Ramesh Thakur on the Chutzpah of the Iraq War Neocons and Fellow Travellers

On 25 June 2014 Professor Ramesh Thakur of the Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University and co-editor of The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy contributed a piece on the above subject to the Australian Institute of International Affairs’ online journal Australian Outlook.

He begins:

Two years ago, Nobel Peace Laureate Desmond Tutu condemned the ‘immorality’ of the Iraq invasion: ‘in a consistent world, those responsible for this suffering and loss of life should be treading the same path as some of their African peers who have been made to answer for their actions in the Hague’. Like the indestructible Terminator, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair popped up recently to deny that the lightning advance of the bloodthirsty and ruthlessly efficient ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, covering the Levant across Iraq and Syria) could be blamed on the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Rather, in his parallel universe, the fault lies in not intervening in Syria last year to topple President Bashar al-Assad.

He then goes on to wonder, “Are we to admire Blair for his chutzpah or condemn him for his shamelessness?”.

After traversing the background to this shameful and disastrous War of Choice, its costs and the future prospects for the Middle East he concludes:

Meanwhile the crisis confirms the urgent need for parliamentary consent to be converted from an optional add-on to a legally binding requirement before a democracy goes to war. It should not be possible for a headstrong prime minister to wage war – the most solemn foreign policy decision of all – based on whims or personal convictions.

Read the full piece at The Chutzpah of the Iraq War Neocons and Fellow Travellers.

Donna Mulhearn on Iraq

Freelance journalist and peace activist – and fellow member of the Campaign for an Iraq War Inquiry – Donna Mulhearn writes in Eureka Street that Iraq needs a local solution, not another Western intervention. She writes of the peaceful protests led by Sunni tribal elders from Anbar Province, and how these protests produced a violent response from the Maliki-led Government. In her view it is Iraq's Sunni tribes and militias — who hold little in common with ISIS and reject its extreme ideology — who could withhold the Islamists' march to Baghdad, should they have the motivation to do so.

Iraq needs a local political solution, she says, not another foreign military intervention, and there can be no moving forward until the mistakes of the past are acknowledged and addressed. This requires political work not just by Iraqi leaders, but by the nations of the 'Coalition of the Willing', who were too quick to jump into the invasion and occupation, and too slow to respond constructively to its disastrous legacy.

Read Donna’s piece in full here.

Another intervention in Iraq?

Prime Minister Tony Abbott is expressing a willingness to have elements of the Australian Defence Force join with the United States in another intervention in Iraq – notwithstanding that neither the shape of that intervention nor its objective is known.

I would argue that the fact that we are considering going back into Iraq makes it all the more obvious that we need to learn the lessons from the previous invasion, the disastrous nature of which is not only almost universally acknowledged but demonstrated by the fact that some claim a need to go back in.

There should be no further resort to armed force by Australia until there has been a genuinely independent inquiry (in which the Royal Commissioners are appointed by a bipartisan process). If the Government believes that it should engage in force before the Royal Commission reports, it should be allowed to do so with the support of the House of Representatives PROVIDED that the new use of force is referred to the same Royal Commission and independent legal advice has been received that the use of force would be legal and that the government will accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ in any suit brought by any state questioning the legality of this new use of force.

If we do not learn from the mistakes of the past we will repeat them again - first as tragedy, then as farce.

Twentieth Anniversary of Mekong River Bridge

Today is the twentieth anniversary of the official opening of the first bridge across the Mekong River, from Nong Khai in Northeast Thailand to Thanaleng just south of Vientiane in Laos.

I had the honour and pleasure of chairing the tri-nation steering committee during the first three years of its life – from the establishment of the committee until the inauguration of construction, and I made a point of attending the official opening on 4 April 1994. Here are some of the photos:

View of the carriage-way just prior to the opening

Guard of honour awaiting the arrival of VVIPs

Australian Ambassador Michael Mann with wife Monique

and Lao Vice-Minister (L) and Minister (R)

Lao military awaiting the arrival of their President

Arrival of President of Laos

President of Laos and King of Thailand seated for ceremony

Paul Keating with Lao Prime Minister Khamtai Siphandong

With my Lao colleague Vice-Minister Seune Phetsanghane

With my Thai colleague Mr Singh

Some of the key players including Janet Holmes à Court, whose company John Holland constructed the bridge, and Lao Minister Madam Khempeng Pholsena

View of the bridge

Letter to the Prime Minister re Iraq War Inquiry

Below is the text of a letter I sent to the Prime Minister on behalf of the Campaign for an Iraq War Inquiry on 13 March 2013, a few days ahead of the eleventh anniversary of the invasion of Iraq.

Similar letters were sent to all Members and Senators in the Federal Parliament.

I will provide updates on any substantive replies we receive.

Letter begins

13 March 2014

The Hon. Tony Abbott MP

Prime Minister of Australia

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2001

Dear Mr Abbott,

As we approach another anniversary of the 20 March 2003 invasion of Iraq I write to express my concern that, eleven years after Australia participated in that invasion, there has still been no comprehensive inquiry into the process by which the Government of the day made the decision that Australia would be a participant in the war.

Given the gravity of any decision to commit the Australian defence force to international armed conflict, the Australian people are entitled to know how that decision was made, and what evidence informed the decision. Like any world class defence force, the Australian Defence Force is assiduous in reviewing the conduct of every campaign in which it is involved, to identify and document the lessons learned, and incorporate them into the development of future doctrine. Surely the Australian Government owes to those it puts in harm’s way a duty to evaluate the quality of the processes by which it decides to put them in harm’s way.

In the civilian domain, we are accustomed to holding inquiries after natural disasters and man-made accidents. We rigorously debate and scrutinise government administration and expenditure, how prepared we were to deal effectively with problems and how well our command and control systems worked. We carefully investigate the causes of deaths and injuries. All of this is designed so we can learn from experience and avoid future mistakes and losses. The Iraq war should be treated no differently.

Britain’s inquiry into the Iraq war, conducted by Sir John Chilcot, plans to report its findings soon. This means that while Britons will have the chance to learn from past decisions, Australians will still be deprived of a comprehensive account of the processes leading to our involvement in Iraq.

An independent inquiry into the decision making process which led to Australia’s involvement in the Iraq War would also allow for a public discussion of the appropriateness of Australia’s current ‘war powers’, which concentrate power in the executive branch. This could provide a framework for reforming how the decision is made to go to war.

The experience of Parliamentary and Congressional debate in Britain and the United States last year over the question of whether to intervene in Syria demonstrated the benefits of parliamentary involvement in decisions to commit to armed international conflict. By allowing for greater public debate, the involvement of parliament permitted better evidence to be obtained, and cooler heads to prevail. This experience has demonstrated the value of moving the ‘war powers’ from the executive to the Parliament, ensuring a better deliberative process and greater accountability.

The Campaign for an Iraq War Inquiry hopes to see not only an independent inquiry into Australia’s involvement in the Iraq War, but also a commitment from Australia’s elected representatives to reforming the ‘war powers’.

Yours sincerely,

(Signed)

Paul Barratt

President

Letter ends