Australia is in home straight for Federal Election 2007, with 9 days to go; an editorialpublished today puts things in perspective. "Don’t Mention The War", Foreign Policy in the Australian election has been the dog that didn’t bark, and despite The Prime Ministers reputation for being "sneaky and dishonest", the Labor Party have shied away from the War, even though most Australian’s were against it from the start, and that number still hangs around 75% against, and despite high profile deaths of Australian soldiers during the campaign, not a peep. So what is going on here?
This can lead to only one conclusion: Labor's research does not indicate that Iraq is a vote-changing issue. And although Howard's electoral position is dire, his personal approval ratings are high, nothing at all like Paul Keating's personal approval ratings in 1996, nothing at all like Richard Nixon's ratings in the latter stages of Watergate and Vietnam
So it’s not an issue, but the Labor parties are much dovish right? Like the Democrats!
Labor's actual policy differences with the Howard Government, even on Iraq, are very small. It would withdraw, over a rotation and a half that might take nine months, the 500 combat troops Australia has in southern Iraq.
So Australia is out of Iraq by September 2008, right? Well not totally!
...it would keep in place the large security detachment guarding the Australian embassy; it would keep in place the Australian naval detachments deployed in the Persian Gulf and supporting the Iraq operation; it would keep other substantial military assets in the Middle East in support of the Americans in Iraq; and it would be happy to train Iraqi soldiers in neighboring countries. It would also make an increased aid commitment to the Iraqi Government of Nouri al-Maliki, a government derided on the international Left as propped up by the Americans.
So Australia is actually redeploying to Kuwait. But surely since Labor are the Left of Australian poltics, you’d expect a cool reception for GW since he even interfered in the Australian election while at APEC, and pushed John Howard as the best leader to anyone that would listen. Well How bout the Hard Feelings?
A Rudd government would also do all this with the maximum possible consultation with Washington and with the minimum desire to embarrass the Bush administration or the US.
So a nice smiley photo of Kevin Rudd and Bush is on the books. In substance and ceremony the relationship on the "War on Terror" and Australia’s contribution basically remain the same. Kevin keeps our Navy in harms way while Bush beats the drum on Iran, and our soldiers just train on the other side of the Kuwait border, ready for any "emergency action" in Iraq. If Australians hoped the nations "Terror Footprint" would be reduced by a Labor win (which is basically a done deal now 9 days out) they are totally wrong. And if Iran comes up, Rudd has made no commitment either way; on the other hand John Howard went dovish on this issue and said no. What to make of all this?
There are no votes in being seen as "soft on terror", which means we can expect our security forces to continue to harass Australia’s Muslim communities. ASIO, the nation’s spy agency has been embarrassed by poorly trained staff, who use less than professional methods to conduct interviews with people of interest. We have seen so many terror trials ending in a farce, due to procedural and just out right craziness by the Police and their wrath.
And where ever America goes, Australia will follow, right off the cliff, to protect our National Security. What an Oxymoronic Policy.