Holding Howard to account
“The recent release of American military information from Wikileaks show evidence of tens of thousands of civilian casualties as a result of out invasion of Iraq, as well as widespread abuse and torture of prisoners. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Many people now regard the war as a strategic failure and think that it probably incited more terrorist violence than it stopped. How should you be held accountable for Australia’s participation in the war on Iraq?”
That’s the question I put to John Howard on the ABC’s Q&A program last week, and it elicited a predictable response. It was a typically evasive politician’s answer, dropping keywords like “terrorists”, broadening the topic, and studiously avoiding the real thrust of the question: his own accountability. Not only did Howard commit our nation to war without asking parliament – ignoring the “mob” of hundreds of thousands of Australians who marched against it – as our leader he acted on behalf of all Australians in the eyes of the world.
To some extent the people of Australia held Howard accountable at the ballot box in 2007, but is that really enough? It might be enough for us – who were just so happy at the time to get his face off the TV screen and out of our lives for so many reasons – but is it enough for the victims of war?
As Howard said on the program while discussing why he let David Hicks linger for 5 years in a Kafkaesque nightmare in Guantanamo Bay, when you go overseas you are subject to different laws, and the consequences must be borne. Howard himself, when he acted on the international stage as the Prime Minister and leader of Australia, made himself subject to international law.
The planning, initiation, and waging of the war on Iraq was illegal. Former Secretary General Kofi Anan made this clear in 2004. According to the International Commission of Jurists, the war on Iraq constituted a war of aggression, waged “neither in self-defense against armed attack nor sanctioned by UN Security Counsel resolution authorizing the use of force by member states.” As was famously declared during the Nuremburg trials: “to initiate a war of aggression…is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
International laws exist, and nations allow themselves to be subject to them, in order that we should all live in a just and peaceful society. Violators of international law must be held to account before an international court in order that victims and perpetrators alike can see justice done. Perhaps most importantly, there must be a deterrent set for those who in the future consider to waging an aggressive war against a foreign nation.
The true number of casualties in Iraq is anybody’s guess, with estimates ranging from around 100,000 (US Military estimates) to 650,000 (Lancet survey).
The economic cost of the war on Iraq is also profound, with Josef Stiglitz, former chief economist for the world bank, estimating a ‘moderate scenario’ of around three trillion (US$3,000,000,000,000) US dollars. Imagine what good could have been achieved with that amount of money.
For us here in the Australia, many people consider the “Iraq War” over (though they might not be sure who “won”). For those left alive in Iraq the war is still going on, and the country is in ruins. Coalition forces have created tens of thousands of orphans, widows and widowers, all of whom can justifiably hold a deep and abiding resentment towards the Western armies who tore apart their homeland. They’re the ‘lucky’ ones left alive. This is John Howard’s legacy to Australia.
By Peter Gray
Peter Gray is a long time peace activist, who gained notoriety after throwing his shoes at former PM John Howard during a recent episode of QandA.
