Very disturbing questions are arising from reports of Australian intelligence officers rebutting claims by former prime minister, John Howard, that their advice supported allegations of an imminent threat from
Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction.

Howard repeatedly claimed that he had clear and conclusive evidence about the imminent threat from Saddam’s weapons, and on this basis decided to join the invasion of Iraq in 2003, along with the USA and Britain. No other country joined this invasion, not even erstwhile US allies like Canada and New Zealand.

Howard and others in his government later maintained that they were surprised no weapons of mass destruction were found following the invasion.

This apologia has been blown apart by revelations that intelligence agencies advised the Australian government that Saddam’s regime had very few chemical or biological weapons left, and was not an imminent danger to other countries. Moreover, there was no evidence that Saddam had been involved in terrorist attacks on the United States, despite claims to the contrary.

Former Liberal Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, is among a group of eminent Australians calling for an enquiry into Australia’s involvement in the Iraq war. Such calls will likely become much increasingly insistent, as it appears that the  Howard government deliberately misled the Australian people into the war against the advice of its own intelligence agencies. As Fraser said, “the war was begun on the basis of a lie”. In response to Howard’s address at the Lowy Institute on 9 April, the secretary of the Intelligence Committee from 2002 to 2007, Margaret Swieringa, replied in an explosive article in the Ageon 12 April:“None of the government’s arguments were supported by the intelligence presented to it by its own agencies. None of these arguments were true.”

The implications of these revelations are very serious: that government leaders manipulated intelligence reports as pretexts for the invasion of Iraq, in defiance of international law and violating key criteria of the western tradition of just war, on which international relations and peacekeeping rely so heavily.

Not only did these leaders deliberately, it seems, mislead the Australian people, they did so in the face of widespread opposition from leading thinkers, huge mass protests, and the concerns of most churches and social policy connections religious networks internationally. Pope John Paul II himself led the Catholic Church in opposing the invasion, with the support of all the major bishops’ conferences  hroughout the world, including that of the USA itself.

The churches have historically been key custodians of the just war tradition to constrain violence and warfare. Yet for the first time in our history, Howard took Australia to war against firm opposition from the churches.

Many people at the time supported the war in Iraq on the presumption that the government must have had very reliable information on which to base its decision, even if it had not fully revealed this. It is now very clear that this was not the case. The reasons the Howard government adduced were simply spurious.

Many of those who had studied the debate closely already knew this. There was a wealth of information from highly reputable institutes and expert commentators, challenging the claims of the Bush Administration and the British Blair government about Saddam having weapons of mass destruction, posing an imminent threat, and being linked to Al Qaeda.

Before the war I assembled such data in a 17,000- word pamphlet, War on Iraq: Is it Just? published by the Australian Catholic Social Justice Council, rebutting the arguments for war. How is it that my critique was so accurate, while the Howard government could be so wrong? My point is, the truth was not hard to determine.

The responsibility does not lie with Howard alone. Others were implicated in this collapse of moral values and judgement, including membersof his government (some of them still in office),their advisers, and sections of the media.What accountability will there now be for all this,with such savage consequences for millions of people worldwide? Australia could have played a constructive role in restraining the United States and Britain from this venture. Instead, our government encouraged the rush to war.

The full import of the apparent deceit of the Howard government has yet to hit home to Australians. If it is true that our government deliberately misled our country on such a grave issue, is it acceptable that those responsible can simply walk away, with no accountability whatever?

As Dr Margaret Beavis from the Medical Association for the Prevention of War pointed out in the Age on 12 April, how do we ensure that a future prime minister no longer has the power to involve Australia in war?

And what of the media and commentators who campaigned so diligently on the case for war, particularly in the Murdoch press and other media networks? Was it simply a means to make money from the media, or
ideology and political manoeuvring? Is there no accountability here either?

Dr Bruce Duncan lectures in history and social ethics in the MCD University of Divinity, including courses on war and peace.

To read this article in full, click HERE.

Image:March against war in Iraq by Flyover Living, flickr cc

The tenth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq fell on 19 March, but one wonders if we have learned the lessons from that war. To mark the anniversary in Iraq, a bomb killed 50 people and wounded many more. For a country of 24.6 million in 2003 (31 million in 2012), the constant random killing and violence seem endless.

We know now, of course, that the two major pretexts for the invasion were at least erroneous, if not outright lies: that Iraq was intent on building weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear ones, and that it was implicated in the terrorist attacks on the United States.

To read this article in full, click HERE.

Note This article was written prior to Stephen Smith’s announcements concerning Australia’s commitments in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan has been described as ‘the graveyard of empires’. The British suffered defeats there before reaching agreement on the border between India and Afghanistan during the great empire game with Russia in the 19th century. The former Soviet Union, too, had its nose well and truly bloodied when it invaded and occupied in 1979-883. The country is made up of tribal regions – only in 1747 did a leader of the Pushtun form a confederacy, and not until the 1830s did it take on the appearance of a single nation. Yet violence seems endemic; a hostile geographical environment hinders communications; the climate is very harsh; and above all there seems a fierceness in the people who defend their lands. It is traditionally peopled by regional tribes headed by warlords.

When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains, 
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains,
An’ go to your Gawd like a soldier. 
Rudyard Kipling The Young British Soldier

To read this article in full, click HERE.

Photo courtesy San Diego Air & Space Museum Archives, flickr cc.

The International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL)  – the NGO leader on this issue – estimates that around 4,000-5,000 people were maimed or killed by landmines last year alone, and that millions more suffer from the agricultural, economic, and psychological impacts of the weapons. They estimate that there are still tens of millions of landmines in the ground in 78 countries. And UNICEF estimates that 30-40 percent of victims are children under 15 years of age. To read this article in full, click HERE.

Photo Landmine by Duke Human Rights Center Robin Kirk, flickr cc

The UN has failed to reach agreement on a draft text for an Arms Trade Treaty, which would seek to establish controls on the international trade in arms, and, in particular, to ban their illicit trade. It would require countries to assess if a proposed arms export could be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian or human rights law. The scope would be wide-ranging, from warships, combat aircraft, and tanks, to small arms.

Click HERE to read this article in full.

Photo United Nations Gun by Aristoteles83, flickrcc.

Fr Joseph’s talk on 31 August at Box Hill will be posted on this site shortly.
He coordinates the Franciscan networks around the world for justice, environment, and peace.

Aspects of the use of drones – those remote-controlled small planes used by theUS and theUK to attack targets and for surveillance – have been questioned lately. Drones have been used increasingly by the US to target al-Qaeda in particular as well as the Taliban.

Like most forms of combat, the use of drones has ethical flaws and issues. But it seems to be one of those breakthrough weapons – like gunpowder and the musket in earlier times – which give the user a great advantage.

To read this article in full, click HERE.

Photo Offshore winds on the SS Gairloch shipwreck, by dcysurfer/Dave Young, flickr cc

Firstly, President Obama announced a change in US nuclear defence policy. In a statement of 6 April, Nuclear Posture Review1, the United States declared for the first time that America would not use its nuclear arsenal against non-nuclear states that abided
by the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

Secondly, and two days after this announcement, Obama signed an agreement with Dimitry Medvedev, the Russian President. This was the new START agreement2. Both pledged to reduce their country’s stockpile of nuclear weapons by 30% over the next seven years.

Thirdly, Obama chaired a Nuclear Security Summit in Washington.3 Defence Minister
John Faulkner represented Australia. That Summit endorsed a program of actions to enhance the security of nuclear materials around the world, in particular to improve nuclear security to counter the challenge of nuclear terrorism.

Click HERE to read the full update.

Photo: whitehouse.gov

Starting from first principles there are of course the teachings of Christ. Christ espoused love and peace throughout his mission. This, the Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes, parables such as the Good Samaritan, love of your enemies as well as neighbour are all squarely counter to nuclear proliferation and the threat to humanity that this poses.

Click HERE to read the full statment

Photo: Chris Devers- flickr CC

2009 was a year of hope for nuclear disarmament. After many fruitless years there seems to be a will by the key players – especially the Obama administration – to take real action. But there is a long way to go, and there are many problems. As Copenhagen and Doha have demonstrated, multilateral agreements are immensely difficult.

Nuclear disarmament was in the news in December for a number of reasons.

Click HERE to read the full report.