Vladimir Putin steps onto German soil and almost immediately throws the gauntlet down to the US, raising the spectre of another Cold War and what is the Australian commentariat and Opposition obsessed with? John Howard’s comments about a junior senator’s bid for the White House and his policies on another international issue – Iraq.
Howard won’t be complaining. Labor’s already lost two elections on foreign affairs, and he’d love to help them do it again.
Howard’s comments were good politics (whether they were diplomatically nice is another issue). As Putin’s comments show – major powers don’t have a problem criticising other major powers if they think it is warranted and in their own interest. Indeed, the US Ambassador quickly bought into Australian politics during the last election campaign when he criticised Latham’s position on Iraq.
Out around the barbeques, no-one’s going to be worried about whether the diplomatic cocktail circle choked on their olives, they’ll be glad that an Australian leader was happy to speak up in the national interest.
They’ll also be bemused to think that so many Australian commentators and US politicians think that the Iraq War is just a matter of domestic US politics, rather than being a major international one. We’ve got soldiers and our own national security at stake in this war. Everyone knows that we got into it to pay the premium on our defense pact insurance policy with the US. If the US thinks Iraq just comesS down to their own national interest and bugger their allies, then that is more damaging to all their alliances than anything John Howard has said.
If Obama, or anyone likely to get elected, is going to squib on the deal, then they should look elsewhere for support to give them international credibility next time they want it.
Average Australians will also be reminded that Howard has been lampooned as Bush’s Deputy Sheriff, but they won’t see these comments as those of a mere side-kick. They’ll contrast them to those of former ALP governments when we were supine to every south-east Asian leader who took umbrage for being called “recalcitrant†or who buttered up the Prime Ministerial ego by declaring him a “sonâ€.
While it’s the consensus commentariat position to criticise Howard on this issue, it should be remembered that the unfashionable most often inherit the earth. Rudd’s best attribute is that he is a nerd, his fatal flaw may be that he wants to be fashionable, something that Howard has never wanted to be, and which has helped him to at least two election wins.
February 13, 2007 | Graham
Deputy Sheriff shoots the Marshall
2 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
It must be very difficult to stay awake and not believe you are psychic whenever Howard does the Errol Flynn.But, I felt warm to Alexander Putin dressing down something American,even if I think sometimes Alexander is somewhat threatening to.At least the mind works,even if it is somewhat, lets say, prone to frighten us small citizens.I think that man should of had a concerted effort to make him come to Australia ,to get the diamond he is to be a nugget also for the common herd and mob.Must we compare our illustrious leader with a Russian?Only psychics would dare do so,like lifting a little finger.
Comment by philiptravers — February 13, 2007 @ 8:42 pm
It seems to me that Graham talks about something he lacks any perception of what it is about. He talks about “national security†as if this is really at stake while in fact all we had was a murderous armed invasion for political purposes contrary to our “national security†in deed unconstitutional/illegal. I will not claim that Graham is brain dead, albeit I might have the impression of his comments.
Lets be clear, I succeeded on 19 July 2006 in both appeals in the County court of Victoria against the Federal Government lawyers, UNCHALLENGED on each and every constitutional issue. For example, that John Howard was not re-elected in 2001 as the purported 10 November 2001 federal election was constitutionally invalid!
Also, as part of the case I placed before the Court that John Howard, purportedly Prime Minister, had no prerogative powers to DECLARE WAR or PEACE! Therefore his conduct to authorize an armed invasion into the sovereign nations Afghanistan/Iraq was and remains to be unconstitutional/illegal. In fact treachery within the provisions of Section 24AA of the Crime Act (Cth).
How on earth can any fair dinkum Australian argue that John Howard acted in the national interest and/or for the national security where he himself took the law in his own hands and disregarded constitutional limits.
If the matter of invasion was indeed in the national interest then the Governor-General was constitutionally in the position to authorize the invasions by publishing in the Gazette a DECLARATION OF WAR. However, as the Framers of the Constitution made clear, the Governor-General could decline the advice of the Minister of Defence (a Prime Minister has no constitutional position in this) where he considered that it would be against the interest of the GENERAL PUBLIC to authorize such invasion.
It is the Governor-General, being the Chief Executive/administrator of the Commonwealth of Australia (at the time Peter Hollingworth) who obviously refused to publish in the Gazette a DECLARATION OF WAR, AND AS SUCH john Howard and his cohorts were acting against the national interest to get involved in unconstitutional/illegal invasions.
See also my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com
Graham, it is up to you to try to prove me wrong, but keep in mind that I defeated the Federal Government lawyers after a 5-year legal battle on all constitutional issues I raised! If you can’t prove me wrong then I would look forward to that you put the “enforcement of law†above political ambitions of anyone, and recognize that “national security†is not what a politician may fabricate it to be, while plunging the Commonwealth of Australia into a bloodbath but it is what is in the interest of Australians as determined by the Governor-General being permissible.
Some media reports wrongly claim that John Howard is a Head of State this underlines how little is understood that John Howard is no more but a servant to the Governor-General, albeit his ego may demand more.
Comment by mr. G. H. Schorel-Hlavka — February 14, 2007 @ 4:17 pm