, `It's smarter to stay out of Iraq'
10/2/98 page 1 news item, `We're in'
10/2/98 page 4 news item by Andrew Butcher and Clinton Porteous, `PM talks war in strong warning to Iraq'
12/2/98 page 10 news item by Tom Skotnicki and John Deans, `Clinton thanks us for offer'
15/2/98 page 7 comment by Dr Magnus Clarke, `Time to call on experience'
16/2/98 page 19 comment by Tom Skotnicki, `Clinton faces an all-out war'
19/2/98 page 19 comment by Adam Indikt, `Our duty to curb Saddam'
Internet
There are a large number of Internet sites dealing with Iraq and the unstable situation in the Gulf.
Yahoo! has established an index of links to a range of sites offering media treatments of the situation after the threat of immediate military conflict was avoided. The site gives access to material from sources such as Associated Press, CNN and Reuters. All this material is dated March 2, 1998. It also gives links to a range of sites supplying background information on the recent conflict. It is titled UN Security Council Deliberates on Iraq Weapons Resolution. It can be found at http://headlines.yahoo.com/kntv/features2/19980302.htm
Another interesting site presents an argument against military intervention against Iraq. The piece is titled Iraq's weapons: a diminished threat. The argument was written by Tony Avirgan for The Institute for Policy Studies and the Fourth Freedom Forum. It can be found at http://www.goldendome.net/u/fourthfreedom/hottopic/iraqiWeapons.html
Finally, there is a site reproducing the text of the Security Council Statement on Iraq Weapons Inspections. It is dated December 22, 1997. It can be found in the press section of the USIS Israel site at http://www.usis-israel.org.il/publish/press/unations/archive/1997/december/un11223.htm
Back to previous page
