AUSTRALIA MUST PROTECT ITSELF
FROM HOME-GROWN TERROR

George Kotzabasis

The anti-terror laws proposed by the Howard government, have brought in their wake the civil libertarians' nightmares - that these laws will destroy civil liberties, freedom of speech and assembly, and eventually and irreparably erode the values of our democratic state. The nightmarish shadow of ASIO and its spooks will forebodingly spread and pervade all parts of our society, and no institution or person will be safe from the horrid intrusions of its ghostly agents. Hence, according to the libertarians' 'apparitional' thinking, the offspring of these laws will be a police state.

But how real are these ugly images -read as concerns of the civil libertarians -beyond the tarot cards of their predictions, and what is the probability that they could change the democratic fabric of our society so drastically resulting in people losing their civil liberties? It's in the adversarial response of the critics to these proposed anti-terror laws, that the answer to the above question lies.

The point d'appui upon which the critics of these laws rest their case is fear. But a one-sided fear - the fear that these laws will deprive us of our freedoms - that totally disregards the other greater fear posed by the terrorists, which will deprive us of our lives. Thus, the libertarians' protection of freedom is the protection of the freedom of the dead.

Let us however be more gentle with their claims, and attempt to examine them historically and rationally as they stand. They claim that the anti-terror laws will be implemented in an unfettered and shadowy way - without oversight or legal scrutiny by parliament or any other relevant authority - by ASIO and other security agencies against suspect terrorists and without the latter having recourse to the normal judicial processes that are part and parcel of a just state. They also claim, that these laws "can be used to deal with a range of issues beyond terrorism" and hence open the backdoor to a police state. Furthermore, they are unprecedented in their sweep, such as "preventative detention of suspects"... stripping them of their citizenship and deporting them, "legal powers akin to wartime than peacetime". John North, the President of the Law Council says that "these laws may bring us in danger of capitulating to terrorists, because they would have achieved their objective". Maybe we should capitulate to weakness and not pass these laws and hence get bombed, which is the ultimate objective of the terrorists. This seems to be less of a danger to Mr. North. And they assert that there is no certainty that these laws will be effective in preventing a terrorist attack in Australia.

(The quotes above are from Cameron Stewart, The Australian, 17 September 2005.)

This is no more than an ardent attempt by the civil libertarians to demolish the rationale and fectiveness of these laws by employing, as above, subterfuge, legal and philosophical abstractions and scarecrows to make their case. They are unwilling to use concrete historical evidence to make their argument (maybe because such evidence would have been detrimental to their claims) or reason, since the premise of their position is founded on the emotion of fear.

IN TIMES OF WAR LAWS MUST CHANGE

All democratic nations in times of war in the past had to pass legislation that enforced censorship and the detention of suspects propagating and promoting seditious action. And the laws issuing from such legislation had to be applied rigorously against any suspects who could organise themselves into a fifth column within a country at war. But the historically conclusive evidence is that in democratic societies as soon as the war ended, these laws ceased to apply and once again society returned to its former normal state. Undoubtedly, during the application of these laws, mistakes and indeed, abuses were made and some individuals apprehended or incarcerated were entirely innocent. But the scale of the operation and application of these injunctions were so great that it would have been impossible to execute them without making in some cases mistakes and errors of judgment. No human action on any gigantic scale, as for example in war, can ever be error-free. To expect that one could achieve one's goals on such a wide range without human fallibility playing an acting role, both in the mental and moral spheres, is to expect a play about the 'Fall of Man' without any human actors, but only angelic ones, in it.

The human condition is a state of irremediable imperfection. But despite this grim fact, the evolution of human nature has not stopped at its amoebic stage. In the irreversible Darwinian process of the survival of the fittest, the human species had to continuously develop new and more perfect means for its survival. Although these means were far from perfect in a divine sense, they were good enough for its earthly existence. The anti-terrorist laws are in this category of 'good enough'.

Australia, being at war, has no other option but to take these less than perfect hard measures that have a high probability of protecting its citizens from a home-grown terrorist attack. However, the premise upon which any wise legislation or enactment of laws rest, is that these laws must be commensurate to the threat (s) that emanates from illegal action. For example, if there is a spate of housebreaking, parliament has to legislate the appropriate, but not too-harsh laws that could deter this criminal activity from occurring - by jailing the culprits for a short time. If on the other hand, like New York few years ago, when a spate of robberies and murders were occurring which posed a greater threat to the residents of a city than housebreaking, the government would have to pass harsher laws, if it seriously wanted to prevent these 'deadly muggings' from happening, such as those with the 'zero tolerance' passed by the former mayor of New York, Guiliani. Furthermore, because of haphazardness and uncertainty, which is the shadow of all human action, one can never be sure that any laws passed will be completely effective in deterring people from engaging in illegal activities. Nonetheless, despite this ineradicable element of chance that is implanted in all laws, no government can eschew or excuse itself from the responsibility of taking the appropriate punitive measures that have a high probability of being successful against criminal conduct. (A clear example of this were the zero tolerance laws that were enforced in New York. At the time there was a volcanic eruption of protests from civil libertarians that these laws were inhumane, unjust, and ignoble, and that they would be totally ineffective as a deterrent to crime. Their success however, in substantially diminishing crime within a short time, proved its critics to be totally wrong.)

This indeterminacy and unpredictability of all human laws, unlike the physical laws of gravity, in regards to their success against lawbreakers, is moreover augmented, to the highest degree when a government has to legislate laws against a 'consortium' of religious fanatics whose mode of operation has the speed and randomness of quicksilver and whose goal is the destruction of civilised society by the barbaric and ruthless use of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear ones, against it. The legislators of these laws that could forestall such lethal terrorist attacks must be aware that all such attacks in the eyes of these fanatics are 'pushed' by the breath of Allah. Hence, the most impossible action(s) fantastically imagined, in the context of such apocalyptic fanaticism, becomes an alarming reality. Muslim fanatic terrorism, has no rational concrete political or social goals, despite its propagandistic pronouncements to the contrary, which are merely a fig-leaf of their real intentions, but only the eschatological goal of destroying decadent Western civilisation. In such circumstances, laws that could be effective against criminal activity would be totally ineffective against zealots who are guided solely by the laws of God. Hence, one of the most fundamental elements of law, the deterring factor, is completely useless against these fanatics. And this is the reason why the government has to legislate a new generation of laws that would have a chance to be effective against "god's outlaws".

In the passing of such legislation however, one has to make a distinction between hardcore terrorists and would-be terrorists. The latter have not reached the point of no return of the fanatics. And either because of fear of what would happen to themselves or to their families, they could be constrained by laws, from entering the gates of hell of active terrorism. This is why the anti-terror laws must be composed of both a 'safe-haven' and a 'purgatory': a safe-haven for those Muslim fundamentalists that can be promptly rehabilitated, and a purgatory for those inveterate and pathological fanatics, whose 'rehabilitation' can only be accomplished, if ever, inside the gates of Infinite Paradise.

To the raw suspect recruits of would-be terrorists, the applied laws must have provisions that they are not going to be treated too harshly, thus leaving them an opening, a safe-haven, to rescue themselves from the relentless squeeze of the vice of the law that would apply to the hardcore fanatics, either as suspects of being active terrorists or as suspects who propagate and incite terrorism - as some of the fundamentalist imams and teachers in Islamic schools do among their followers. To these imams and mentors who actively or by intent engage in seditious activities and the incitement of a holy war against ourselves and our allies, who are also waging war on global terror, the purgatory of deportation, detention, and imprisonment should remorselessly apply. This is where the deterring factor of the law lies against these votaries of fanaticism -in the concrete rigorous harsh application of the laws against them and not in their abstract state as a threat.

This clear distinction of how to deal with the hardcore fanatics in contrast to their greenhorn recruits, has the great potential to sever the association of the latter from the former, and hence 'dry' the pool from which the fundamentalist mentors of a holy war against the West get their recruits. And by deporting and 'clinking' their perfidious activities the government will effectively disable them from continuing to be the incubators of terror in this country.

The government must not be constrained by any 'legal-niceties' or illusions in the enactment of the anti-terror laws. The latter must correspond to the great threat that external and home-grown terrorism pose to the country. And the curtain has fallen on all discussions, deliberations, and debates about the causes and ideological roots of terrorism. When someone is ready to stab you to death, you don't restrain his action by parleying with him about the causes that made him an assassin. This is the time for action. The government must take no heed of the animadversions and subterfuges of the civil libertarians. All their assertions are no more than a marivaudage, a sophisticated banter, about this grave and deadly serious issue. In its enactment of these anti-terror laws, it must be solely governed by its historical duty to ordain this imperative legislation to protect Australia.

Article was written on September 23, 2005

THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION REPLACES THE
AUSTRALIAN FLAG WITH HIS “WET PANTS”

George Kotzabasis

The leader of the Opposition Kim Beazley, after reading selectively the US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report that the war in Iraq had become a cause celebre for Jihadists, announced that if he would become Prime Minister he would withdraw the troops from Iraq. Such announcement does not, as Foreign Minister Downer hinted, replace the Australian flag with the white flag it replaces the Australian flag with Beazley’s “wet pants”.

The unclassified report of the NIE that was released by the Bush administration has more positives than negatives for the Administration. As Michael Costello, a former advisor to Beazley, argues in his piece in The Australian on September 29, 06, the report supports Bush’s policy of establishing democracy in the Middle East as well as his determination not to withdraw US troops from Iraq prematurely. The NIE states clearly that ‘should Jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.’ And the report continues, that ‘perceived jihad success in Iraq would inspire more fighters to continue the fight elsewhere’. Hence, the defeat of the insurgents in Iraq and the establishment of nascent democracy in the country are pivotal to the defeat of terrorists in other regions including our own.

Beazley’s withdrawal of our troops from Iraq would therefore invigorate and exacerbate the threat of terror in our region. And with two hundred and thirty millions Muslims as neighbors and the strengthening of Jemal Islamiyah within Indonesia, Australia would face a massively stupendous enemy in our region. It would also increase the internal threat rising from the enemy within, whose fanaticism will induce many of its recruits to become holy warriors against the infidel Australians. Hence Beazley’s policy of withdrawal from Iraq would increase by an astronomical order the danger to Australia, especially when soon the Jihadists might be armed with weapons of mass destruction, if not with portable nuclear weapons. Moreover, our troops fighting an invisible more confident and tougher enemy in our region will bear enormous casualties in the hundreds, if not in thousands, and the war budget will reach unheard of heights without end in sight. And once again Australia will require its ally America, whom a Beazley government had abandoned in Iraq, to extricate it from an endless war that Australia cannot win without the military support and deployment of US forces. All this will happen by the courtesy of the thin emaciated will, spirit, and imagination of Beazley.

But will the public buy the shoddy, deficient strategic nous of this wet merchant of politics, Kim Beazley, at the next federal elections that will place Australia in this engulfing peril?

A CURSE IS HAUNTING THE LEADERS OF EUROPE

George Kotzabasis

A revisiting curse is haunting the ruling elites of “old” Europe, the curse of Munich. The three witches of Macbeth have taken leave of their domicile on the Scottish highlands, to settle on the banks of the foggy politically putrid vapors of the Seine, the Neva and the Rhine, to brew their curse while singing in unison their ditty, "weakness is strength and strength is weakness". It’s this same ditty, that the diplomatic emissaries of the accursed triumvirate of Chirac, Putin, and Schroeder - the latter being now replaced by Angela Merkel who apparently would like to take a sturdier pro-American stand but she is politically constrained in doing so - will be singing too in the international forums that are attempting to deal with the critical situation that is unfolding in Iran. Tragically, however, the repetition of the disastrous policy of the Munich appeasement, which John Maynard Keynes called “unheroic cunctation”, in our century, is not going to be repeated the second time around as “farce”, as Marx presaged, but even as a greater tragedy than the trail of events that followed the appeasement of 1938. Alas, this is the “apocalyptic” threat that is posed against the West by Iran’s future acquisition of nuclear weapons, whose unappeasable fanatic president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in his pursuit to “wipe Israel off the map”, and to destroy even, Khomeini’s “Great Satan”, America, as a holy warrior would deploy with paradisiacal bliss against the infidels of the West. Especially, when he has made it translucently clear that he wants “to bring the reappearance of Imam Mahdi, the Messiah, who would herald the Last Judgment and the end of the world”, to quote Dr.Leanne Piggott, from the University of NSW. Moreover, the Islamic Jihadist “alliance” of Iran with a sundry of suicidal terrorist fanatics who operate on a global scale enhances this threat at an exponential rate and makes it even more ominously real.

How Western nations, especially the United States, will respond to this perilous threat emanating from the uncompromising fanatical stand of Iran’s president, is the most crucial issue of our times. There is no room for optimism that Iran’s “unbalanced act”, under its present leadership, will fall into the “net of diplomacy”. Especially, when its leadership is witnessing the lack of unity and discord that exists among some major Western nations, as well as with that powerful “outsider” China, as to the best way to frustrate and stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Its leaders therefore make the safe wager that these nations will be unable to consolidate a strong unshakable unity that would prevent Iran from entering the nuclear club. Thus the religious fanatic Ahmadinejad, is taking lessons from the most secular of modern dictators while the leaders of old Europe shut their eyes before these lessons. If the transmigration of souls, according to ancient belief, could bring back Hitler’s soul, this time embodied in the form of a lecturer giving seminars on topics of brinkmanship, political bluff and deception, in which he excelled, among his audience one would notice the peculiar absence of Europeans, with one exception, and the presence of a few Americans from a rare breed, considering their strong isolationist heritage, but not from the blue ribbon states. However, one could not miss the conspicuous presence of a swarthy southern Asian, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad himself, who being keen to learn the arts of diplomatic mendacity, dissembling, and cozenage, from a master virtuoso - who was able to “transfix” the Prime minister of a great country, Britain, in a state of irremediable illusions that played such a tragic part in not preventing the great catastrophe that would befall upon the world ­– was absorbing in a state of trance the imperative lessons that the transmigrated soul of Hitler was exuding. Thus it was, that the present leaders of old Europe, whose peoples in the recent past had suffered death and destruction on an immense scale, as a result of incomprehensible and unforgivable errors of judgment, a welter of unimaginable illusions, and a cowardly lack of resolve, by their political predecessors, are doltishly unable to comprehend the lessons of that tragic era. And deliberately are closing their eyes to the diplomatic debacles an ensemble arriviste European politicians had suffered in the hands of Hitler. Thus, Talleyrand’s touché about the Bourbons, “that they have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing”, completely applies to the present parvenu leaders of old Europe.

NO PARALLEL BETWEEN AHMADINEJAD AND HITLER?

But to respond in advance to those who argue that there is no parallel and no similarity between Hitler’s Germany and Ahmadinejad’s Iran, either in industrial-military power or in ideology (after all Ahmadinejad has not written his Mein Kampf), is to be purblind to the reality that in a war of a clash of civilizations between Islamofascism and Western freedom, the former as an aggressor does not have to be the equal in overall industrial or military might over his enemies, but only to be relatively “equal” in the ultimate destructive weapon. And his strength from the fanatic resolve that emanates from a fundamentalist interpretation of the Koran, which is the godly substitute of Mein Kampf, makes his ideology even more dangerous than the one of the Nazis. Moreover, Iran would possess an enormous strategic advantage over its infidel enemies by having at its disposal numerous suicidal fanatic terrorists, both from Muslim countries and those residing in the West, as fifth-columnists, whom once it had supplied with weapons of mass destruction, and indeed, with portable nuclear weapons, would deploy them lethally against the West.

The contention that the possession of nuclear weapons by Iran would not pose a threat to the West as the former would follow, like the Soviet Union, the logic of deterrence, the doctrine of mutual assured destruction, is completely wrong as it totally disregards the fundamental difference that propelled the geopolitical ambitions of The Soviet Union and those that propel Iran’s. The former, despite the rhetoric of its uncompromising ideology, from its inception always encompassed in its policies Western rationale and realpolitik, from Lenin’s NEP, New Economic Policy, to Stalin’s alliance with Hitler, which was epitomized by Stalin’s question, “how many divisions does the pope have?” Such a stand by the Soviets was hardly surprising, since the father of its ideology Karl Marx was profoundly steeped in the culture of Western civilization, not to mention the fact that Russia itself after Peter the great was part of that civilization. Also, a more recent example of realpolitik by the Russians was Krutchev’s “blinking” before Kennedy’s naval blockade of Cuba, and the threat this confrontation between the two superpowers portended for mankind.

Contrariwise, the Iranians under the fanatic leadership of Ahmadinejad, whose goal is to bring the City Of God on earth, rationality is overtly absent from its policies of aggression. Especially when it perceives that its enemies sui generis are morally and politically weak and would not be willing to jeopardize the comforts and luxuries that flow from an “unruffled” economic development by taking a stand of belligerence against it that would imperil their comfortable lives. An illustration of such a misconceived perception was first the belief of Osama bin Laden that he could directly attack the US without the latter retaliating against him and the Taliban with all the might of its military force. And secondly, Sadam Hussein’s belief, that by manipulating the peaceful propensities of the major European countries, of France, Germany, and Russia - since they were lavishly feeding themselves off from the trough of corruption that Saddam had provided for their insatiable greed, through the oil-for-food programme, they were careful not to “destabilize” this sumptuous trough - he would be able to check the Americans from attacking him. In both these cases it was the “irrational exuberance”, to use a term of the former Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, of bin Laden and Saddam that brought their destruction. And it’s the same irrationality that enshrouds in its black veil Iran’s fanatic leadership. Indeed, president Ahmadinejad’s irrationality is even more deep-seated in view of his denial about the holocaust and his statement of “wiping Israel off the map”. It will also be much more dangerous if this irrationality is going to be armed with nuclear weapons, as it would threaten a great part of the world with annihilation including of course Iran.

To expect that deterrence would prevent such destruction from occurring is a wish of the will-o’-the-wisp. The concept of deterrence, in geopolitical terms, has its deep roots in rationality and can only affect and impact rational actors. It would be a great illusion to expect leaders, such as Ahmadinejad, who are ardent believers in final Last Judgment ideologies and whose only “rational” communication is with the “heavenly” clouds, would be prone to involve themselves in a rational discourse. This would be especially so, if they sense that their foes are disunited and weak and see themselves holding the upper hand. Indeed, the debility of its enemies in the minds of these fanatics, reassures them that the implacable and uncompromising hard stand against their foes has the imprimatur of their God. Moreover, the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran and its jumping over all the diplomatic hurdles that so foolishly an impotent leadership of the West placed as a substitute for its lack of decisive action that would have prevented such acquisition, would make Ahmadinejad not only a hero, of almost a Saladinesque stature, among Iranians, but among all the Muslims of the world. Such a great political, diplomatic, and strategic victory over the pre-eminent powers of the West by Ahmadenijad would confer upon him such a political aura that would vouchsafe his presidency in perpetuity. Hence, all the blissful hopes of the West that a robust political opposition could oust the mullahs and Ahmadinejad from the helm of power would prove to be a mirage.

"KISS OF DEATH" DIPLOMACY

So there are two paramount questions that Western nations must answer. What kind of strategy, and which nation or nations could implement such a strategy that would effectively crash the insatiable desire of Iran’s leaders to acquire nuclear weapons? To answer the second question first, the only nation that irrefragably could implement such a strategy successfully is the United States. Supported by a number of nations and their peoples from Europe and Asia that would exclude however Spain, France, Russia, and possibly even Germany under its new government, since the solid support of an American strategy by the latter nations would be highly improbable. The reason being that these nations as lesser powers but with visions of grandeur-with the exclusion of Spain-view the US with envy if not with animosity. Moreover, in a world where the US is the sole hyper-power and these nations are not militarily threatened by another super-power, as they were during the Cold War, they consider themselves to have enough elbow room in the international arena to achieve their differentiated geopolitical interests without endorsing, and in opposition to, US interests. Another politically insurmountable problem is, particularly for France and Germany and some other south-western European nations, even if a new leadership arose within a short time among the latter with a desire to take a pro-American stand, this leadership would still be politically hoisted on their nations own petard - as Greece and more lately Germany have shown - as their peoples contaminated with the virus of anti-Americanism, that was so virulently propagated by their former political leaders and cultural elites, would frustrate such a desire. It’s for these important reasons therefore, that it would be a stupendous folly of any Administration of the US to believe that its strategy against Iran would be endorsed or supported by the above countries. However, this reasoning does not apply to nations with modicum means of power, as exemplified by many eastern European nations liberated from the Soviet Union’s bondage, as well as of nations which were forced to be parts of the USSR, and whose peoples overwhelmingly tend to have amicable feelings toward the United States. Furthermore, they realize that by being allies of America, the latter can protect their interests from the pressures and incursions of their more powerful neighbors, such as Russia and Germany. It’s no surprise therefore that some of the Eastern European countries, such as Poland, are deploying their troops in Iraq alongside the Americans.

The corollary of the above problematic, i.e., the lack of a diplomatic consensus between the US and the major nations of Europe and China, is that conventional diplomacy in this confrontation between the intransigent leadership of Iran and the leaderships of the US and the EU, cannot play a crucial role in stopping Iran from accumulating nuclear weapons. Hence, the US will be compelled tragically to use the cruel and violent means of war against Iran if it’s seriously concerned that Ahmadinejad armed with nuclear weapons will be a real and a deadly threat to Western civilization. But while “consensus diplomacy” will be absent, diplomacy will not cease, as it will be replaced by the “soloist” hyperactive and bellicose diplomacy of the Americans. While the date of the latter’s military attack against Iran will not be identified, the reality of such an attack will be forcefully announced by the US government, so that it will leave no doubt about its consummation in the hearing of the Iran leadership. However, before such an attack occurs, this “armed diplomacy” of the US will make quite clear to the Ahmadinejad regime that it will not only be targeting its nuclear plants, but, also, its political, religious, and military leadership aiming at its elimination. This “kiss of death” diplomacy forcefully pressed on the foreheads of this triangular leadership of Iran has a great potential of sowing the seeds of division in its ranks with the result of ousting the radicals of Ahmadinejad and replace them with moderates, who would be keen to accept the injunctions of this armed diplomacy.

Thus, a “palace revolt” against the theocratic regime could be instigated by means of diplomacy. And usher regime change in the most peaceful way. Of course, such diplomacy will not attract the support of the “ballet tip-toeing” nations of Europe. But this will not be an obstacle to the resolute leadership of the Bush administration. And the latter will obtain the backing of the coalition of the willing, which will be adequate on this high stakes issue. The probability of achieving this peaceful transformation of regime change is far from being a long shot. But if uncertainty, that rules in the affairs of mankind and beyond, uncannily plays its mischievous role and negates this probability, then there will be no other option for the Bush administration but to adhere to its “original principle of pre-emption”, to quote the British historian Niall Ferguson. The US will have no other option but to attack both Iran’s nuclear plants and its three-tier leadership.

It’s a terrible and tragic burden for any president to carry on his shoulders. But this is the price that statesmanship must pay in this most dangerous of times. Emanating from the coupling of terrorists and rogue theocratic states armed with nuclear weapons.

The article was written on March 10, 2006

US UNILATERALISM ONLY ALTERNATIVE
TO MULTILATERAL WEAKNESS

George Kotzabasis


A virus is threatening to enter and contaminate the bloodstream of a large part of the Australian people, the virus of moral desertion. Desertion of major and important allies in their hour of need, and desertion of Australia’s long-term interests, as these allies could be crucial, as they have been in the past, for the nation’s survival and its future, in a world where nations cannot easily identify their future enemies in advance.


The fountain of this virus are Messrs. Hayden, Fraser, Whitlam and Hawke, who cravenly, unwisely and un-historically, have taken their “one-night-stand” (of such length will be its intellectual duration), against the possibility of US unilateral action on Iraq, whose development of weapons of mass destruction is obvious to all savvy observers, and whose harboring and supporting of terrorists is just as evident.


The missing star in this constellation of darkness is Paul Keating, who apparently is hedging his bets on the issue, and who with his status as major domo (Placido Domingo?), will not enter the scene until the bit players are “finished off” the stage. Ostensibly, only after that denouement will he reveal his “unilateral” position to his admirers and “encoreists”. And let us wish and hope, that when he enters the act, his stand will be of an intellectually and historically longer duration, than that of the fountainheads, especially of Mr. Whitlam, who prides himself to be a student of Herodotus (the father of history), but who pitifully desecrates the teaching of the great historian indeed. But when Paul Keating does give his strutting performance, don't count on there being more eggs in the basket than "chickens" in the hatchery, on this issue of US unilateralism.


Also presently, there is a congregation of Christian religious prelates rushing towards this fountain, to water, in the heat of their emotional stand against the possibility of an erupting war in Iraq, their intellectually dry palates, threatening a revolt against a possible war tax and civil disobedience, whilst Muslim fundamentalists are slaughtering Christians all over the world, and threatening to kill millions in the future. According to Richard Reid’s evidence,(the captured British Muslim of Arab extraction, the shoe-bomber), presented before the court, after the destruction of the twin towers of the World Trade Center, the second and third plan of the al Qaeda terrorists was to attack the US with biological and nuclear weapons. Could the latter be accomplished without state sponsored terrorism? That is the question!

¨¨¨


USA BULWARK OF DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM


For more than six decades, the US has been the bulwark of democracy and freedom, and the successful defender against the onslaught of Nazi and Soviet totalitarianism, as well as against Japanese imperialism, which threatened to reverse the world order back to the dark ages. This was especially so of the communist threat, whose ideology not only pervaded and beguiled many nations and peoples of the poor world, but also, many nations and their intellectual luminaries of the affluent West. These luminaries, in many cases, served as teachers to many post-colonial communist rulers, such as Ho Chi Ming, Pol Pot and Chou En Lai in Asia, and Idi Amin, Lumumba and Mugabe in Africa, not to mention others.


Inevitably, during this period, when the world was threatened to become a laboratory of experiments of communist ideology, a “killing fields” of universal dimensions, the US was compelled to make alliances with unsavory and undemocratic regimes in many parts of the world, to defend itself and the free world from the communist plague. In this confrontation of the US with its mortal enemy, the Soviet Union, the former had no choice as to the moral and political regime status of these allies.


In normal circumstances a nation, espousing the values of freedom and democracy, would not generally ally itself with dictatorial and authoritarian regimes. In circumstances of crisis however, facing a mortal foe, such a nation is deprived of the luxury of choosing regimes, which share its own values and institutions, as allies. No wonder then, that the Taliban in Afghanistan during its war against the Soviets, was helped and supported by the US, as well as Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran, which the Americans considered had moved closer to the Soviets, and hence threatened to alter dangerously the balance of power after the overthrow of the Shah by the fundamentalist leader Khomeini. Not to mention other right wing regimes in Africa and Latin America, which were supported by the US, in their fight against left wing rebels, who were in turn aided by the Soviets, whose goal was to establish socialist regimes in their countries.


To students of world history, such alliances forged by the US, should be neither a puzzle nor a reason for condemning the latter. Nor should the US be denounced for the many errors and immoral actions it committed, during its defense of the West from the communist menace.

Infallibility is not a characteristic of humans, nor is angelic morality in crisis conditions. A superpower, burdened with the defense of its own interests and in the exercise of its heavy responsibilities on a global scale, will inevitably commit errors and violate morals in its clash of survival with a mortal enemy. But a benign superpower, imbued with civilized values, such as the US, will not perpetrate these violations willingly and with deliberation. In the realm of war, although Adrastea, Necessity, is the absolute sovereign and dictates the actions of all combatants, a civilized nation will do its utmost to desist from committing atrocities. In relation to its adversaries, the US never reached by a long distance the atrocities committed by its enemies. And one has to be reminded, that it was America, with all its faults, which saved the world from both nazi and communist totalitarianism. For this historic event alone, mankind should be grateful and thankful to the United States. (Australia itself was saved from Japanese occupation as a result of US military power). Only inveterate, pathological ingrates, would refuse to give America its due.


PRIME MINISTER'S FLAWED LOGIC


Bob Hawke’s argument that Australia would become a target of terrorists if it supported the US unilateral action on Iraq is remarkable for its incoherence and flawed logic. If indeed, permanent and non-permanent members of the Security Council of the UN, heeded and acted on Mr. Hawke’s advice, they would be foolish to authorize US military action against Iraq, if such authorization at the same time, would have made these nations targets of terrorism. His argument therefore that the US should have the imprimatur of the Security Council before it attacked Iraq, is according to his logic, a non sequitur, it would never materialize. Why should any of these nations give the US such authorization, if it is going to provoke the fury of terrorists to fall upon their own lands?


Moreover, if the implications of Mr. Hawke’s contention are, that the issuing of such a mandate by the Security Council, for some mysterious reason, would be respected by the terrorists and would restrain them from attacking nations which supported the US war after the issuing of such a mandate, then Mr. Hawke lives in-cloud-cuckoo-land.

It is almost impossible to believe, that after his forced retirement as PM, triggered by his former colleague and “enforcer”, Paul Keating, that Mr. Hawke has been afflicted by such maladies of illusion. What is more puzzling however, is why Mr. Hawke did not adopt the same position during his tenure as Prime Minister in the Gulf War, when he supported unquestionably and vigorously the senior Bush? Wouldn’t Australia have been such a target of the terrorists at the time, as a result of Mr. Hawke’s action? Mr. Hawke is locked in a golden cage of illusions, if he really believes that Australia will be immune from terrorist attacks if only it would not support US unilateral military action against Iraq. (The Bali terrorist attack must have been a sobering snowball hit on Mr. Hawke’s head. The terrorists must have known that most Australians were against a war on Iraq. Despite this knowledge, they did not desist from attacking Australians). Australia cannot afford to take the illusions of Mr. Hawke as wisdom coming from the mount, especially in the context of the Bali massacre. In a global context, the future holocaust fundamentalist Islam has in store for Western civilization, will be far worse than the Nazi holocaust.
There is nothing unusual or new about unilateral action in crisis conditions, either for nations or individuals, when one's life is at stake. And it is not unusual when someone’s life is under threat, that many of his “friends” will abandon him, especially when any help rendered by them to him will involve them in some risk. Only very few, the stalwartly loyal and the morally strong, will stand by him. And more often than not he might have to stand alone and fight for his survival. And this is the other broken leg of Mr. Hawke’s logic. Would he suggest to someone whose life is under immediate threat, not to take any defensive action against his identified foe until he is able to secure the permission of his would-be supporters? If Mr. Hawke mulishly persisted in giving such advice to such a person or nation, he could only do so at the expense of his intelligence and moral fortitude. But no strong person or nation would heed such advice of weakness.


THE IRREVOCABLE RIGHT TO DEFEND ONE'S COUNTRY


A nation under attack, as the US is at the moment by terrorists, once its intelligent organizations have the evidence in hand, (Can anyone doubt the efficiency of its intelligent services after the Bali bombing?) that a particular group, nation or group of nations sponsors and aids terrorists, has every right to defend itself by all means, including pre-emptive action, once it warns these nations of the dire consequences that would fall upon them, if they continued to support these terrorists.

And the Bush administration has done so repeatedly. It has warned these nations to dismantle all terrorist organizations and its financial backers immediately, and cease supporting terrorist activities. In addition, if these nations do not heed these grave warnings of the US, they would become targets of its military power. It is in this context that a US unilateral attack against its mortal enemies is fully justified. It is the only strategic alternative that a nation has for its survival. This is especially so, when a nation has to fight against invisible foes, such as terrorists, who strike without any warning and at random. The core question is, does a nation have any other alternative of preventing morally bereft terrorists, anointed by religious fanaticism, who are sure that they are guided by the hand of Allah, from attacking it by weapons of mass destruction? It is imperative that this question is answered not with pietist wishes, but by resolute and relentless action. Only the timorous and cravenly will lay prostrate before the apocalyptic mushroom cloud, that the terrorists are preparing to envelope Western civilization.

¨¨¨

The times are not for irresolute, fickle and pusillanimous political leadership. Complacent and Hamletinesque Clinton is no longer the occupier of the Oval Office. The former president, despite having knowledge that Iraqi intelligence was involved in the terrorist actions of the nineties, did not have the strength of character to confront this source of terrorism by military action, fearful that the casualties the US would sustain in a war with Iraq would shatter the complacency of his Administration and of the country, and that America would never feel “a touch of evil” (to quote the Orson Welles’ film). Instead he made the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 wherein there was ample evidence that Iraqi intelligence was involved, a law enforcement issue and not a war issue, as it should have been. What will haunt the rest of his life will not be the scandals, the perjury, and his impeachment before Congress, but the collapse of the World Trade Center, as a result of his past inaction, or rather as a result of his cravenly refusal to deal and tackle with force, one of the main sources of terrorism, i.e. Iraq. And quite possibly, had he done so, this would have prevented the slaughter of September 11.

In contrast, the Bush Administration is resolute and determined to correct the lassitude and paralysis that emanated from the irresolute leadership of his predecessor, accepting this challenge of evil and responding to it with force. Furthermore, the President is timely wise not to be trapped by the politics played in the UN, especially of its Security Council, and await for the United Nations’ “Mandate of Heaven”, before the US acts with force against its mortal enemy and its terrorist allies.


The United Nations have been for many years a “Tower of Babel” - a welter of discord of conflicting interests and power plays between its member nations. Within such a situation it is difficult, and at times impossible, to receive majority support for a nation’s actions, particularly if such actions involve war and are to be taken by a superpower, such as the US. In this instance, two of the members of the Security Council, France and Russia have conflicting interests with the US, both of an economic and political nature, in the latter sphere as pretenders of global power. Hence, their opposition to the impending war against Iraq.


It is quite probable, of course, that ultimately the US will receive the backing of France and Russia for military action against Iraq, if the latter once again breaches the new resolutions of the UN. But the US should also have the indivisible and sovereign right to defend its citizens and its soil immediately, from enemy attack. And this is provided by article 51 of the UN Charter. Hence the US as a last resort, if it cannot procure the support of the Security Council for its use of force against Iraq, must act alone and unilaterally, without any pangs of conscience, against Saddam Hussein.

¨¨¨

Some people claim that the US war against Iraq is about control of the oil. Undoubtedly, oil is a strategic resource vital for the industrialized world and for the healthy state of its economy. But why was this important resource not an item in the agenda of the US in 1991 with the decisive defeat of Iraq in the Gulf War, when the Americans could obtain substantial control of the oil in Iraq, and became an issue only in 2001, after September 11?

Such a claim is totally nonsensical. Oil for the US is only a secondary issue. The primary issue is the deadly threat that Iraq poses against the US with its development of weapons of mass destruction, and the delivery of these weapons, either deliberately, or inadvertently and stupidly, in the hands of terrorists. The claim therefore, that an attack on Iraq is about the control of oil, has all the seriousness of saying that a person whose life is under immediate danger, is more concerned that his salad is oiled, than that of securing his own safety.


However, oil is important for America’s two allies, France and Russia, as both have substantial holding interests of this strategic resource in Iraq. That is why the concerted prevarication of these two major members of the Security Council, as to whether the latter should provide the inspectors of the UN a stronger resolution that would give them unfettered access to sites in Iraq, is so salient. Not to mention other possible mortal weaknesses prevailing in the power plays and procrastinations of France and Russia, such as envy of America as a superpower, and a modicum of schadenfreude in the suffering of the US in the aftermath of September 11, in seeing some wings clipped off from the American eagle. Hence the status quo in regards to Iraq, is not uncongenial to France and Russia especially when, blinded by their short-term interests, they cannot see that eventually their own countries will not remain immune from the massive and deadly attacks of Islamic terrorism.

¨¨¨


It is for all these reasons, that if the US will not finally get the support of the Security Council, because the latter is sunk in a quagmire of multilateral weakness, ultimately it must act unilaterally and pre-emptively against Iraq, and with those allies who have the historical insight and moral courage to stand by it. And the war against Iraq will be a walkover for the US and its allies. Despite the blustering of Saddam’s propaganda machine, Iraqis will not fight to save him.

In these critical times, when Western civilization is threatened to be swamped with a tidal wave of fanatic barbarism, Australia does not need the prescriptions of political quacks, or the vaticinations of false prophets. What it needs is wise and resolute Churchillian leadership, leading from the front, against the great threat posed by the terrorists and their state sponsors, not the myopic and weak leadership of the four fountainheads and of the Church Fathers, who, stung by the populist bee and being in a state of frenzy, are leading from behind.

The article was written on October 14, 2002