Why did Australia join the "coalition of the willing" and invade Iraq? WMD? Ending Saddam's reign of terror? Bringing democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people? The answer, according to The Age, is none of the above. Instead, Australia joined an illegal war for a very different reason: to protect its wheat exports:
Documents seen by The Age detail how Australia privately feared the US would muscle in on Australia's dominant trading position with Saddam Hussein's regime.They show that more than six months before the outbreak of war, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer suggested that military support for the US in Iraq would benefit Australia's commercial position. Once war had broken out, he was concerned that the US would use American deaths in battle as a justification for seizing Australia's wheat trade.
At a meeting in August 2002 in Mr Downer's Canberra office, Prime Minister John Howard, senior Government officials and executives from wheat exporter AWB discussed the outlook for Australia's sales after Saddam. These sales had been envied by the influential US wheat lobby for years.
Documents seen by The Age reveal that an idea was floated at the meeting whereby Australia would provide military support for the US on the condition its wheat trade with Iraq was protected. A Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade record of conversation shows Mr Downer suggested Australian support for the US would benefit "Australia's commercial position in Iraq" in the event of regime change.
In the lead-up to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Australian Government tried desperately to strike a deal with the US. Documents show Mr Downer raised Australia's wheat trade with then US secretary of state Colin Powell at least three times. He also discussed it with his deputy, Richard Armitage.
In one dispatch a Foreign Affairs official reported Mr Downer telling Mr Powell words to the effect that the US could "forget Aussie support in future" if America flooded Iraq with wheat after the war.
Mr Downer stipulated that his request for Australia's Iraq sales to be protected be formally recorded in the minutes of his meetings with Mr Powell. Senior Australian embassy officials in Washington were instructed to press the wheat issue at every opportunity.
And Australian soldiers were sent overseas to fight and die for this. I'm sorry, but market share and the profits of Australian farmers seem like bloody stupid reasons to go to war to me.
(Hat tip: Road to Surfdom)
4 comments:
"Why did Australia join the "coalition of the willing" and invade Iraq? WMD? Ending Saddam's reign of terror? Bringing democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people? The answer, according to The Age, is none of the above. Instead, Australia joined an illegal war for a very different reason: to protect its wheat exports"
The article says *nothing* of the sort. The article just tells us that Downer/Australia were (i) determined that the US shouldn't screw Aussie exporters (possibly inadvertently) given the sacrifices/costs incurred by Australia in being part of the "coalition of the willing" and (ii) eager as far as possible to curry a little favor with the Iraqi people by being seen by them as acting independently of and possibly more benignly than the US.
(i)'s just basic good government I think [the alternative - Australia takes all the heat/costs for being a US ally and its exporters take a completely unnecessary commercial hit because the Aus Govt never defended their interests by explicitly voicing worries about an unscrupulous US wheat farming sector - would be awful and in fact corresponds to what happened a few times under Bob Hawke!], and (ii) is the sort of niggling fraternal tension that results from the fact that Australia and the US, like most pairs of allies are not only commerial competitors (in, e.g., wheat!) but are also independent political actors acting in their own permament long-term interests (PLTIs) that inevitably aren't identical to its ally's PLTIs. Australia, despite being "shoulder to shoulder" with the US should also rationally try to distinguish itself from the US and avoid being a causalty of any general anti-American fall-out that might occur. That's harsh but that's life.
It's somewhat embarrassing for Australia to have its competitive distrust of and small divergences from the US publicly aired, and there's the lingering bad odor from the somewhat ignominious entanglement of the AWB with Saddam hanging over everything.... but all of i/'s incendiary claims are contradicted by the evidence, preposterous on the face of it, and, assuming i/s can read and comprehend at a 10th Grade level,.....
Posted by Anonymous : 7/04/2006 03:38:00 PM
A useful comparison: your friend asks you to go on vacation with them to India (they won't go if you don't go with them). You like the basic idea, it's something you've always wanted to do, and you want to help out your friend. But there's a problem: your friend is a little selfish, bossy etc. So before you agree to go you try to get things straight with them): they have to let you choose your share of the outings each day, you want to drive occasionally etc. You won't go unless they agree to this, and you warn them that if they don't play nice while you're away you won't ever go with them anywhere again. Indeed perhaps you're a bit of a dick and, recognizing the strength of your bargaining position with your friend, you stipulate that you won't go unless you get the air-con if only one of you can have it, or you always get the top bunk, or whatever it is.
It would be absurd to suggest that the reason you're going to India is so you can drive or so you get choose outings or get the top bunk, or get a/c, or whatever it is. India is your reason! To help out your friend is a second reason! And so on. Necessary conditions of various sorts, often adopted in a process of bargaining aren't the same thing as your reasons (though they might be revealing on various levels, i.e., evidence that you're a dick, or paranoid, or cautious, or....etc.)
Mutatis Mutandis
QED.
Posted by Anonymous : 7/04/2006 05:49:00 PM
Documents seen by The Age reveal that an idea was floated at the meeting whereby Australia would provide military support for the US on the condition its wheat trade with Iraq was protected. A Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade record of conversation shows Mr Downer suggested Australian support for the US would benefit "Australia's commercial position in Iraq" in the event of regime change.
English not your first language then Mr Glaister, That looks like *something* of the sort to me.
Are you of the school of thought that people repeating lies often enough makes them true?
Posted by Anonymous : 7/04/2006 05:52:00 PM
Anon: It's a side-condition that's being discussed. If ya read the article what's going on is that Downer originally pitches the possible economic benefits to Aussie wheat producers of being on the victors's side in the war. The AWB gets back to him and tells him that they're specificaly worried about the US wheat interests and that he'd better jolly well go to bat for them aginst those guys, which he duly does.... All of this is a little sordid it's true (but no more so than negotiating terms for going on vaction with someone!), but it's got nothing to do with reasons for war... I can't be too much clearer than I've been...
Posted by Anonymous : 7/04/2006 09:57:00 PM
Post a Comment
(Anonymous comments are enabled).