Political Corrections

with Mungo MacCallum

A Flood of truth amidst weapons of mass deception

The release of the Flood Report into our intelligence services - well, the bits of it deemed fit for public viewing - will probably end the debate about Australia's entry into the Iraq war, largely because both sides of politics would prefer it that way: the calm that follows the deluge.

Iraq will still feature as an election issue of course: John Howard and Alexander Downer will continue their parroting Washington's lines about not cutting or running, while Labor's new triumvirate of Mark Latham, Kevin Rudd and Kim Beazley will continue to proclaim the value of their own approach to the American alliance. But all the evidence we are likely to get about what the intelligence services told the prime minister and what the prime minister told the parliament (and of course the rest of us) is now in. It is time for the verdict.

The Liberal-dominated parliamentary committee, which reported in March that on 27 occasions Howard and his ministers went beyond what was justified in the intelligence reports in their efforts to sell the case for war. The ex-intelligence supremo Phillip Flood did not go into that area, contenting himself with the finding that Howard had not actually heavied the services to produce what he wanted to hear; what Howard made out of what he received was conveniently ignored.

However, what he received was flimsy, incomplete and basically not worth the paper it wasn't written on. The unspoken conclusion was that Howard had built his edifice of propaganda on a foundation of pure slush.

Howard's response was that he believed everything that he was told, so he hadn't sent the country to war based on a lie. But he went on to add that the intelligence reports about weapons of mass destruction were only part of the reason for his decision; the decision was political as well as strategic. Of course, he had an eye to the importance of the American alliance as well.

So finally comes the admission: we went because Washington wanted us. The rest was flummery. But that wasn't what Howard said at the time; what we were told was that we had to rid the world of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

So yes. He did send the country to war based on a lie. The debate is over and the verdict is guilty as charged. The only thing lacking is the sentence.

As if to underline his government's total subservience to his great and powerful friend, Howard last week instructed our ambassador to the United Nations to vote against a motion condemning Israel for illegally building its protective wall through Palestinian territory - a motion which did no more than echo the decision of the International Court of Justice, an institution whose authority Australia acknowledges.

But of course the United States does not. Thus Howard was once again forced to choose between principle and patronage, and as usual there was no choice. 150 countries voted in favour of the resolution - an unprecedented majority. A few American sycophants abstained. And Australia voted with the US, Israel, and a handful of other American client Pacific island nations to thumb its nose at international law and the worldwide consensus that supports it.

Over the years the Howard-Downer view of foreign policy as simply asking "how high?" whenever Washington says "jump" has brought some horribly embarrassing moments - the time we followed the US in failing to vote against torture springs to mind - but this must be the ultimate mortification. Our self-inflicted humiliation has been greeted with the contempt it deserves by the rest of the world - but not, apparently, by the Australian electorate, which perversely sees it as a sign of strength from our (or rather George Bush's) man of steel. Emigration is looking better every day.

Indeed, Kevin Rudd said that a Labor government might not have supported the UN motion either; his inclination was to abstain, suggesting that the new policy of playing it bland and cautious might be reaching dangerous depths.

Latham himself is still playing it very low key; on a visit to the north coast last week he looked like a man who was so concerned about pacing himself for the final sprint home that he was in danger of losing touch with the leaders. The appeal was still there - indeed, many of the faithful seem to see him in almost Whitlamesque terms as the messiah who will finally drag them out of the wilderness - but the swingers seem to be turning away from the so-called new politics and back to the ever-reliable hip pocket.

Latham continues to gamble on the proposition that economics come second; it's the issues that involve relationships, communities and society which really touch people. A lot of people still agree, but not as many as before. The drift in Latham's personal approval rating is starting to translate into voting intentions, which spells trouble. Howard has said he needs to be three points ahead in the primary vote to win; of the two polls last week, one gave him a lead of three and the other of five.

If the trend is confirmed next week, he will be very tempted to use a week of parliament to throw everything he can at Latham and then head for the polls on September 18. It's not over yet, but suddenly it's Latham who is looking off balance. He'll need that final sprint.