On Howard, Osama, and Obama
PM John Howard reacts to the controversy during a session at the Australian parliament
UPDATE: From Frenzy to Footnote. Richard Fernandez speaks with Tim Blair, blogger and the opinion editor for Sydney's Daily Telegraph on the 'psychotic snowball effect' that followed Howard's remarks in Australia. Listen HERE All politics is local, the saying goes, and Prime Minister John Howard's controversial comment that terrorists were likely "praying" for an Obama victory didn't take place in a vacuum. PJM editor Richard Fernandez offers the view from Sydney.
It’s not often that an interview on Australian television makes news in the US, but a short remark by John Howard touched off a blaze in American Presidential politics. “If I were running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March, 2008, and pray as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats,” Howard said. It was not the first time in US-Australian relations that a head of state of one country had criticized an opposition politician in the other. In 2004 President George Bush criticized Mark Latham for his plan to withdraw from Iraq at a time when Latham was running against Howard for the Prime Ministership.
US President George Bush has delivered an unprecedented blow to the Labor Party, describing Mark Latham’s policy of withdrawing Australian troops from Iraq as “disastrous”. Speaking after a one and a half hour meeting with the Prime Minister, John Howard, at the White House, Mr Bush said withdrawing the troops would “dispirit those who love freedom in Iraq” and “embolden our enemy which believes it can shake our will”.
“It would be a disastrous decision for the leader of a great country like Australia to say that we’re pulling out,” Mr Bush said as the two leaders met reporters in Washington early today, Australian time. “It would say that the Australian Government doesn’t see the hope of a free, democratic society [in Iraq]. It would embolden the enemy to believe that they could shake our will.” Mr Bush’s comments are the strongest yet to emerge from the White House against Labor’s position and are a highly unusual intervention in Australian domestic politics.
Obama’s responded by practically calling Howard a chickenhawk. “I think it’s flattering that one of George Bush’s allies on the other side of the world started attacking me the day after I announced (my candidacy),” Senator Obama said. I would also note that we have close to 140,000 troops in Iraq and my understanding is Mr Howard has deployed 1400. So if he is … to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq, otherwise it’s just a bunch of empty rhetoric.”
Neither Howard’s use of the word “pray as many times as possible” nor Obama’s characterization of Howard as “George Bush’s” ally can be entirely coincidental. Both men were speaking to a domestic political audience. But if Presidential politics fueled Barack Obama’s belligerent reply to Howard, the Australian media seem to think that Howard’s remarks were similarly motivated by recent polls suggesting that Labor leader Kevin Rudd was drawing level with John Howard in electoral popularity. Pundits suggested Howard deliberately stirred up a storm to lure Rudd into a debate on foreign policy, where Labor is perceived as “soft” on terror.
In another curious reversal it was Rudd, not Howard, who warned against “angering” America over the Obama incident. Countering the specter of Osama with the threat of Obama, Rudd warned it was unwise, with the Democrats in power in the House and Senate, for Howard’s to engage in a “personal” attack on a man who might very well be the next occupant of the White House. Howard, for his part chided Rudd for his worries about l√®se majest√©; the real danger, Howard warned, was not in lack of manner but in lack of faith. “I would say the greatest current threat to the quality of the alliance would be a sense in the United States that Australia had deserted her in her hour of need,” Howard said. It was a curious assertion of equality from the leader of a country 1/15th the population of America, a reminder to everyone that Australia was not a blind follower of George Bush. It was John Howard’s war too.
I admire John Howard’s guts
Australia has influence beyond its size. Why, I read a column just the other day by the president of the AOPA where he said that user fees (for air traffic infrastructure) might work “in a small country like Germany” but not “a large country like Australia”!
The Aussies are more important than their pop. size would suggest. They’re a confident nation, just the kind we really need with us. Their soldiers are top-notch, and I’d rather have 100 Aussies at my back than 1,000 Germans, or 10,000 French.
I love John Howard. He has integrity. May he be around for a long time.
Considering their size and their history, you have to admire a nation of stalwart and courageous people who will not be bullied. They continue to make a mockery of England’s inabilities in games they invented such as rugby, soccer and cricket. If I was Obama I would tread softly and not make an issue of Howard or the Aussies. In fact, he should concentrate on HRC – that’s his real and only competition.
Good on ya, Howard!
I love Australia and its people. They have been steadfast in their defense of freedom and liberty for ages. Unlike Europe, they have stood up to the growing demands of the Muslim minority in Australia by refusing to change their society to make it more accommodating to Muslims. In many ways I feel that the country is truer to the American spirit then we are here in the US.
But, Obama is right to call out PM Howard. If we are truly fighting a GWOT, and Iraq is its central front for that war, then Australia needs to pony up and commit more troops. I would think that after the bombings in Bali, the Aussie’s would be lining up to fight.
While Obama is on a roll, he should call out France (whose commitment to the GWOT has been to send a few pastry chefs to Afghanistan) and Germany and Japan and Spain and the list goes on.
We have sufficient mouths and pundits in our own country and donot need some ass in a water-starved place famous for tall cans of beer to tell us who is good and bad amoujng our candidates. Besides: as an American I suggest that he heed Obamas’s retort and send help instead of mouthing off from too much Fosters in his gut. Action not words, pal.
Correction: Her Majesty the Queen is the head of state of the Commonwealth of Australia. Prime Minister Howard should be styled “the head of government”.
I’m disappointed in Obama for calling Iraq “George Bush’s war”. That sort of leftwing jive has, unfortunately, become conventional wisdom on the Left. Recall Hillary’s personal indignity at the prospect of having the war land in her lap when she becomes President. How utterly unserious.
I wonder if John Howard fears that a President Obama would take a renewed American interest in Indonesia and displace Australia’s influence in the region? Obama’s a former Indonesian, after all.
When you look at the relative size of Australia’s population, military, and military budget, demanding another 20k soldiers is patently ridiculous. I did so on my blog, and the factors indicate that the Aussies are contributing as much as we could reasonably expect.
Though I am not a supporter of Barrack Obama the attack this weekend by Australian prime-minister on obama was not only uncalled for but I suspect it was racially motivated. Australian primeminister john Howard has increasingly become the face of irrelevant leadership that still thinks it is relevant in the world simply because it bears a white face.
The australian prime minister know for his dislike for people who are not white in his own country singled out obama simply because obama was not white . the thought of having the leader of the western world having a different face from john was enough for him to single out obama for an attack .fortunately john howard and australia are irrelevant not only to america but to the rest of the world outside the south pacific.
Australia has become irrelevant in the new world order .Australia’s pitiful contribution of 1000 non-combat troops to Iraq speaks volumes of Australia’s position in the world . Apart from having a leading role in the dying commonwealth (former British states) Australia today boasts of no other meaningful positioning the world.
Its leader and Australia’s foreign policy is widely ignored from Africa,Asia and South America. Unless Australia has something else to offer, the thought that being white in today’s world make you relevant is a serious case of global amnesia that colonialism and white dominace of the world ended 30 years ago
From the Aussie op-ed:
Carping about Aussie numbers, when they’re in it as a stalwart ally, is NOT what I want a president of mine doing. Obama had a chance to show some political slickness by handling the comments with dignity and tactful disagreement. Instead he took a shot at not only the Prime Minister but also Australia as a nation.
The other thing to keep in mind is when Howard answered that question, it was in response to a reporter likening Obama’s war plan to his own political rival’s ideas. Howard didn’t spontaneously decide to “attack” Obama. Obama did, however, decide to attack Howard.
Funny how I went from excitement on Obama’s announcement to deciding not to vote for the man without some significant changes almost overnight.
“Australia has about 1500 men and women in Iraq. On a comparative population basis, an Australian force of 21,500 in Iraq would equate to some 320,000 Americans – almost double the US deployment.”
Well, that’s a nice way to gloss over the fact that they are currently fielding 7 times fewer troops per capita than the U.S. Yes, Obama should have said 10,000, not 20,000 additional troops.
But Obama is basically right: If the war in Iraq is as critical as Howard claims, he would commit more troops. That he has not is a clear indication that it is not so critical as he claims.
Pity Obama. If he gets the nomination and the presidency, he will have to face much more of this, some deserved, some not. One thing about being a president is that you face criticism alone without being able to hid behind your fellow co-presidents of the executive. And the the global stage has never been a larger version of the Senate.
Kerry’s behavior during the last election showed what happens when you send a heard animal to do the work of a lone wolf. When O When will the Democrats forward a Governor.
Current U.S. population = 301,157,960
(source: U.S. Census Bureau)
Current Australia population = 20,755,023
(source: Australian Bureau of Statistics)
If there are currently 140,000 U.S. troops, this represents approximately .000465% of our population
If there are currently 1400 Australian troops, this represents approximately .0000675% of their population.
By this math, Australia’s troop commitment to Iraq should be 9651 troops for parity with the U.S.
Obama’s use of the 20,000 number was rhetorical, since that is the number of the proposed U.S. surge. But he does have a point.
Where are the additional eight thousand brave Australian troops?
To “Joe @ 9:17″: Please explain how Howard’s remarks are “racist”. Senator Obama is as white as he is black. Secondly, I am tired of everyone who, in any way considers himself a minority, hides behind the “racist attack” shield. Politics is a rough game. If Senator Obama can’t handle the pressure, he should have remained silent this past Saturday.
You know you’ve reached the end of the an argument when you start comparing the size of populations in countries as a measure of their commitment to a war effort.
Different countries commit their resources in different ways and for different reasons.
The attempt to link troop numbers to commitment is a rhetorical device used by Obama to shut up opposition.
It is not a legitimate argument from a supposed presidential contender. It’s a schoolyard tactic you’d expect from a novice politician running on “Hope.”
1) It’s not an ‘attack’, it’s a remark on an issue that affects the whole free world. Obama has shown himself to be a real lightweight by styling this as a personal ‘attack’. Playing victim politics to avoid highlighting the issue (and is he thinks this single remark is an attack, how will he feel after Hillary has finished with him)
2) John Howard is one of the most decent, well mannered politicians Australia has ever produced. He never ‘attacks’ anyone! He can launch withering criticism of bad policies, but he _never_ makes personal attacks on opponents. And he never responds to the outrageous personal insults he gets in the press and Parliament every day.
3) And the ‘reference to ‘one of George Bush’s allies’. That’s totally pathetic! Obama’s showing himself to be extreme Leftist, with no vision of anything beyond the Left’s opposition to Pres Bush.
4) It’s not interfering in your domestic politics (although, per (2) above, the US Left seem to have no conception that there is a world out here beyond US borders). It’s the number one issue in international affairs. John Howard has every right to offer an opinion on a policy that will bring calamity to the whole Free World!
5) Should Australia have a bigger army — yes (but we have a navy as well, some of which is operating in the Persian Gulf that needs to be appreciated), but it’s a cheap shot from Obama anyway — a cheap shot from a lightweight, pretty-boy candidate (there, now _that’s_ what an attack sounds like).
A lot of comments on the size of Australia’s committment to Iraq.
Don’t forget we also currently are fielding troops in Afghanistan, East Timor and the Solomon Islands.
Australia lives in a dangerous neighborhood. We need to be able to put troops in to any one of dozen potential flash points in the South Pacific and Melanesia.
Don’t forget – Since WW1 the US has had only one ally who has fought at their side in every. single. war. (except maybe grenada …)
For example – where were the Brits in ‘Nam ?
It’s only “fair dinkum” to take a look at the “big picture” before you shoot off your mouth.
I would say our Australian allies are doing their share, when their total military strength and overseas commitments are reviewed.
Of course, that’s just me; still, I think US Senators who want to be President ought to take a moment to get at least vaguely familiar with what our various allies do as far as “pulling their weight” on the world stage. At least, that was the criticism made (fairly) against George Bush back in 1999-2000, as I recall.
1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Army
“…Australian Army statistics: Personnel (Regular Army) 26,000, to expand to 29,000 by 2008
Personnel (Army Reserve) 17,200″
2) From official Australian govt web site: http://www.defence.gov.au/globalops.cfm
Global Operations
Currently, around 2900 Australian Defence Force personnel are deployed on operations overseas to protect Australia and its national interests. Around 300 personnel are also deployed on security tasks in our maritime protection zone as part of Operation Resolute.
(numbers given below are for approx pers):
Operation Catalyst – Iraq 1400
ADF contribution to the rehabilitation and reconstruction of Iraq.
Operation Astute – Timor-Leste
800
ADF contribution to assist in the restoration of peace and stability to Timor-Leste.
Operation Slipper – Afghanistan 500
ADF contribution to the international coalition against terrorism.
Operation Resolute – Australia’s offshore maritime areas 300
ADF contribution to whole-of-government efforts to protect Australia’s offshore maritime areas.
Operation Anode – Solomon Islands 140
ADF contribution to the Australian-led Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands (RAMSI).
Operation Mazurka – Sinai Peninsula, Egypt 25
Australia’s contribution to the Multinational Force and Observers (MFO).
Operation Azure – Sudan 15
Australia’s contribution to the United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMIS).
Operation Paladin – Middle East 12
Australia’s contribution to the UN Truce Supervision Organisation (UNTSO).
Operation Tower – Timor Leste 4
ADF support to the United Nations Office in Timor Leste (UNOTIL).
Jim Durbin: You’re certainly right. We should use other metrics of commitment, such as how often a politician bloviates about certain subjects.
Considering actual, real world factors such as money and troops would just distract us from the important mission at hand: sliming Democratic presidential contenders.
Think you are right Kip. This is not an impressive moment from the hope of the left.
We do all right. We do better than the Canadians by my calculations, done earlier in the piece when some Canadians (well Yanks as well) were saying on the election of the Democrats you war mongering Australians will now be treated like the pond scum you are, or words to that effect.
So Obama fires straight back. At Australians, for the number of troops we provide to the many conflicts in which we are helping, is dependent on the realities of political tolerance in Australia. We are all apparently cowards. And I would have been more impressed if he had said, well I would like to see you do more in Iraq although of course I acknowledge and praise your presence and service in Afghanistan, East Timor, Solomons etc.
So this is how Presidential hopeful Obama treats allies. Or, does he know we are an ally? Does he know anything about the US and Australia’s history together. Has he heard of ANZUS. I would be interested in a journo asking him a few questions about his response, like how do you think your denigration of Australia’s international assistance will affect Australian’s confidence in ANZUS.
The Indonesians are very excited about an “Indonesian” boy becoming President. Is Obama’s rudeness to and dislike of Australians just because he is a childish, ignorant egotist, plus xenophobe, or is his obvious dislike of Australia based on other matters, eg East Timor and the ongoing rankling in Indonesia re Australia’s forceful intervention? What ever the message is clear. If Obama wins Australia better start looking elsewhere for allies.
Maybe it will be good, we clearly can’t expect even any leeway in comments. Let alone support. But whether he or the gleeful left realise it, if Australia is distanced from the US and starts seeing its security as relying on those in its vicinity, and on dealing very differently with China for example, small though we are it would markedly change the nature of the geo-political world. And Europe will never give up its ant-Americanism, whoever is in the Whitehouse.
Andy, boy are you right! We need to find a Democrat that we can hate as bad as we hate Bush. Let’s get on the stick. Let’s start sliming!
John Howard’s original quote which prompted Obama’s response:
“If I was running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats.”
This is how the current Prime Minister treats Australia’s American allies who are also members of the Democratic Party. Please note that in the video excerpted Howard tries to lead his audience to believe he was speaking only of Obama and not all Democrats.
Howard also uses the word “Democrat” as an adjective, a well-known Republican slur that even Bush has apologized for using.
How Dare Howard imply that the Democrats may be less than our friends, or cast aspersions on the darlings. On the other hand it is fine for this mob to write to our Prime Minister to criticise Australians in March 2005.
Senator Jack Reed, Senator James M. Jeffords, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Senator Tom Harkin, Senator Ron Wyden, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Christopher H. Smith, Rep. Tom Lantos, Rep. Barney Frank, Rep. Nita M., Rep. James P. McGovern, Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy, Rep. Fortney Pete Stark, Rep. Lane, Rep. Jim McDermott .
And why were these luminaries writing to us. (We are a democracy in case there are some Americans, including Obama, who seem not to know this.)
They were saying
http://www.etan.org/news/2005/03autral.htm
“Although Timor-Leste has been free of Indonesian military occupation since 1999, its citizens continue to struggle against illiteracy, poverty, preventable disease and a lack of basic services. We are especially concerned by reports of scores of recent preventable deaths in Timor-Leste that have resulted from chronic food shortages and outbreaks of dengue hemorrhagic fever. An equitable sharing of oil and gas revenues would enable Timor-Leste to provide better health care and other essential services to its citizens. Such equitable sharing of revenue is not a question of charity; rather it is a matter of self-determination, sovereignty and Timor-Leste’s future.
We applaud the fact that Australia has helped Timor-Leste achieve independence and also provided significant humanitarian and reconstruction aid. However, the approximately two billion Australian dollars your government has received in revenues since 1999 from Laminaria-Corallina, fields located twice as close to Timor-Leste, is much larger than the total cost of your generous assistance. ……..
and that your country will once again play a leading role in helping the people of Timor-Leste to be free, this time from the oppression of poverty that is preventing them from progressing as one of the world’s newest democracies.”
So our friends the Democrats, they don’t consult us about nicking off from Iraq, just blow in the wind you irrelevancies, and they think we are slightly unpleasant do nothings whose only actions of import are venal. Our venality is such that East Timorese have been killed by it.
Pretty obvious, Howard (or Australia) has nothing to lose in his/our relationship with the Democrats, and with that lot pouring their scorn (oh so politely) on us it doesn’t seem too big a stretch to see the “Democrats” as being our problem and definitely not our mates. The Democrats have made it very clear that we do not exist most of the time, certainly not as valued allies. And it would seem just another corrupt state in SE Asia. And we should be polite to them!
On reflection, Obama’s comment suggests some of the other repercussions that will follow if America retreats from the terrorists.
Sure, Australia might then increase its armed forces by 20,000. Non-Americans all live in a world where can rely on the USA to be the world’s policeman. And on the surface that ain’t fair, but is it really so bad?
Because not just Australia will need to increase its army. Japan, the EU states, China, Indonesia, India — all today’s ‘Great Powers’ are going to feel the chill wind blowing, a world a lot less secure and without the familiar hyper power to turn to. We’re all going to need to start spending a lot more money on our armed forces, and if our regional rivals do the same, well, we might need to spend even more.
There won’t be Uncle Sam to keep the peace, only our own military might will be able to guarantee our security.
It’s 2007, do we remember what the world looked like in 1907, before the USA was the world’s greatest superpower?
As an Australian, I find it really to be expected that Obama is not particularly nuanced in his response. Americans can be expected to know very little about Australian politics.
Most Dems, seen from outside the USA, display moral superiority, by hating Bush and ‘Bush’s war’ and undermining the struggle agaisnt murderers and oppressors. Bush might not be 100% successful, but he has acted to protect the lives and interests of decent people (Americans and others) from terrorists. I think Howard is SPOT ON; Democrats, both legislative and the media wing, have sabotaged the effort to stop terrorists.
Remember, it was Democrat Congressman Harold Ford who back in October 27 in Knoxville described Australia as a rogue state seeking nuclear weapons, and a threat that undermined US National Security.
I quote
We keep an eye on what US politicians say, you see. Because it affects us. We listen – and we don’t forget our allies, nor our enemies. We paid a debt owing to East Timor since the dark days of 1942, when they helped us against the invading Japanese. It doesn’t matter that that was over 50 years ago, we remember.
Parenthetically, South Africa is the only country known to have had a working nuclear capability and deliberately and publicly abandoned it. US Congresscritters of all stripes, not just Democrats, have often been at best pig-ignorant of foreign policy facts, at worst deliberately mendacious.
There is no love lost between the DNC and Australia. But if the US does cut-and-run, we’ll do what we can to take up the slack till you come to your senses again. After all, you did in 1917 and 1941, and saved our hides when you did. We’ll keep on fighting the war on terror, no matter what you do. I admit, it’s a lot easier when you’re there to help though.
We also know that the likes of Obama and Ford, and for that matter, Michael Moore, do not speak for all Democrats. We hope that more Democrats stop speaking for them.
But if not – we still will remember the Coral Sea, and the US Naval personnel who died to save us from Invasion. That’s a debt of blood, and no amount of insult or invective by know-nothing politicians, no dirty tricks taking away our export markets, and no temporary loss of nerve can wipe out.
You’re our mates you see. Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children can tell you what that means, Australian Men and Women have fought alongside them often enough. Western Front, Pacific Theatre, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq… Ask them what Semper Fidelis means.
When comparing US defence commitments to Aussie ones you need to recognise the USA’s economies of scale advantage. When us Aussies buy some of your Abrahms tanks or the coming joint strike fighter all that money flows out of Australia to the US. Therefore in terms of multiplier effects through the economy the US is massively better off on its defence expenditures than us Aussies.
That said there has been a recognition by John Howard that we do need to boost our defence expenditure up again. In particular we have been bringing on line a few more battalions as a result of commitments to Afghanistan,Iraq, Solomon Island and East Timor/Timor Leste.
It is a shame we aren’t a population of 60m and a military the size of the UK’s then we could have committed the 20K in soldiers and perhaps really helped the Brits out in the Sth of Iraq.
Australia has a lot of influence for geographical reasons, among others. It’s a sort of regional power, whereas in Europe you have a bunch of rough equals.
Missed that Zoe. Very interesting. Ford must be a mate of this chap, “Kim Myong Chol (“Unofficial” spokesman of Kim Jong-il and North Korea.)” and what he had to say in the Asia Times on Oct 6 2006.
“The fourth point is that the North Korea government of Kim does not care at all whether Japan goes nuclear, or that South Korea and Australia follow suit. In the first place, those countries are practically nuclear-armed because they are under the nuclear umbrella of the US and house American nuclear bases and because Tokyo’s military spending is 10 times that of Pyongyang’s and Seoul’s defense budget is five times that of Pyongyang’s. It is too obvious that they are capable of acquiring nuclear weapons at short notice.
The factor that has prevented them from developing their own nuclear weapons is political pressure from the US, not because North Korea was only conventionally armed. The US has insisted that they should be under the nuclear umbrella and buy expensive high-tech weapons from them.
Their becoming nuclear powers will signal that the US is no longer a reliable cop. At long last de-Americanization of the US allies and neutralization of the US in the rest of the world will be set into motion. This is one of the reasons why the Kim administration has every reason to secretly welcome the nuclear arming of junior US allies.”
If US Democrats are misinforming themselves about Australia from North Korea we really do have to worry about what sort of “friendship” we can expect if another member of the Black Caucus gets elected President.
The EU Barcelona report recommended that Australia be called upon to be sort of a EU arm and do its lifting in the Asia Pacific area for them in their plans to make the world a peaceful place, and save it of course. Thanks to them as well but we are quite capable of meeting our responsibilities without the EU telling us what to do. There have also been proposals put to NATO that Australia be made a member. We are it would it appear, more on the radar of the rest of the world as a nation with an active and useful military force than we are for US Democrats.
Why we would want to be part of a dysfunctional body such as NATO is a mystery to me. Take out the US and the UK and what have you got.