“At the height of the Cold War, Prime Minister Menzies agreed to the British request for a permanent site to test nuclear weapons… This was a political decision by a government that was subservient to the British government, and today there are parallels, with the Australian government being once again subservient to the decisions of a foreign power.” “Our government is about to redefine us in the eyes of the world as willing backers of US militarism.” – Anthony Albanese, 2003.
The following is a series of extracts from The Hon. Anthony Albanese’s parliamentary speeches concerning the Iraq War, the US alliance and Australia’s sovereignty in 2002 and 2003.
10 February 2003
The end of the Cold War brought the prospect of international stability and peace. The world community had great hope for ending divisions and advancing the cause of common humanity. The vehicle for this was of course to be the United Nations—no longer hamstrung by a polarised geopolitical environment. Now as we enter the 21st century that earlier optimism has faded and the world community faces the very real prospect that religious differences will replace the political ideological battles of the past.
There are many brutal evil dictatorships in the world today and without question Saddam Hussein is one of them. The litany of his human rights violations against his own people have been extensively documented and include the use of chemical weapons, torture and a secret police force. While the evils of the Iraqi regime are indisputable, the question that we must ask ourselves is: does this justify Australia’s support for the new US foreign policy doctrine of pre-emptive strikes and should our armed forces be involved in its implementation? … In light of these facts, I do not believe it is in Australia’s national interest, particularly as we are only a medium-size power in a highly volatile region, to be joining any military action that would undermine the legitimacy and supremacy of international law. Any US-led military action not sanctioned by the United Nations would be illegal under international law.
Unfortunately, it is clear that John Howard has already given a commitment of support to the Bush administration, despite the overwhelming mood of public opinion and without the debate in this House having been completed. US officials are proclaiming that 12 nations have already signed up to a US led coalition of the willing. Nobody believes John Howard when he states that no final decision has been made. Back in October, the foreign minister told the New Zealand High Commissioner that Australia was not in a position, if the UN process broke down, to withdraw our ships and other presence from the Gulf. He was not wrong. Australia has already committed over 2,000 personnel—more than three times the commitment at the height of the 1991 Gulf War, which occurred after the invasion of Kuwait.
This commitment to war includes the SAS, Navy frigates, FA18 Hornets, Chinook troop lift helicopters, C130 Hercules transport aircraft, mine clearance teams and much more. And the Prime Minister would have us believe that no commitment has been made! John Howard is going to show all his peers at Canterbury High School that he was not a wimp after all. Just like the US President, he has never fought in a war but never misses a photo opportunity to be seen with those who bravely serve our nation. … There has been criticism of the emotion people have displayed during this debate. I contend there is no more important decision than whether or not this country goes to war. It is not surprising, therefore, that the debate has been emotional. One would be concerned had it not been thus. Not only does such a decision place the men and women of our armed services and those of other countries in harm’s way but it will also lead to the death and injury of tens of thousands—perhaps hundreds of thousands—of innocent Iraqi citizens. … If there is one lesson for the world community from September 11 and the Bali tragedy it is this: military power is not enough in the modern world—security can only be achieved by a victory of humane, democratic values. The international community must act in a manner that reduces terrorism, not inflames tension. There is something perverse about arguing that the cause of democracy is advanced through the use of our own weapons of mass destruction.
While I do recognise the importance of our cultural, political and economic relationship with the United States, I believe that we must continue to tell them that unilateralism can never be the basis of a satisfactory world model and that pre-emptive action should not involve the use of military power. The recent criticism by the US Ambassador of the right of Labor members to speak out, including the member for Werriwa, is an outrage. The US undermines its own advancement of democratic institutions if its representatives do not respect the right of elected members to state their views in the parliament of Australia. … I have written to my electorate outlining my views on this fundamental issue and received hundreds of supportive replies. I have received only one from someone who supported the war. I will be marching for peace with the Walk Against the War Coalition this Sunday from 12 noon at Hyde Park North with my state Labor colleagues Andrew Refshauge, Sandra Nori, Linda Burney and Virginia Judge and thousands of my constituents. I would not be at all surprised if more than 200,000 Australians join us this Sunday. I encourage Australians to vote with their feet and demonstrate that we believe that «Iraq» should be disarmed but this should occur under the auspices of the UN and in a peaceful manner.
I want to repeat a quote from Shakespeare that was in a letter sent to me this week:
“Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war, in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervour, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind …”
20 March 2003
Our government is about to redefine us in the eyes of the world as willing backers of US militarism. We had three nations meet in the Azores: the United States, the United Kingdom and Spain. We were not even invited to the meeting which determined that there would be war! The Prime Minister took a phone call and immediately said yes to President Bush, because we all know that that decision was made many months ago, before the predeployment of troops. We were not even at the meeting where the decision was made, and yet one of the nations which was at the meeting—Spain—is not sending troops to this war. Just three nations are sending troops: the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia. What does that say about the sort of nation that we are? We are a multicultural nation, and yet here we are sending a message, particularly to the Islamic world, that we are a part of the old, white, Anglo-Christian order—and we have the President of the United States who invokes God in defending his government’s actions. I say that Islamic fundamentalism is a danger and a threat, but I also say that Christian fundamentalism is a danger and a threat. We should not be revisiting the Crusades, because that is how this war is being perceived by the international community. … Iraq does not represent a threat to Australia. We are, with this decision, supporting a pre-emptive strike, which changes forever the way that international politics works. The United Nations has been extremely damaged, not by its own actions but by the actions of the United States, the UK and Australia. There are alternatives to war.
18 September 2002
Of course, as other speakers have commented, there is no doubt that September 11 last year was an incredibly significant event in all our lives. What is important is that appropriate lessons are learnt and that the world moves forward from that horrific terrorist act. I believe one of the lessons of September 11 is that military power is not enough in the modern world; security can be achieved only by a victory of humane, democratic values. The talk and rhetoric coming from the government on this issue has changed substantially over recent months. It was only a short time ago that, because of the Labor Party’s principled and consistent position on this issue, the Minister for Foreign Affairs accused the Leader of the Opposition of talking like Saddam Hussein. Now, I am pleased that more rational debate has replaced that simplistic rhetoric, because Australia—and indeed the world—has nothing to benefit from war.
23 October 2003
Letter to US President George W. Bush, signed by 41 Labor politicians, including Anthony Albanese and Penny Wong, outlining why Labor opposed the Iraq War. According to a 4 November 2003 speech by Albanese, this letter was presented to Bush during the President’s visit to Australia.
“The friendship between our countries is longstanding and deeply felt. We have a great deal in common, particularly our commitment to democracy. We retain our commitment to the ANZUS alliance. That’s why we feel it’s important for you to understand why so many Australians opposed the war on Iraq. .. .The ALP firmly believes that international conflict should, wherever possible, be dealt with peacefully and through international co-operation under the auspices of the United Nations. When all attempts for a peaceful resolution have been exhausted, United Nations sanction is vital if force is to be used. … What is to prevent other countries from following the example of our attack on Iraq, and arguing the right to preventative self-defence? Why shouldn’t North and South Korea attack each other using the template we developed in Iraq? Or India and Pakistan? The precedent we have set is a very dangerous one, and there is every indication that the world will become less safe, not more, because of our actions. … Our own government knew of this increased risk before the war and refused to tell the Australian people.”. …
Albanese referenced the letter in a 4 November 2003 parliamentary rebuke to the Greens, which appears to have been aimed at the Greens’ heckling of Bush during his October 2003 address to the Australian parliament.
25 March 2003
It is with a considerable sense of sadness that I respond to the statement of the Minister for Science on the Maralinga Rehabilitation Technical Advisory Committee report, Rehabilitation of former nuclear test sites at Emu and Maralinga. In 1954, at the height of the Cold War, Prime Minister Menzies agreed to the British request for a permanent site to test nuclear weapons. Seven atomic bombs were detonated at Maralinga during 1956 and 1957, and a number of trials were undertaken, codenamed with very pleasant names: Kittens, Tims, Rats and Vixen. This was a political decision by a government that was subservient to the British government, and today there are parallels, with the Australian government being once again subservient to the decisions of a foreign power. Just as today the result of the decision to enter a war in Iraq has very negative consequences for our national sovereignty, certainly in the fifties the subservience that the Menzies government showed to its British masters had dire consequences for Australia. The Vixen trials were particularly ruthless, scattering radiotoxic plutonium over the desert to simulate accidental damage done to nuclear weapons from fire, explosion and accidental detonation. It appears that most of the contamination of the soil was the result of smaller, often clandestine trials rather than due to A-bombs. … In 1951 the Menzies government invited the British government to undertake nuclear testing on Australian soil, and the people whose land they were to destroy were not taken into account.The minister today made the same mistake.
Editors’ note: These statements were made by Anthony Albanese as the ALP opposed Australia’s participation in the illegal invasion of Iraq by the United States. Twenty years on, what does Anthony Albanese now believe?