US War on Terrorism in Pictures:
Former US Ambassador to the UN Richard Holbrooke plans strategy with Albanian terrorists in Kosovo, 1998
Posted on 02/04/2003 5:44:34 PM PST by conservativecorner
Pacific Rim Bureau (CNSNews.com) - Australian Prime Minister John Howard has challenged his political opponents and skeptical citizens on the need to disarm Iraq, delivering a strong statement explaining why his government is supporting the U.S. effort.
Howard told lawmakers that failure by the international community to act against Iraq now would "gravely compromise the authority of the United Nations."
It would also encourage other rogue states to mimic Saddam Hussein and make a regime like North Korea - which has threatened to resume a frozen nuclear program - almost impossible to deal with, he added.
Howard also made a case for attacking Iraq short of a direct U.N. Security Council mandate.
"The sense of the Security Council could be that it acquiesces in, or acknowledges the need for, military action without giving it direct sanction," he said.
"It is possible that the majority of the Council members could vote for military action, but the resolution could be subsequently vetoed by a permanent member."
If such a situation - a "gray" rather than "black or white" outcome - should arise, Australia and other countries would have to decide what to do next.
In making that decision, Howard said, Australia would be influenced by its powerful desire to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMD); its alliance with the U.S. and collective military action precedents set in the past.
In that regard, he recalled that NATO members had attacked Serbia in 1999 in the absence of direct Security Council authorization.
It's the clearest signal from Howard yet that Australia will likely join a U.S.-led war even without U.N. approval.
No-Confidence Motion
In a new poll by The Australian newspaper, 76 percent of respondents said they oppose Australian participation in U.S.-led military action. Yet 75 percent of those polled also said they believe Saddam is hiding WMD.
If a war was sanctioned by the U.N., 57 percent of respondents said they would support it.
Buoyed by such poll figures, opposition parties have been attacking Howard's stance.
They are expected to join forces Wednesday in passing a motion of no confidence in his handling of the Iraq crisis.
Responding to Howard's address, official opposition leader Simon Crean said he did not believe the prime minister's assertion that Canberra had yet to make a final decision on whether to join a U.S.-led war.
He noted that an Australian military contingent is already en route to the Gulf to join U.S. and British forces gathering there and accused Howard of committing troops to war without a mandate from the Australian people or parliament.
In his address, Howard said he would not commit troops to war until satisfied that all achievable options to peacefully resolve the crisis had been explored.
But he also made it clear he did not expect Saddam to disarm short of force.
"Given the past intransigent attitude of Iraq, it is very difficult to conceive that even the full weight of Security Council opinion, unanimously expressed and threatening imminent military action, will induce Saddam to comply with his international obligations."
Howard told Australians that they could no longer remain aloof from the dangers of terrorism, citing the loss of some 90 fellow countrymen and women killed in last October's Bali bombing.
"There is a new dimension to international relations, and we cannot ignore it. The atrocity in Bali demonstrated something Australia had never fully understood until then - that we are truly vulnerable.
"In light of this, we have reappraised the way we view and deal with the threat of terrorism. We understand the danger of leaving threats unaddressed."
Warning from Saddam
Also Tuesday, Iraq's senior diplomat in Australia delivered a blunt warning from Baghdad that Australians would pay a heavy price - "big casualties" - if their country joined a U.S.-led attack.
Charge d'affaires Saad al Samarai, who has just returned from consultations in Iraq, told reporters Saddam was closely watching developments in Australia.
The diplomat said Iraqis were puzzled about why Australia wanted to get involved in a fight. \sb100\sa100"For Australia, it's not your case," he said. "For Americans, okay, they would like to control the region and control the oil." Canberra is also coming under pressure from its Muslim neighbors. Indonesia's foreign minister, Hassan Wirajuda, told the Australian Broadcasting Corp. that Howard's position risked fanning Islamic hostility toward Australia.
"I would say that the intensive campaigns and even talking about war against Iraq would tend to radicalize certain elements in our society, in the Islamic world in particular," he said.
"And, you know, it's very easy for the masses in the Islamic world to conclude that this war against Iraq is, in the end, a war against Muslims."
Earlier, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said Australia was seen as playing the role of regional "deputy sheriff" to the U.S.
Asked about that comment, Wirajuda concurred that Indonesia and "many countries in the region" shared the perception.
Howard will hold talks with President Bush in Washington next Monday.
They will discuss Iraq, as well as the standoff over North Korea's nuclear program and the wider war on terrorism, according to a White House statement that referred to Australia as "among the most stalwart of America's allies."
US War on Terrorism in Pictures:
Former US Ambassador to the UN Richard Holbrooke plans strategy with Albanian terrorists in Kosovo, 1998
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.