Click here to go back to the issue outlines list
Related issue outlines: no related issue outlines
Dictionary: Double-click on any word in the text to bring up a dictionary definition of that word in a new window (IE only).
Analysing the language of the news media: Click here to read a useful document on media language analysis
Age, Herald-Sun and Australian items: Click the icon below to access the Echo news items search engine (2004 file) and enter the following word(s), with just a space in between them.
latham
australia
iraq
Sydney Morning Herald index: Click here to use the State Library of NSW's online index to the Sydney Morning Herald
Sections in this issue outline (in order):
1. What they said. 2 The issue at a glance. 3 Background. 4 Internet information links. 5 and 6 Arguments for / against. 7 Further implications on this issue. 8 Newspaper items used in the compilation of the outline.
2004/16: Should US President Bush have commented on the Iraq policy of Opposition leader Latham?
The issue at a glance
On June 4 2004 United States President George Bush condemned the Iraq policy of Australian Opposition leader, Mark Latham. Mr Bush declared the policy of early troop withdrawal being supported by Latham was "disastrous". President Bush also claimed that such an action on Australia's part "would embolden the enemy to believe that they could shake our will".
These remarks were made by President Bush immediately after he had had a lengthy private discussion with Australia's Prime Minister Mr John Howard, who was then visiting the United States.
Both President Bush and Mr Howard face elections this year and both have adopted the same aggressive, interventionist policy in Iraq. Each man now continues to support the extended commitment of their troops to peace keeping exercises in Iraq.
Critics have immediately claimed that such remarks by President Bush are interference in Australia's political process and as such undermine Australian independence. It has been suggested that President Bush may have been promoting his friend and political ally, John Howard, and seeking to damage Howard's opponent, Mark Latham.
Supporters of President Bush's remarks suggest he was doing no more than reiterating his well-known position on Iraq and that he comments were precipitated by Mr Latham's own conduct and position.
Background
A short history of the war in Iraq.
Following the terrorist attack on the United States on September 11, 2001, President Bush promised to tackle terrorism world-wide. One of the supposed centres of terrorism was Iraq. This claim was made despite there being no obvious links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, the terrorist group which had claimed responsibility for the September 11 attacks on the United States.
The United States has had a varied history with Iraq. At one time the two nations were allies, at another the United States led an international force against Iraq in 1991 when Iraq, under the leadership of dictator and president Saddam Hussein had invaded its neighbour Kuwait. This was referred to as the Gulf War.
After the Gulf War sanctions were imposed on Iraq to halt its supposed production of weapons of mass destruction, especially chemical weapons and possibly nuclear weapons. Iraq was required to accept United Nations weapons inspectors to check that it had dismantled its weapons manufacturing facilities and was not re-establishing them. Initially Iraq accepted these inspectors, then it refused to do so claiming some had exceeded their role and were acting as foreign spies and then under increasing pressure from George Bush in the wake of the September 11 attacks on the United States, Iraq agreed, once more to accept weapons inspectors.
When no weapons of mass destruction were initially found and the United States and its allies, primarily Britain, that Iraq was genuinely complying with the United States inspectors, the United States and Britain lead an armed invasion of Iraq. The four nations directly involved in this attack - the US, Britain, Poland and Australia - were referred to as the "coalition of the willing". Twenty-six other nations declared some level of support that fell short of the direct commitment of troops. Most of these were small to middle order powers. Many prominent world powers, including Germany and France, opposed the invasion and it did not proceed with the support of the United Nations whose sanctions were supposedly being enforced.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq was completed very quickly with relatively little loss of American lives. (Australia, to this point has lost none of its service personnel in Iraq.) However managing post-invasion Iraq has proved very difficult. Re-establishing an infrastructure damaged by war and years of sanctions in a country which has now become a focus for anti-American terrorist attacks and armed guerrilla opposition has been extremely demanding. More American lives have been lost trying to restore order in Iraq and retain control of the occupied country than were lost in the initial invasion. The legitimacy of the original invasion has also been challenged as no weapons of mass destruction (nuclear or otherwise) have been found in Iraq and no clear connections between pre-invasion Iraq and Al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups have been established.
The primary justification for the war is now the successful removal and capture of the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein and the "liberation of the Iraqi people". America currently has a two-fold plan in Iraq. It wishes to increase the involvement of other nations, including the United Nations, in the management of post-invasion Iraq and it wishes to transfer control of Iraq to an independent Iraqi government.
The US-Australian alliance
(The following is an edited version of an analysis of the US-Australian alliance by Professor Paul Dibb, head of the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.
The article can be found at http://www.asialink.unimelb.edu.au/cpp/policypapers/pauldibb.pdf)
'Australia is America's closest ally in the Asia-Pacific region and the second most important US ally in the world now after the United Kingdom. After the collapse of the Soviet Union there was a sense of drift in Australia's relationship with the United States throughout most of the 1990s. Australia did not seem to be as important to the US as it was in the Cold War. But since the tragic events of September 11 2001 and the so-called war on terror the relationship has become extremely close once again?and arguably even closer than in the Cold War ...
The US alliance system comprises an inner group that exchanges highly classified intelligence and defence science and has access to weapons technology in a way that is not shared with other allies. This inner circle consists of the US, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia. Since the late 1980s it no longer includes New Zealand, which, because of its anti-nuclear stance, is classified as a friend of the US but not an ally. Other major allies of the US, including Japan, Germany, France and Italy, are not members of the inner alliance. Neither are such Asian treaty partners of the US as South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines or Thailand ...
What are the costs of this close relationship? It has involved us fighting alongside the Americans in every major conflict they have been in since the Second World War. In the cases of the Korean War and the Vietnam War Australia's national interests in the Asian region were directly engaged. In the 1991 Gulf War, and in the 2003 conflict with Iraq, Australia's direct regional interests are not at stake.'
Spain and the position of the Australian Opposition
The Spanish Socialist Party leader Zapatero won a general election in Spain in March 2004. The former ruling Popular Party is widely thought to have lost the vote because of its handling of terrorist attacks in Madrid and its support for the war in Iraq.
Spain's new leader pledged to withdraw Spanish troops from the occupation force in Iraq. The last of the 1,400 Spanish troops actually returned home on May 24, 2004.
Australia contributed around 2,000 troops, fighter jets and naval vessels to the initial invasion, and around 850 soldiers remain indefinitely in the troubled nation. Australian Prime Minister John Howard has been highly critical of the Spanish withdrawal and has pledged that the Australian troops will remain. Australia's Opposition leader, Mark Latham, has, however, promised that Australia's troops will be withdrawn from Iraq by Christmas should there be a Labor Party victory at the federal election to be called before November 2004. It is this policy of Mark Latham's that President Bush publicly criticised on June 4.
Internet information
On March 1 2003 Melbourne University published Professor Paul Dibb's "Australia's Alliance with America". This is a detailed account of Australia's long-standing connections with the United States. It considers both the advantages and the disadvantages of this alliance.
The article can be found at http://www.asialink.unimelb.edu.au/cpp/policypapers/pauldibb.pdf
The US/Iraq Pro-Con site is an impartial compilation of source material and analysis designed to help readers answer the question 'Should the US attack Iraq with or without the UN?" The site supplies excellent background information for those wishing to increase their understanding of this conflict.
The index to the site can be found at http://www.usiraqprocon.org/isq.htm
A CNN report titled "Australia: most now oppose war" reports on the gradual loss of support for the Iraq invasion in Australia. The report was published on May 4 and can be found at http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/05/03/australia.iraq.troops/
A CNN report titled "Bush slams Howard opponent on Iraq" reports from an American perspective on their president's criticism of Mark Latham. The report was published on June 4 and can be found at http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/06/03/howard.bush/
Arguments against President Bush commenting on the Iraq policy of Opposition leader Latham
1. President Bush's comments are an attempt to interfere in the Australian electoral process
President Bush has made his comments about Mark Latham's Iraq policy in the same year, as an election is to occur in Australia. Critics of the President's remarks have suggested that he is attempting to influence the Australian electoral process. There are two ways in which he may be attempting to do so. Both are predicated on the importance of the US alliance to Australian security.
President Bush may have been suggesting that Mark Latham's policy, if acted on, would damage the alliance. If so, this may have been an attempt to frighten Australian voters so that they would not support Mr Latham for fear that this would mean the loss of American support in the event of an attack on Australia. As well as attempting to influence Australian voters, President Bush may also have been attempting to influence the Opposition leader with the threat that opposing US policy could cost him electoral support.
Neill Phillipson, in a letter published in The Australian on June 5, has stated, "George W. Bush's unprecedented attack on our putative prime minister, Mark Latham, is possibly one of the most outrageous acts of hostility by a foreign head of state on this country's electoral sovereignty since Federation.
The implications go far beyond a simple criticism of Latham's policy on Iraq. Bush, in implying that Latham would be unacceptable to the Bush administration should he be elected later this year, is acting like a cudgel-wielding bully from one of New York's 19th-century street gangs.
Similarly Graeme Martin in a letter also published in the Australian on June 5 argued, "Our democratic integrity is compromised when the President of the United States interferes in domestic party policies, especially when they may influence an election."
The Herald Sun in an editorial published on June 5 stated, "President Bush should focus on solving the crisis in Iraq, not meddling in domestic Australian politics. We are a proud, mature democracy and we can decide for ourselves what we think is right for Australia."
2. President Bush's comments could limit the policy potions of Australian political parties
It has been suggested that President Bush's very public criticism of Mark Latham's Iraq policy may well limit the policy freedom of the Opposition. There are two ways in which this might occur. It would appear that President Bush is attempting to force Mr Latham to change his policy position on withdrawing Australian troops from Iraq by Christmas. Mr Bush's remarks, may, however, have the opposite effect. Mr Latham has been placed in an invidious position. Even if he were inclined to alter his policy position to one that would keep Australian troops in Iraq for a longer period of time, it is now going to be virtually impossible for him to do so without appearing to have caved in to US pressure.
The Age in an editorial published on June 5 stated, "Mr Bush's comments will almost certainly not lead to a change in Labor's policy. Indeed, his statements will merely serve to harden attitudes on both sides of the debate."
3. President Bush's comments were possibly orchestrated by the Australian Prime Minister
It has been suggested that Mr Howard may have used his friendship and close policy alliance with President Bush to urge the President to attack Mr Latham. If Mr Howard did orchestrate President Bush's remarks to gain an electoral advantage over Mr Latham this would have been quite improper. In his interactions with foreign leaders Mr Howard represents Australia; he should not be seeking to promote his own political survival through such relations.
In a letter published in The Age on June 5 Damien Ryan asks the following series of questions, "How many times have we heard John Howard draw attention to that protocol about not getting into domestic politics while overseas? He wouldn't have asked a foreign leader to buy into a domestic debate between political parties back home, would he? He wouldn't ask a close friend to stick it to an Australian leader for the sake of a few votes. Of course not. Bush thought of those things himself, and said them in the interests of the people of Iraq. Didn't he?"
Similarly in a letter published in The Australian of June 5 Stuart Skivington wrote, "Like a ventriloquist's dummy provided by Liberal Party campaign HQ, a clearly well-briefed President Bush used his photo-op and press statement with our travelling PM to parrot the favoured Liberal re-election message about not pulling out of Iraq.
I'm sceptical the Government has any fourth-term agenda beyond getting re-elected, but maybe the US President could endorse some Liberal social policy initiatives as well and we can all rest easy."
4. The manner in which President Bush made his comments was not in accord with usual diplomatic practice
It has been argued that it is quite appropriate for one country to attempt to influence the foreign policy of another or even to try to effect the foreign policy of an opposition party in another country. What is a matter of concern is the manner in which Mr Bush has gone about attempting to exert influence. It has been claimed that the proper procedure is private negotiation, as this has no immediate electoral ramifications for any of the negotiating parties.
This point was made by The Age in an editorial published on June 5. "Political leaders - both those who hold office and those who aspire to it - should be able to talk and cajole and argue and share views. If the Bush Administration wanted to really have an effect on Labor's approach to Iraq, its leading figures in Washington or its ambassador in Australia, Tom Schieffer, have every right to state their case quietly and privately to Mr Latham or his foreign affairs spokesman, Kevin Rudd. Change comes about in these sorts of situations through dialogue and persuasion, not lectern-thumping."
Arguments in favour of President Bush commenting on the Iraq policy of Opposition leader Latham
1. President Bush is desperately trying to hold together an international alliance in Iraq
President Bush is concerned to maintain and extend the current level of international support for the occupation-cum-liberation of Iraq. To this end it is very important to his administration that prominent supporters of his government's policy, such as Australia, are not seen to have had a change of heart. Australia is seen as comparable to Spain. Terrorist attacks in Spain led to a change of government in that country with the new government pledging to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq. America is concerned about a flow-on effect. If Australia were to withdraw the Bush Government is concerned that the flow-on effect would be even greater.
This point was made in an editorial published in The Australian on June 5. "The Bush administration sees Latham's policy as a direct strike against the US project in Iraq, as a blow to improving security on the ground and as a reckless encouragement to the terrorists who demand the exit of foreign forces as they sabotage Iraq's transition."
The recent Spanish election had a global significance. Latham's "cut-and-run" policy means the Australian election will [also} command global media attention as a referendum on Iraq. By making immediate withdrawal the issue, Latham's position became a threat to Bush and his aspirations in Iraq as a war leader.
Bush is desperate to see his allies stay the distance and help the new Iraqi government maintain security on the ground. This is the key to national elections in Iraq by the January 2005 timetable. [The United States believes] an Australian withdrawal would only encourage other nations into similar action.
It is because Mark Latham's declared policy intentions, were he to become Australian Prime Minister, so directly threaten United States' policy objectives in Iraq that President Bush has spoken out against him.
2. Mark Latham took the initiative and forced President Bush to oppose him
It has been argued that the initiative in forcing a public rupture between President Bush and Mark Latham was taken by Latham.
Before Mr Latham became Labor leader he had described Mr Bush as "the most incompetent and dangerous president in living memory". Mr Latham has not clearly and unequivocally withdrawn these remarks since becoming Labor leader. Instead he has set his party in clear opposition the Bush Government's policy on Iraq. He has condemned the original decision to join the 'coalition of the willing'. He has condemned the basis on which the invasion of Iraq was begun and he has condemned the negative effects he claims it has had on international and Australian security. Perhaps most significantly he has pledged that if elected he will recall Australian troops from Iraq by Christmas.
Since Mr Bush's remarks opposing his policies, Mr Latham has continued to criticise the American position and the current Australian position on Iraq. Mr Latham has stated, "They've made Australia a bigger target They've diverted resources away from the real war on terror - catching Osama bin Laden, destroying al-Qa'ida and breaking up terrorist networks in Southeast Asia. Unfortunately the prisoner atrocity scandal has given the terrorists a significant win - (it has provided them) the best recruitment campaign they could have hoped for. Enough is enough. In these circumstances, the best role Australia can play in Iraq is through humanitarian, economic and civilian aid.
Labor has more important strategic priorities - the defence of Australia and the real war against terror.
Labor never wanted the troops there in the first place. We intend to have them home by Christmas.'
The Australian in an editorial published on June 5 noted, 'By announcing that a Labor victory would guarantee our forces home by Christmas, Latham put himself on an inevitable collision course with the Bush administration."
According to this line of argument, President Bush's public criticisms of Mark Latham's policy are no different from Mr Latham's criticisms of Mr Bush's policies. Further, it has been suggested that Mr Latham's criticisms of President Bush together with Latham's policy directions forced the President to make the comments he did. Mr Bush, it has been claimed, was not wantonly interfering in the elections of another sovereign state; rather, he was responding to a direct challenge to his administration and its policy in Iraq.
It has also been noted that Mr Latham has made no attempt to mollify the Americans or explain his position to them. On June 5 Tony Parkinson wrote in an article in The Age, "The Labor leader has pulled out of a planned visit to Washington next week, and not once since he laid down his Iraq policy has he arranged a direct, face-to-face meeting with a senior American official . At the very least, Latham should do the Americans the courtesy of explaining his thinking, even if they may not like what they hear."
3. President Bush's remarks were made in response to a direct question from an Australian journalist
It has been claimed that when President Bush made his remarks about Mark Latham's Iraq policy, it was not part of a calculated attempt to advantage John Howard or even promote his own foreign policy position. Instead, it was an honest response to a question put by an Australian reporter.
This point was made in an editorial published in the Australian on June 5. The editorial states, "When Bush said on the White House lawn that Latham's policy "would be disastrous", he was answering a question from The Australian's Steve Lewis. What would the Australian people have preferred? That Bush didn't answer? Or didn't say what he thought? Or have misled us, only to spring a trap later if Latham wins? Australians, after all, are supposed to prefer hearing the truth."
4. President Bush has not threatened that Mr Latham's policies would endanger the alliance
It has been claimed that President Bush is doing no more than warning of what he believes would be the consequences of Mark Latham's policy, if acted on. He has not warned Mr Latham that such a policy would endanger the US-Australian alliance.
The Labor Party, at least, appears to believe that it is possible for their leader to be at odds with the United States' position on Iraq and for the alliance between the United States and Australia to remain intact. Immediately after President Bush's criticism of his policies, Mr Latham stated, "The alliance is bigger and stronger than the mistakes made in relation to Iraq. Labor strongly supports the alliance but not as a rubber stamp. Nothing President Bush has said changes our hopes and expectations about the future."
Don Russell, a former Australian ambassador to the US and a former adviser to Labor PM Paul Keating, has claimed, "The alliance was never seen as an arrangement where we did what we were told as some kind of insurance for that fateful day when we might need to call on the US for help. Rather, the alliance was part of a broader relationship that gave us an opportunity to influence US policy - and to harness it to serve Australian interests ... we were allowed to do and say things that the Americans would find unacceptable if said or done by another country. When we criticised the Americans it was assumed we were being constructive rather than grandstanding ... Australia has to make hard judgements when it believes a particular US administration is behaving unwisely - for it is not in Australia's long-term interests to automatically assist the US to become involved in a major debacle; nor is it in the interest of the US."
Thus, Labor theorists appear to believe that Australia's aliiance with the United States does not require we always offer America uncritical policy support. Instead it is possible for the alliance to remain intact when we constructively criticise United States' policy.
Further implications
This is a perplexing issue. It is difficult to know just how much the United States might decide to punish Australia if we were to withdraw our 850 troops from Iraq. The Labor Party and others have argued that the alliance is stronger than one foreign policy dispute and that we can afford to adopt a more independent stance without putting the allaince at risk.
It would be interesting to know if this is true. There are those who claim that Australia's 850 troops are only symbolic and that the United States could easily replace them with its own forces. However, what is at issue is the symblism of the Australian presence.
The United States is attempting to spread the burden of Iraq occupation onto a number of other nations. This is in part to convince the American public that they are not to carry this weight alone. From this perspective the size of the Australian contingent is not so important as the fact of it. Both the United States and the current Australian government are concerned that if a Labor government were to recall the Australian troops that might well lead other nations to do likewise.
The question remains, should Australia be able to withdraw its forces from an engagement in which it is supporting the United States. Current critics argue that the extent of Prime Minister Howard's compliance with US foreign policy has been so great that the United States now has the automatic expectation that Australia will always follw the US foreign policy lead.
This expectation of compliance means that any gesture of non-compliance is likely to be met with shock and incredulity by the United States. Prime Minister Howard's lack of independence in his relationship with the United States may have created a situation where it is going to be extremely difficult for Australia to adopt a more independent foreign policy position.
Mark Latham's fairly obvious politicking on the issue and his apparent hostilty toward the United States in general and President Bush in particular are going to make it that much more difficult for Australia to adopt a more indepnent stance.
Sources
The Age
5/6/04 page 1 news item by Michelle Grattan and Michael Gordon, "Labor no US rubber stamp: Latham"
5/6/04 page 6 news item by Michael Gordon, "Bush's outburst on Iraq may be no help for Howard"
5/6/04 page 9 (Insight) comment by Tony Parkinson, "Latham V Bush: will the rift become a rupture"
5/6/04 page 8 editorial, "With presidential friends like these..."
6/6/04 page 15 comment by Michelle Grattan, "Enemies, and they haven't even met"
6/6/04 page 2 news item by Michael Gordon, "'President Bush gave the only answer he could have' about Latham, says Howard"
The Australian
5/6/04 page 2 news item by Michael Harvey, 'Latham hits back at Bush on troops'
5/6/04 page 5 comment by Denis Shanahan, "A presidential shake of the first at Latham"
5/6/04 page 18 nine letters on the issue of President Bush's comments under the heading, "Howard writes Bush's speech"
5/6/04 page 5 comment by Mark Latham, "Nothing Bush said has changed Labor's hopes"
5/6/04 page 32 (Inquirer) comment by Paul Kelly, "Trouble in the garden"
The Herald Sun
5/6/04 page 29 cartoon by Mark Knight
5/6/04 page 30 editorial, "Iraq is our business"