|
February 18, 2003
I have been wondering how Alexander Downer, the local boy from the Adelaide Hills made good as the Foreign Minster of Australia, argues for why war now. And secondly, how does he engage with the critics of the Australian Government more or less signing up to go to war with Iraq.
We can find the answers in the Foreign Minister's Statement to Parliament on Iraq on the 4 February, 2003. This is a stage for the boy from the Adelaide Hills to be eloquent orator. The speech has a particular rhetorical style as Alexander is addressing the Australian people as someone who possesses authority, high virtue (wisdom and prudence) and long experience in government. Alexander is educating us ordinary citizens and to persuade us to adopt the course of action taken by his government.
Downer poses the problem sucinctly. He says: 'There is no greater threat to our common future than the spread of nuclear weapons and their budget counterparts, chemical and biological weapons.' He then poses the key issue: 'why we must be part of the international effort to deal with this problem, and why the international community must not fail.'
Alexander understands the need to give reasons for why we need to deal with the Iraqi regime. Two are given:
1. 'that stopping Iraq, and other countries, from acquiring weapons of mass destruction is a key to ensuring our security.If we allow countries in other parts of the world to develop weapons of mass destruction, then these weapons will turn up in our own neighbourhood.If Iraq is allowed to develop weapons of mass destruction, what message does it send to countries like North Korea?'
2. 'And do we really need to consider what might happen if these weapons fell into the hands of terrorists?We know from two unnecessary wars Saddam started – against Iran and against Kuwait - that he is malevolent. And we know he remains a strong backer of terrorist organisations. Can we really sit back and accept the risk that this threat poses?'
So far that pretty much boils down to there is a risk to Australia's nation security. We cannot afford to take the risk. Why not? Where's the evidence? Trust me on that one says the boy from the Adelaide Hills. Saddam has the weapons alright and that is a very big risk.
It's a big move this 'trust me'. If we accept this then we go along with rhetoric being disconnected from truth. It is the pathway of eloquence being divorced from public reason. This is a rupture with the classical rhetorical tradition that was grounded on finding out the truth (ratio) and eloquence (eloquenta) to make us hear it.
So why war with Iraq now? Downer says that we---meaning the government-- feels pretty strongly about this issue for two reasons.
3. 'Australia and the United States share alliance commitments and obligations, and we benefit greatly from the influence we have in Washington, which enables us to help shape international approaches. Moreover, we also share common values and interests – and we value US global leadership in defending and promoting them."
And the other reason is that Saddam is guilty of trying to hide his weapons of mass destruction and that this matters to Australia.
Okay, so we feel strongly about this risk. Alexander says 'The real question today is what we – the international community – are going to do about it.'
Okay. So why war then? Why not vigilant containment? Alexander now turns to his critics. He says:
'Critics portray the situation as being a choice between giving the inspectors more time – of "giving peace a chance" - or going to war against Iraq. But this is a false distinction. More time on its own does not give peace a chance. But it will give Saddam a chance -- a chance to renege again on his obligations to the Security Council, and a chance to keep hiding his WMD capabilities, until he again can threaten us.'
Alexander builds his case against his critics further. He says that Saddam is a threat to our national security and containment will not work. Saddam will no co-operate, and he keeps playing a game of deception and contempt for the UN. Alexander reminds us of previous threats from the storehouse of history. Saddam is monster like Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo, who commit acts of barbarism at home, and aggression abroad. We have learn the lesson history we have to say no and take steps to protect the victims of barbarity.
Its not a good history lesson. Saddam is guilty of barbarism at home yes. But where is the aggression abroad in 2002/3?
Never mind, the boy from the Adelaide Hills then introduces the appeasement bit in a soft kind of way. He says that 'many – particularly on the political left – shrug and say that the murder, torture, and rape of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis – by their own rulers – should go unchecked. And they would trust Saddam not to repeat his use of chemical weapons on his own people and neighbours.'
Oh yeah. Who says that? Most agree with Alexander that Saddam is a bad guy who has oppressed and killed his own people. Its a mantra thats all. The boy from the Adelaide Hills needs to re-read his Cicero about cultivating kindly feelings so that he can exercise liberality and generosity(humanitas), reread Seneca about the need for mercey and compassion in public life.(clementia)
Alexander then ends with a big ornamental flourish. He cannot in all conscience:
'ignore the record of Saddam Hussein is a ruthless tyrant who tries still - in the face of concerted international pressure – to retain and develop the most evil of weapons. As the Foreign Minister of our great country, I will not be remembered for turning my back on such evil and allowing the spectre of Saddam to haunt future generations.'
There you have the case for war now. At the surface level it goes like this: Saddam has not disarmed. He won't. He will pussy foot around with the UN. Saddam is a threat to our national security.Those who say otherwise are appeasers who defend the totalitarian gulag. Its war now. At the deeper more philosophical level it is a moral argument:----a dead simple one. No more Auschwitz.
But you have to admit its rhetorical machinery is big on working on stirring up the emotions by appealing to the historical emotional undertow and very short on argument to establish truth.
Alexander's wisdom looks a bit tatty really. He lacks the qualities of character to be the truly and completely civic man that he poses to be. We must ask: is the boy from the Adelaide Hills really fit to administer public affairs?
|
I think you eloquently answered your own question, Gary. No he is not. And neither are Hill and Howard. They are treating us like ignorant mugs who can be whipped into a war lather with transparently false, recycled arguments from the Team Bush PR corps. Downer's smug pollyanna dismissal of Bob Brown's demand for a plebiscite before Australians are committed to a war truly made me feel sick.