Australia’s Subservience to the US

A blistering piece by John Pilger in The New Statesman,”” shows how far prime minister John Howard has gone in pandering to US interests, whether or not they serve Australia.

An illustration: Australia joined the “coalition of the willing” even though 93% of the population was opposed to the war.

Pilger is generally correct, save perhaps the role (or more accurately, the effectiveness) of Murdoch in supporting Howard. Two of the five “free to air” networks (meaning broadcast) stations are effectively public television (ABC and SBS) and are centrist/liberal on the Australian spectrum, which is further to the left than the US. Murdoch doesn’t have a free to air station (cable takeup rates are very low, so cable stations are irrelevant). And Murdoch is far from the only newspaper owner in Australia. No doubt he is very influential in some circles, but my experience is that the constellation of Fox and other right-wingers are far more effective in the US than their counterparts are in Oz (for one thing, people in the US are still afraid of sounding too liberal, while no one has that inhibition in Australia). But it has been nearly three years since I lived there, and the specter of Labor leader Kevin Rudd excoriating protesters during Dick Cheney’s recent visit is deeply troubling.

But the US-Australian linkage may be breaking down. The environment has emerged as the top issue in Australia, thanks in part to the worsening of the long-standing drought, and Howard is suddenly looking more green (in part to combat the very real possiblity that Labor might win). That, as we noted, already puts him at odds with Bush and removes some valuable cover for the US’s position on carbon emissions (Australia and the US are the only two advanced nations to have refused to sign the Kyoto accords).

From Pilger:

John Howard’s servility to the US is even greater than Tony Blair’s and has earned him the nickname Bush’s deputy sheriff. The conspiracy between Washington, the media and politicians is eroding the country’s freedoms

In June this year, 26,000 US and Australian troops will take part in bombarding the ancient fragile landscape of Australia. They will storm the Great Barrier Reef, gun down “terrorists” and fire laser-guided missiles at some of the most pristine wilderness on earth. Stealth, B-1 and B-52 bombers (the latter alone each carry 30 tonnes of bombs) will finish the job, along with a naval onslaught. Underwater depth charges will explode where endangered species of turtle breed. Nuclear submarines will discharge their high-level sonar, which destroy the hearing of seals and other marine mammals.

Run via satellite from Australia and Hawaii, Operation Talisman Sabre 2007 is warfare by remote control, designed for “pre-emptive” attacks on other countries. Australians know little about this. The Australian parliament has not debated it; the media is not interested. The result of a secret treaty signed by John Howard’s government with the Bush administration in 2004, it includes the establishment of a vast, new military base in Western Australia, which will bring the total of known US bases around the world to 738. No matter the setback in Iraq, the US military empire and its ambitions are growing.

Australia is important because of a remarkable degree of servility that Howard has taken beyond even that of Tony Blair….

This sub-imperial role has a history. When the six Australian states federated as a nation in 1901, “a Commonwealth . . . independent and proud”, said the headlines, the Australian colonists made clear that independence was the last thing they wanted. They wanted Mother England to be more protective of her most distant colony which, they pleaded, was threatened by a host of demons, not least the “Asiatic hordes” who would fall down on them as if by the force of gravity….

Australia’s modern political class has the same hunger for the recognition of great power. In the 1950s, prime minister Robert Menzies allowed Britain to explode nuclear bombs in Australia, sending clouds of radioactive material across populated areas…

An undeclared maxim of Australian politics is that prime ministers become “statesmen” only when they serve imperial interests. (Honourable exceptions have been dealt with by smear and subversion). In the 1960s, Menzies connived to be “asked” to send Australian troops to fight for the Americans in Vietnam. Red China was coming, he said. Howard is more extreme; in his decade of power, he has eroded the very basis of Australia’s social democratic institutions and cast his country as the model of a Washington-style democracy, where the only popular participation is that of voting every few years for two “opposing” parties which share almost identical economic, foreign and “cultural” policies.

For “cultural”, read race, which has always been important in creating an insidious state of fear and compliance. In 2001, Howard was re-elected after manipulating the “children overboard affair”, in which his senior advisers claimed that Afghan refugees had callously thrown their children into the sea in order to be rescued by an Australian naval vessel. They produced photographs that were proven false, but only after Howard had touched every xenophobic nerve in the white electorate and was duly re-elected….

Above all, it is the control of dissent that has changed Australia. Rupert Murdoch’s influence has been critical, far more so than in Britain. Whenever Howard or one of his more oafish ministers want to bend an institution or smear an opponent, they carry out the task in alliance with a pack of rabid mostly Murdoch commentators…

The National Museum of Australia, the national child benefits centre, Aboriginal policy bodies and other independent institutions have been subjected to similar intimidation. A friend who holds a senior university post told me: “You dare not speak out. You dare not oppose the government or ‘the big end of town’ [corporate Australia].”

As embarrassing corporate crime rises, the treasurer, Peter Costello, has blithely announced a ban on moral or ethical boycotts of certain products. There was no debate; the media was simply told. One of Costello’s senior advisers, David Gazard, recently distinguished an American-run seminar in Melbourne, organised by the Public Relations Institute of Australia, at which those paying A$595 were taught the tricks of conflating activism with “terrorism” and “security threat”. Suggestions included: “Call them suicide bombers . . . make them all look like terrorists . . . tree-hugging, dope-smoking, bloody university graduate, anti-progress . . .” They were advised on how to set up bogus community groups and falsify statistics…

Having recently spoken at overflowing public meetings in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne, I am left in no doubt that many are deeply worried that freedoms in their sunny idyll are slipping away. They were given a vivid reminder of this the other day when Vice President Dick Cheney came to Sydney to “thank” Howard for his support. The New South Wales state government rushed through a law that allowed Cheney’s 70 secret service guards to carry live weapons. With the police, they took over the centre of Sydney and closed the Harbour Bridge and much of the historic Rocks area. Seventeen-vehicle motorcades swept theatrically here and there, as if Howard was boasting to Cheney: “Look at my control over this society; look at my compliant country.” And yet his guest and mentor is a man who, having refused to fight in Vietnam, has brought back torture and lied incessantly about Iraq, who has made millions in stock options as his Halliburton company profits from the carnage and who has vetoed peace with Iran.

Almost every speech he gives includes a threat. By any measure of international law, Cheney is a major war criminal, yet it was left to a small, brave group of protesters to uphold the Aussie myth of principled rebellion and stand up to the police. The Labor Party leader, Kevin Rudd, the embodiment of compliance, called them “violent ferals”; one of the protesters was 70 years old. The next day, the headline in the Sydney Morning Herald read: “Terrorists have ambitions of empire, says Cheney.” The irony was exquisite, if lost.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

One comment

  1. Anonymous

    I am an American and I appreciated this article. This author knew what he/she was talking about. I am very saddened by our leaders’ empire-building and believe that we should remove ourselves from most of the countries we have troops/bases in and come home to protect our own borders and stay out of other countries’affairs. I pray that the citizens of other countries will understand that most of the American people feel as I do. If our leaders would uphold our Constitution, we could be a great nation again. Pleaes pray for America. Thank you.

Comments are closed.