Philosophical Conversations Public Opinion Junk for code
parliament house.gif
Think Tanks
Oz Blogs
Economic Blogs
Foreign Policy Blogs
International Blogs
Media Blogs
South Australian Weblogs
Economic Resources
Environment Links
Political Resources
South Australian Links
"...public opinion deserves to be respected as well as despised" G.W.F. Hegel, 'Philosophy of Right'

Us neo-cons versus Oz public « Previous | |Next »
March 5, 2003

The Australian Financial Review has an article by Charles Krauthammer, the US neo-con, on the need to attack France.(3.3.2003, p. 63) ther reason. France is playing power politics over the war with Iraq and is endeavourrng to contain the US. France is positioning itself as a leader of a bloc of former great powers to challenge US supremacy.

This challenge cannot be tolerated. Krauthammer says:

"That is a serious challenge. It requires a serious response. We need to demonstrate that there is a price to be paid for undermining the US on a matter of supreme national interest."

France must be punished.

Krauthammer then lists the ways to cut France down to size: push for an expansion of the UN Security Council with India and Japan as permanent new members to dilute French influence; no role for France in Iraq after the war has been won; turn away from NATO and build a new alliance structure around the US, Britain, Australia and Turkey plus Spain Italy and the pro-American new Europe.

Then I read an article in The Advertiser by Paul Starick, 'Howard's battle on the domestic front' (no link, 3.3. 2003, p. 19). This states that the case for war with Iraq has not been made. Paul says:

"Like Mr. Blair, Mr Howard appears to harbour the personal conviction that rogue states sharing so-called weapons of mass destruction with terrorists is a nightmarish scenario which threatens the entire world. Like Mr. Blair, he has not convinced the public why Australia must rush to war...the evidence thus far has clearly been inadequate to sway public opinion. Is Iraq about to hand over nuclear, chemical or biological weapon to Osam bin Laden, or other terrorists in the next few weeks?"

Juxtapose the two articles. What results? Its not good.

The US neo-cons do not care a fig about Australian public opinion. The US neo-cons only care about US national interest and whether we are either with them or against them. If we are not with them then they will bully us because we are acting to constrain the freedom of the US to do what it sees fit. Their line is that Australian troops (around 2000?) should sacrifice themselves on the field of battle fighting to protect US national interests. Australian citizens have no say in whether or not Australia goes to war.

The best that can be said for this is that it is not good public relations. The eneo-line will hardly help solve the domestic 'persuade problem' currently faced by Blair and Howard.

And what does the Howard Government do in this situation of a divided country and Parliament.? Why it continues to repeat and echo the lines of the White House. Alan Ramsay has the story.Its called Hard to believe, logically, that PM has mind of his own

What does the Labor Party do in this situationof a divided countrywhen the majority of Australian ciitzens want the Government to act through the UN? Why it closes down debate on the war. Once again Alan Ramsay has the story. Its called Little men in a coward's castle

| Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 2:06 PM | | Comments (4)


Do you mean by juxtaposing these that if the Oz public were to have it's way, the Hammer of the Krauts would advocate attacking us? These days nothing surprises me - certainly not spume from that quarter. To be criticised by him means you must be doing something right.

Lord Acton's dictum re power is proven daily by dispatches such as this. Sitting quite literally on top of the world, they still find ways to behave like badly raised children throwing their rattles out of their collective pram.

And I wish they'd make up their minds about France - are they spineless cheese-eaters or are they capable of a 'serious challenge'? They can't be both.

Advocate attacking us if we said no to the US-led war On Iraq without the UN?

Yes. That is the logical inference of their position.

A sign of that was indicated by the US Ambassador having a go at the Labor Party a couple of weeks ago.

And that was only a very mild challenge to the hegemony of the US.

I'm glad I'm not a Superpower cos it's hard to have an opinion if you are. Damned if you do and damned if you don't by the rest of an opinionated world.

Hi Observa,
most of the opinions would be water of a duck's back to a superpower.

Of course, the superpower has chosen this option. They could work with other nations through the UN or take the isolation option.

I guess they have have to learn to take criticisms in their stride. Shouldn't be too hard for a superpower.