Category: Defence

Australia is engaged in a long cavalcade of military commemoration. It has been advancing since the 1990’s. Government largesse has speeded it on its way. War is now widely seen as the defining collective experience. The national spirit, the argument runs, emerged in battle far from our shores. A generation of school children have been assured that war was the making of Australia. Given this strident assertion that the history of war is of central importance it might be thought that the whole campaign would deepen our understanding of why Australia has been so often at war and provide answers to those large and important questions—why did we so readily go to war? What was achieved? Was engagement in the long term national interest? Were our wars worth the treasure expended and the lives lost? An even more significant and rarely considered question is would we have been better off if we had avoided war and if so would we have been a different and more fortunate country? We must conclude that our kind of commemoration is crafted to avoid serious consideration of such questions. We concentrate on how our men fought not why they fought. We examine tactics rather than strategy. And when sacrifice and heroism are invoked, scepticism and doubt are eschewed. It can never be suggested that the sacrifice of life served no useful purpose. (more…)

I asked a colleague with years of experience dealing with and observing the Philippines about the new President and the maritime dispute with China.

He said that President Duterte revels in the unpredictable and is determined to try to root out crime and corruption in the country as he did so well in winning the slums of Davao 25 years ago against the communist insurgents – the NPA – by vicious vigilante squads. He is already bragging about how many drug dealers have been killed. He has also invited the NPA to hunt down drug dealers and criminals!

Duterte is now equally committed to cutting a deal with the NPA to end their insurgency – through some former NPA and sympathisers in his Cabinet and one of the exiled leaders who taught him at university. The insurgency has been fairly quiet for some years since the US bases (the NPA’s principal target) were closed. This will have serious implications for any moves to bring back significant US military presence in the Philippines. This in turn could pose a few issues for US/Philippines cooperation in the South China Sea. (more…)

NATO was created to counter the Soviet Union but when the Soviet Union disappeared NATO  did not follow suit so new enemies were required. Afghanistan was promoted by the USA because it harboured terrorists who attacked the USA. When the Taliban fought the Soviet Union the US provided weapons and support but the US now supported those opposed to the Taliban in a civil war. NATO plus Australia became involved in a country far from its heartland. Public rhetoric about moral factors clearly had nothing to do with it. (more…)

In releasing his momentous report on 6 July Sir John Chilcot stated that the judgements about the severity of the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction – WMD – were presented with a certainty that was not justified. He also said it is now clear that policy on Iraq was made on the basis of flawed intelligence and assessments, which should have been challenged. (more…)

The Report of the Chilcot Enquiry into the UK’s entry to the Iraq War in 2003 is deeply disturbing. It documents a litany of catastrophic intelligence failures and ill-informed and unsubtle decision-making by Tony Blair and his senior advisors and Ministers. Apart from exposing the appallingly weak grounds for entering the war in the first place, it is appropriately critical of the lack of any proper planning for the post-Saddam era, including the fact that British soldiers were inadequately equipped for the conditions in which they had to fight – resulting in what were probably many avoidable deaths. Chilcot and his four colleagues have challenged the political-military establishment in Britain as arguably it has never been challenged before. It is unlikely that future British governments will enter conflicts with such school-boyish enthusiasm and political stupidity ever again. That, at least, is one most welcome outcome from the Enquiry. (more…)

There is a sense in Britain that its very foundations are shaking. Just weeks since the Brexit decision, the prospect of recession is real, the value of the pound and the price of real estate have dropped out of sight, credible leaders are lacking, and uncertainty threatens the future of Great Britain itself. Piled on top, now, is the Chilcot report on the war in Iraq. Its revelations about the moral failures of government in the UK are so serious that some feel they could bring the whole edifice crashing down.

How has it come to this and what does Chilcot mean for Australia? (more…)

There was anxiety about why it had taken 7 years for the result of the UK’s Iraq Enquiry to be published. Would it prove to be a whitewash of Tony Blair and his decisions?

Within minutes of watching its Chair, Sir John Chilcot, introduce to the public the Enquiry’s report, yesterday, it was clear that those apprehensions were not be fulfilled. (more…)

The Chilcot report should prompt much heart-searching, and not only about Australia’s commitment to the Iraq War in 2003. It should prompt us to think about two long-standing problems: the use of the ‘war powers’ by the Executive, without any requirement to consult parliament; and the broader issue of balancing Australia’s interests in her alliance relationships. In essence, two questions should haunt us. First, should our decision to go to war be made by handfuls of people at the centre of power? Second, do we as a people so crave the approval of powerful allies that we should plunge our military forces into faraway deployments without carefully weighing costs and objectives? (more…)

Tony Blair is the most flamboyant and contentious of the trio who took the coalition of the willing into war in Iraq.

Attention focuses on what the Chilcot enquiry has concluded about his role, and equally importantly on what are the lessons, which it promised from the outset it would draw.

The British enquiry naturally wished to protect the confidences of Blair’s co-conspirators, who have managed, unlike Blair, to preserve an image of dignified statesmanship and confident resignation that they did, properly, what had to be done. (more…)

The Chilcot Report on the UK involvement in the invasion of Iraq has just been released. In a commentary on the report, Paul McGeough in the SMH refers to John Howard as the ‘patsy from Down Under’.

The Chilcot Report concurs with the widespread view that the invasion of Iraq set in hand the awful devastation and death that we now see continuing in the Middle East.  the rise of ISIS can be attributed to the dreadful mistakes of Bush, Blair and Howard.

For Paul McGeough’s commentary on the Chilcot Report, see link below.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/chilcot-report-the-mindboggling-incompetence-of-bush-blair-and-howard-laid-bare-20160707-gq06hy.html

In the next few days, we will be carrying i Pearls and Irritations, further commentaries on the Chilcot Report and implications for Australia.  John Menadue

The Turnbull Government and the Shorten Opposition have focussed on domestic issues in the election campaign.  This is understandable but in the longer term the Government elected on the 2^nd of July will need to address the greatly changed world of 2016. (more…)

We learn belatedly that Prime Minister Abbott tried to persuade the Army to send to the MH17 crash site in Ukraine, were more like 3000, a full brigade! 

In this long election campaign, the major parties are debating anything and everything that will affect votes. Everything, that is, except refugees, foreign policy, and – as if it is a minor matter – the war. Australians who haven’t been paying attention may well be unaware that we have military in Afghanistan (still), Iraq (again), and Syria. In spite of retired generals Peter Leahy and Peter Gration repeatedly questioning the strategy and prospects of their deployment, the Government says nothing, and the Opposition keeps whatever it is confidentially told to itself. (more…)

According to the Sydney Morning Herald, the US Studies Centre at Sydney University has produced a study which showed that 8 out of 10 Australians were only mildly concerned about the fact that, as they saw it, China already dominated Asia and they did not think China would go to war with the USA. They thought that the USA had peaked and was on the way out. This situation did not greatly concern them and their attitude was described as neutral. James Brown of the Centre described these attitudes as naive and said that Australians did not understand the importance of the American presence in the region. The head of the Centre, Professor Jackman, said he was going to get on a plane and go to Washington to tell them to ramp up their soft diplomacy because China was doing it better. (more…)

It is widely acknowledged by those who have had anything substantive to do with nuclear weapons that as long as they exist they will, one day, be used, either by accident or decision. Equally, it is acknowledged that any such use would be a catastrophe. Thus, the logical and human solution is to eliminate them.

Three months after he assumed his office, President Obama publicly joined those who accept these truths when, in Prague on April 9^th, 2009, he said: “ I state clearly and with conviction America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons”

Further, he said: “ as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act.”

He said the US could not succeed alone in seeking the objective of a secure world without nuclear weapons, but would lead the process and include all nuclear weapons states in it.

The Nobel Peace Prize Committee reacted to his Prague pledge by awarding him the 2009 Peace Prize. To some that seemed to represent a hasty judgment by the Committee, but the terms of Obama’s attitude towards the elimination of nuclear weapons seemed to constitute a major new policy commitment. In fact, there have been precedents.

In his farewell speech in January, 1961. President Eisenhower had warned against the influence over US policy of a “military industrial complex”, and stated, above all, that nuclear disarmament was essential. His warnings came to nought and at the height of the Cold War, in the 1980s, some 70,000 nuclear weapons had been made, over 90% of which were held by USA and USSR.

In October 1986, USSR President Michael Gorbachev and US President Ronald Reagan met at Rekjavick. They agreed, initially, to seek the elimination of all nuclear weapons because of their conviction that the danger they posed was unacceptable. Reagan had famously asserted that “nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought”. Their initial agreement foundered however, on Reagan’s refusal to suspend his proposed missile defense shield. But, they did agree to eliminate their intermediate range nuclear weapons in Europe and the resultant INF Treaty became the first instance of the elimination of a whole class of nuclear weapons.

On May 27^th, 2016, seven years after his speech at Prague, and eight months before he will take his farewell from office, President Obama visited Hiroshima becoming the first US President to do so, 71 years after that first use of a nuclear weapon.

In his remarks there he said: “among those nations like my own that hold nuclear stockpiles, we must have the courage to escape the logic of fear and pursue a world without them…persistent efforts can roll back the possibility of catastrophe. We can chart a course that leads to the destruction of these stockpiles.”

Somewhat characteristically, President Obama injected a philosophic reflection: “The scientific revolution that led to the splitting of the atom requires a moral revolution as well”, and, “ … what makes our species unique. We’re not bound by genetic code to repeat the mistakes of the past. We can learn. We can choose”.

Two key nuclear arms reduction treaties were negotiated between the US and Russia, after the Prague speech, the Start I and New Start Treaties and today, the number of deployed warheads allowed under those agreements is: 1780 and 2080 for Russia and the US, respectively and the same figures for “other” warheads are 5720 and 5180.

Overall, arms control agreements have led to a reduction by two thirds, in the number of nuclear weapons in existence, globally, from that figure of 70,000 of the 1980s.

Clearly, there has been progress in nuclear arms control, a step back from the profound insanity of the nuclear arms race, which was the hallmark of the Cold War.

But, there remains at least three Key problems, which have not been addressed, nothwithstanding Obama’s statements and commitments.

First, in order to secure consent by the US Senate to New Start and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, Obama has authorized a $1 trillion 30 year upgrade of the US nuclear arsenal. It is impossible to reconcile this action with his stated posture of wishing to lead the way to a secure world without nuclear weapons, and the consent he sought on CTBT has not been given.

Russia has also embarked on an expansion of the size and quality of its nuclear arsenal. Nuclear analysts have suggested that, in fact, Obama’s legacy upon leaving office will be a “second nuclear age”. Whether that perspective will prove to have merit, the postures and actions of Russia, on one side and the US and NATO on the other supports the apprehension that a new Cold War is underway.

Secondly, there have been widely supported calls for the US and Russia, which together still hold at least 90% of nuclear weapons in existence, to take them off hair trigger alert. This would significantly reduce the possibility of accident or miscalculation, without eliminating their alleged utility in terms of deterrence.

Thirdly, while Obama has spoken of the need for action with respect to all nuclear weapon States, of which there are 6 others (and an active contender in North Korea), there has been inaction. He seems not to have exercised the leadership on this that he promised. And, apart from the issues with Russia, there is the reality of the frightful dangers posed by the nuclear arms race between India and Pakistan, and by Israel’s nuclear weapons capability, in the miasma of Middle East politics.

The International Court of Justice, unsurprisingly has pointed out that any use of nuclear weapons would violate customary international law, and with virtual certainty would constitute a crime against humanity. It has called attention to the fact that the Nuclear Weapon States identified in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (the Permanent Members of the Security Council) are obliged, under that Treaty to negotiate reductions in their weapons, without any further delay. And, some two thirds of the member States of the UN have called for the negotiation of a global Treaty banning nuclear weapons.

In recent times Australian coalition Governments have sided with the US in voting against this proposal. Its neighbors, including Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and New Zealand have supported it.

Where is the debate in Australia about the reality of the threat to our life, nation and environment caused by the continuing existence of nuclear weapons? Is it within our character and values to accept that the only way our survival, our life, is allegedly guaranteed is by the US being prepared to use, against others, weapons of mass destruction and radiation?

Some say that to ask this question is hysterical. They assert that, clearly the US would never use its weapons but only threaten to do so, as a matter of deterrence. The notion of deterrence is, at best, a chimera, the failure of which would be a more than academic experience.

President Obama resisted calls that he should apologize at Hiroshima, presumably because of the current dominance in the US of militant nationalism. But at Hiroshima, he did mention “mistakes”, and suggested that it is not necessarily in our human genus to be condemned to repeat them.

The part of his remarks and reflections on which Australian leaders should act are those in which he acknowledged the need for the US to lead in efforts to end the servitude of nuclear weapons. That’s where we could and should help, politically and diplomatically. This would, of course, require us to demonstrate the “courage to escape the logic of fear”, to stand on our own feet, with a principled, aware, and independent foreign policy.

Richard Butler AC, is former Ambassador to the United Nations and was appointed by PM Keating, in 1995, Convenor of the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons.

Leaders who have presided over policy disasters typically respond in one of three ways. Some of them leave office and retire to their well-feathered nests, where they hibernate in silence. Others spray the blame around, including at those who advised them against the original folly, refusing to admit responsibility for it, and yet still claiming that the outcome was better than if they had not committed it, and claiming that now, things have changed. Others again adhere to the ‘never apologise, never explain’ school of public policy, refusing to admit they were wrong, and suggesting they would do the same again, given the opportunity. (more…)

‘As President of the United States of America, I express my profound apologies for the sufferings inflicted on the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the atomic bombings.’ These, of course, are the words that we are not going to hear Barack Obama speak in Hiroshima on 27 May, when he becomes the first sitting US president to visit the city since the atomic bombings in August 1945. It is sad that we will not hear at least a version of these words. A simple but sincere apology might bring some peace of mind to the survivors and their families, and could have a profound effect on Japanese society. (more…)

Today, President Obama is visiting Hiroshima. He will be the first US President to do so since the bombing in 1945. He said that he will not be apologising for the dropping of the bomb and will not try and second-guess President Harry Truman’s decision.

The widely accepted moral justification for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was that they brought a quick end to the war which if continued would result in more widespread deaths and destruction.

There is an argument that what the Japanese military feared most of all was not the bombing of civilians but the threat of Soviet occupation and perhaps partition of Japan. (more…)

The Great War. What we fought for and why were peace initiatives resisted for so long.

Many of those promoting the Anzac Centenary appear to believe that there are certain essentials the Australian people must learn about the Great War: that Australians fought exceedingly well; that they fought even better when led by Australians; that in fighting so well they gave birth to our national consciousness; that we owe them so much because they fought for our freedom; that in serving our country they displayed the values of the Anzac Spirit that define the Australian character – a fierce egalitarianism, contempt for privilege, democratic instincts, and mateship, that is, a generous solidarity inspiring a collective spirit, never shrinking from support for each other through thick and thin. Sadly, it must be said, many of those rhapsodising upon this Anzac Spirit show not the remotest faith in this kind of egalitarianism or solidarity in their public policy.

Much of this may serve to distract the Australian people from deeply significant questions arising from our plunge into the Great War. How did Australia get into this catastrophe? For what objectives, precisely, did the Australian government commit our forces to the fighting? And why were they still fighting there in 1918?

Some see the Anzac Centenary as a stand-tall moment. It is milked as an opportunity to tell see-how-great-we-are stories, and to raise our national self-esteem. Surely the centenary of a cataclysm such as the Great War, that took tens of millions of lives across the world, by acts of state policy, is not a moment to blow our own small trumpet. This is unworthy and provincial. It is the acts of state policy that led to and prolonged the disaster of war that should focus our attention, not just the courageous acts of one small fragment of the men caught up in the quagmire.

What are the real lessons of the Great War, for Australians, and for all? That war is a blunt instrument, unleashing all manner of evil. That unqualified loyalty to big and powerful friends means being trapped in their misjudgements. That the war aims declared to the people, and the war aims for which wars are prolonged, are seldom the same thing. That war is never a simple choice between victory and defeat. That peace by negotiation is the live, innovative and often the most courageous alternative to gambling again and again with the blood of the young. That wars are so destructive that victory itself can be impotent, providing no lasting peace and no vindication for the mechanised killing.

The articles linked below are an attempt to sketch out these neglected aspects of Anzac. What did we fight for? What opportunities for a negotiated peace were lost along the way? They are an attempt to interleave two real stories of Australia’s Great War that took place largely behind the scenes – the escalation of war aims by those to whom the lives of Australia’s men were entrusted, and the choices that were made to shun peace by negotiation and keep Australia’s men in the firing line. Those who perished there demand respect. True respect demands a deep inquiry into why they died.

Douglas Newton. What we fought for from Gallipoli to Fromelles, 1914-1916.

Douglas Newton. What we fought for from Bullecourt to the Armistice 1917-1918.

Douglas Newton.Lost opportunities for a negotiated peace during the Great War from 1914-1916, Part 1.

Douglas Newton. Lost opportunities for a negotiated peace during the Great War from 1917-1918, Part 2.