Democrats & Liberals: Archives

October 09, 2004

Will Bush Keep Australia in the Coalition?

We may find out the answer to that question very soon, as Australia’s parliamentary elections are happening today. The latest polls suggest Bush ally John Howard may even add to his majority, which would be a big relief for our President. The opposition leader Mark Latham has promised to pull out of Iraq if elected.

Though the results fall within the margin of error, all but a handful of polls over the course of the campaign have forecast a victory for the government.

If Australia's 13 million voters give Mr Howard a fourth election victory he will equal the tally of the 1980s Labor prime minister, Bob Hawke, and potentially outstrip the length of his term in office.

Bookmakers have Mr Howard as a strong favourite to retain power; his government holds 82 seats in the 150-seat lower house and would be out of office if it lost just seven seats and the support of independents. Labor needs to win 12 seats to claim victory.

But Australian elections frequently throw up unexpected surges against ruling parties and Mr Howard yesterday told wavering voters that a protest vote could be enough to eject him.

I found this discussion among mostly Latham supporters from two weeks ago to have some interesting insights, including this from someone stationed in Baghdad:

Whether or not the Iraq misadventure was legal - and the UN is hardly disinterested in their determination of that now irrelevant question - virtually none of the reasons and doctrinal changes that led to it held water beforehand, let alone with the benefit of hindsight.

Even removal of Saddaam the Insane on the grounds of being a nasty tyrant and kleptocrat hardly distingushed him from numerous others, some of whom might actually be able to hit the side of a barn door with a dirty piece of ordnance. He couldn't do it in 1991 and the place went downhill after that.

Some people here in Iraq will tell you that almost anything is better than Saddaam. Some have returned to help restore the country - a generally positive story in a place that needs more. Others however will tell you that in the 18 months since Saddaam, they feel less secure than when he was here.

Many who stayed throughout the Saddaam time (even if because they had no choice) are now considering leaving because they see no future for their children. Or because their children can not walk safely to school. Or because on the way one of them was killed in a car bomb planted by some nutter who may or may not be Iraqi.

and this in a later response from someone in Australia:
What bothers me is the absence of international political savvy in Australian voters. It goes like this: Howard was too weak to say "No!" to George W Bush. We entered the war, a war in which 70% of the population was opposed. A war which Mark Latham tried to stop, on it's eve, by saying that Howard was, indeed, "too weak to say 'No!' to the most incompetent and dangerous president in living memory". True words, often quoted out of their proper context. A war in which, Mark said in parliament, would result in "bombs being dropped on a population in which one person in four is a child under 15". Not quoted often, but it should be. Dig up his "March of Folly" speech and read it for yourself.

Now, one year of occupation later, we have Iraq on the verge of civil war and domestic collapse. The war was obviously embarked upon with no clear plan for peace. Normally a government with any decency would resign in disgrace. But not George W Bush, and not the Bennelong Bonaparte, nosiree. He still holds out that this disastrous choice was "in the interests of Australian national security", and poll after poll tells us that the majority believe him. He also says, "I don't retreat from my decision. In fact I would do it again".

Sounds familiar doesn't it.

Posted by Walker Willingham at October 9, 2004 05:28 AM
Comments
Comment #28834

I’ve been watching this one too. The funny thing is, Howard says he’s going to start pulling out some of the remaining 850 Australian troops in the next few months anyhow.

Also, the talk of Iraq being a major issue in the election has been overstated. Of the 850 troops in the region, only about 100 are even in Iraq. They’re training the Iraqi Army.

When I was in Australia last month, the talk was all about Howard’s exceptionally strong (real-world strong, not Bush-world strong) economy. The only thing Latham was really challenging Howard on was national healthcare.

Posted by: American Pundit at October 9, 2004 07:22 AM
Comment #28847

Australia is like one huge Dixie South with an east cost dotted with some cities, a couple huge ones. The city vote wants Latham by a majority, and the rural landowning vote wants Howard as I understand it from the radio. Howard wins! But, what good will Howard be without Bush as a sidekick? That’s the question.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 9, 2004 10:12 AM
Comment #28851
what good will Howard be without Bush as a sidekick?

I thought it was the other way around. Didn’t Bush give Howard a great big deputy’s badge? I seem to remember Howard rhetorically throwing it back over the White House fence.

Posted by: American Pundit at October 9, 2004 10:40 AM
Comment #28857

David wrote:
“Howard wins!”

Indeed this is one embarrassment that our President no longer needs to worry about, as reported in this Associated Press story.

SYDNEY, Australia - Prime Minister John Howard scored a convincing victory in Australia’s federal election Saturday, winning a historic fourth term in a vote ensuring the staunch U.S. ally keeps its troops in Iraq.

With more than 70 percent of votes tallied, Howard appeared likely to increase his government’s majority in parliament - exceeding most analysts’ predictions that the result would be very tight.

Fortunately, though, Bush still needs to worry about the American voters, and they will turn out in record numbers this year. That doesn’t bode well for Mr. Bush.

Posted by: Walker Willingham at October 9, 2004 11:17 AM
Comment #28880

Howard won. Now the question is, can Australia keep from becoming as divided a nation as the U.S. is becoming over this war?

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 9, 2004 01:34 PM
Comment #28941
can Australia keep from becoming as divided a nation as the U.S. is becoming over this war?

That’s what I was trying to say in my first post. When I was in Australia last month, the real issues were Australia’s strong economy and healthcare. The Iraq war was only discussed in an abstract way.

The Iraq occupation isn’t as real to them as it is to us. Almost every American has a family member or knows one of the hundreds of thousands of US troops and Guard personnel who are serving, or have served, or are getting ready to serve in Iraq.

Australia has only 850 troops in the region. There are only about 100 Australian troops actually in Iraq - and they’re not out running patrols and getting shot at, they’re training Iraqi troops.

About 75% of Australians are against the occupation, but it wasn’t a key issue in Howard’s election. They just don’t have as much invested in Iraq as we do.

Posted by: American Pundit at October 10, 2004 06:54 AM
Comment #29251

Sorry to break it to you guys but despite common feeling being against Iraq it was almost a non-event in the election. You are right about the troops, there have been no Australian troops in “combat” positions since the war ‘officially’ ended when out SAS units pulled out. Personally I am quite annoyed about the election outcome because once again the public voted for personally economically beneficial purposes rather than policies that would benefit society.

Posted by: Ben at October 12, 2004 01:03 AM