Richard Woolcott is a former ambassador to the United Nations and was Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade from 1988-1992. In 1996, he was a special envoy for John Howard and Alexander Downer.
So, Woolcott can hardly be described as rabid, a lefty, misinformed or simply someone to be lightly dismissed.
Writing a piece in The Age today "Invasion will stand condemned" he says:
"Three years ago tomorrow a group of 43 prominent Australians produced a widely publicised critique of the Howard Government's decision to commit Australian forces to join the American invasion of Iraq. The criticism was based on the Government's misjudgement of the perspicacity of the Bush Administration and of the false contention that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.
The group urged the Government, or the Opposition should it form government later in 2004, to restore truth in government in the interest of maintaining the effectiveness of our parliamentary democracy and also to pursue a less compliant relationship with the United States based on a genuine partnership.
The group included former chiefs of the army, navy and air force, two former chiefs of the Australian Defence Force and more than 25 former ambassadors. The collective wisdom and experience of this group of 43, which included no fewer than 18 holders of awards in the order of Australia for their services to this country, was dismissed by John Howard and Alexander Downer, mainly because Australian forces had already been privately committed to the misconceived Bush Administration's adventure in Iraq.
Downer has said, correctly, that foreign policy should be judged by its outcomes. Indeed it should. But what are the outcomes of the invasion of a weak country, which did not threaten the US, let alone Australia? The war in Iraq is now widely acknowledged as a catastrophe. It has greatly eroded the standing internationally and domestically of George Bush's presidency. It has tarnished former British prime minister Tony Blair's otherwise commendable record. Curiously, John Howard, although entirely complicit in this disaster, has so far avoided accountability and escaped the domestic political retribution visited on Bush and Blair.
The other main outcomes of the war, apart from substantial loss of American and British lives, have been the destruction of Iraq's infrastructure and massive civilian casualties, including an unknown number of women and children. Eight million people in Iraq now need emergency aid, while between 2 and 3 million Iraqi refugees have fled. Other disastrous outcomes include the great increase in terrorist activities in Iraq itself, where al-Qaeda had no significant presence before 2002, a substantial increase in Iranian influence in the Middle East and the further destabilisation of the situation throughout the Middle East."
So, Woolcott can hardly be described as rabid, a lefty, misinformed or simply someone to be lightly dismissed.
Writing a piece in The Age today "Invasion will stand condemned" he says:
"Three years ago tomorrow a group of 43 prominent Australians produced a widely publicised critique of the Howard Government's decision to commit Australian forces to join the American invasion of Iraq. The criticism was based on the Government's misjudgement of the perspicacity of the Bush Administration and of the false contention that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.
The group urged the Government, or the Opposition should it form government later in 2004, to restore truth in government in the interest of maintaining the effectiveness of our parliamentary democracy and also to pursue a less compliant relationship with the United States based on a genuine partnership.
The group included former chiefs of the army, navy and air force, two former chiefs of the Australian Defence Force and more than 25 former ambassadors. The collective wisdom and experience of this group of 43, which included no fewer than 18 holders of awards in the order of Australia for their services to this country, was dismissed by John Howard and Alexander Downer, mainly because Australian forces had already been privately committed to the misconceived Bush Administration's adventure in Iraq.
Downer has said, correctly, that foreign policy should be judged by its outcomes. Indeed it should. But what are the outcomes of the invasion of a weak country, which did not threaten the US, let alone Australia? The war in Iraq is now widely acknowledged as a catastrophe. It has greatly eroded the standing internationally and domestically of George Bush's presidency. It has tarnished former British prime minister Tony Blair's otherwise commendable record. Curiously, John Howard, although entirely complicit in this disaster, has so far avoided accountability and escaped the domestic political retribution visited on Bush and Blair.
The other main outcomes of the war, apart from substantial loss of American and British lives, have been the destruction of Iraq's infrastructure and massive civilian casualties, including an unknown number of women and children. Eight million people in Iraq now need emergency aid, while between 2 and 3 million Iraqi refugees have fled. Other disastrous outcomes include the great increase in terrorist activities in Iraq itself, where al-Qaeda had no significant presence before 2002, a substantial increase in Iranian influence in the Middle East and the further destabilisation of the situation throughout the Middle East."
Comments