WORLD  
comments_image -

Pacific Rift

The upcoming election in Australia could turn out to be a referendum on the country's participation in the 'Coalition of the Willing.'
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest World headlines via email.

 
 
 
 

After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Australia's Prime Minister John Howard told the U.S. Congress, "America has no better friend anywhere in the world than Australia." This might soon change.

Opposition leader Mark Latham, who vows to pull Australian troops out of Iraq and has described George W. Bush as the most incompetent and dangerous American president in living memory, could soon lead Australia.

Howard recently ended months of speculation by announcing Oct. 9 as the date for the country's federal election. His conservative government has been a staunch supporter of the Bush administration.

Bush refers to Howard as a close friend. Bush declared during his acceptance speech at the Republican convention, "I deeply appreciate the courage and wise counsel of leaders like Prime Minister Howard," naming him ahead of British leader Tony Blair. Bush has lavished praise on Howard's leadership, calling him a "man of steel" – provoking more than a few laughs in Australia. (Howard isn't exactly viewed as superhero material).

Ever since the Second World War, Australia and the U.S. have been close allies. Australian soldiers fought alongside Americans in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and both Gulf Wars. Australia was one of the few countries to send soldiers to Iraq before the fall of Baghdad.

Latham has been strongly critical of Howard's relationship with Bush, famously referring to the prime minister as an "arse-licker." Since assuming the role of opposition leader, Latham has toned down his comments but still argues that Australia should withdraw its troops from Iraq.

Latham's opposition to the Iraq war has led to an unprecedented U.S. intervention in Australian politics. Bush in June derided Latham, claiming "it would be disastrous for the leader of a great country like Australia to say that we're pulling out." He added that such action "would say that the Australian Government doesn't see the hope of a free and democratic society leading to a peaceful world."

Latham stated that he supported good relations between Australia and the U.S. and that "the alliance is bigger and stronger than the mistakes made in relation to Iraq." But U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage fired back, saying Latham could not choose the parts of the alliance he liked – it was all or nothing.

Attempting to heal a potential rift, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell emphasized, "Australia will always be a close friend of the U.S.," and that the U.S. respected the right of the Australians to choose their own leader.

Howard has made the U.S.-Australia alliance an election issue, charging that Latham "has demonstrated that in his new position he is dangerous so far as the American alliance is concerned. [Latham] has allowed his tribal dislike, because of the politics of the current American President, to overwhelm his concern for the national interest."

Howard says there isn't much difference between Bush and John Kerry's positions on Iraq, and that even a Democratic U.S. president wouldn't look favorably on Latham's position on Iraq. Howard argues that a positive relationship with the U.S. is very important for Australia's security.

The issue hasn't registered as a high priority for Australian voters. A recent survey found the three most important electoral issues were health policies, the economy and education. The latest opinion poll shows the government and opposition tied with 50 percent support each. If Latham wins and goes ahead with his promise to withdraw Australian troops, it will follow a similar move by the newly elected Spanish government, which drew criticism from both the American and Australian governments.

In practical terms, Australia's withdrawal would make little difference. There are fewer than 1,000 Australian soldiers in Iraq and they have no combat roles. The move would be more important symbolically as it would punch a lot of air out of Bush's claim to a "coalition of the willing" in Iraq.

submit to reddit

-
Email
Print
Share
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest World headlines via email
Advertisement
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading most read content ..
Advertisement
Record 45% of Iraq and Afghanistan Vets Have Filed for Disability

By Muriel Kane | Raw Story

 
 
President Obama's Memorial Day Address: "Honoring Those Who Made the Ultimate Sacrifice"

By Julianne Escobedo Shepherd | AlterNet

 
 
"Tubes": What the Internet is Made Of

By Laura Miller | Salon

 
 
Students at Stuyvesant Take Issue With Sexist Dress Code

By Jill F | Feministe

 
 
Chris Hayes on Memorial Day: Glamorizing and Justifying War with the Term "Hero"

By Julianne Escobedo Shepherd | AlterNet

 
 
Cory Booker vs. Philly Mayor Michael Nutter on Mitt Romney

By BooMan | Booman Tribune

 
 
How Florida Governor Rick Scott Could Steal The Election For Mitt Romney

By Judd Legum | ThinkProgress

 
 
Renowned Economist Simon Johnson Calls for a National Safety Board for Finance Ticking Time Bomb

By Lynn Parramore | AlterNet

 
 
Veterans' Gap

By Ed Kilgore | Washington Monthly

 
 
"Hero of War"–Rise Against Song Captures Iraq War Veteran’s Tragic Experience

By Amy Goodman | Democracy Now

 
 
 
 
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS
 
[ page served from web 1 ]