 |
|
Add to My Group
|
March 13, 2006 at 02:46:13
by the Australian Prime Minister (Posted by Richard Neville) Page 1 of 2 page(s) |
|
|
During our recent celebrations of the Coalition's ten years in power, I have, as Prime Minister, been publicly reflecting on our Party's many great achievements, as was appropriate to do. But on this occasion, among old friends and senior colleagues, I wish to share some unsettling thoughts about the situation in Iraq.
Three years ago in Sydney, when I spoke to the men and women of the Australian Defence Force, who were gathered on the deck of HMAS Kanimbla, I felt that above all other Australians, they were entitled to know from me why it is that the Government had asked them to go to the Persian Gulf and face the armed forces of a dangerous dictator.
I said then that all the intelligence material collected over recent times, to which Australia had contributed, proved overwhelmingly that Saddam Hussein had maintained his stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and that he was on the brink of nuclear capability. This posed a real and unacceptable threat to the stability and security of our world. I said that unless Iraq was disarmed of its weapons of mass destruction totally and permanently then the Middle East would remain a powder keg, waiting for a match.
I sincerely believed that was true - on the best intelligence and advice that was available at that time. On February, 2003, I told Parliament, that disarming Iraq would bring enormous benefits to the Middle East and be widely welcomed throughout the world. Unfortunately, our expectations in this matter have not yet been realised. Even so, I have continued to hold firm to our commitment, despite the ups and downs of the occupation, because our alliance with the US is vital to the security of Australia.
On May 19, 2004, after my return from a visit to Baghdad, I told the Institute of Public Affairs in Melbourne that the situation in Iraq was rapidly improving. That the north of the country was relatively peaceful and most of the south was reasonably stable. I pointed out that Iraq was 'no longer ruled by a loathsome and homicidal dictator, and potentially hundreds of thousands of lives have been saved'. I sincerely believed that at the time.
There had been so many encouraging signs of progress. Let me re-iterate some of the signs I mentioned in 2004, and reflect on the situation from today's perspective, as we approach the third anniversary of the occupation.
I said then that electricity, water, telephone and sanitation were gradually being restored to pre-war levels or above. Sadly, this did not happen. As of February this year, 125 projects to provide electricity have been cancelled. Of the 136 projects that were originally pledged to improve Iraqi water and sanitation, only 49 will be ever finished. http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/27/news/rebuild.php
I said then that six major water treatment plants had been rehabilitated. Perhaps I should have pointed out that these plants had previously been destroyed by British and US bombs during the 12 years of UN sanctions against the Hussein regime. Today, the water situation in Iraq is dire. Billions of dollars have been shifted from rebuilding vital infrastructure to guarding the borders of Iraq.
I said that all 240 hospitals as well as 1,200 health clinics were fully operational, which was the advice we had received from the then administrator, Mr Paul Bremer. Unfortunately, this turned out to be overly optimistic. On November 2004, at the start the coalition¹s pacification of the city of Falluja, the city's General Hospital was occupied by US troops and - I am sorry to say - that hospital staff were handcuffed and some patients were dragged from their beds; perhaps for good reasons. Snipers were posted on the roof of the building and ambulances were strafed. On November, 6, the BBC reported that US air strikes had reduced the newly built Nazzal Emergency Hospital to rubble.
One doctor reportedly told Reuters, and I quote: "There is not a single surgeon in Falluja. We had one ambulance hit by US fire and a doctor wounded. There are scores of injured civilians in their homes whom we can't move. A 13-year-old child just died in my hands." Now I do not wish to labour the point. But it should be conceded that an impartial examination actions of the Coalition of the Willing during operations in Falluja has raised uncomfortable issues for our Government. On the face of it, the Geneva Conventions and core articles of the UN Declaration on Human Rights have been ignored. During the siege of Falluja, many Iraqi women and children were caught in the line of fire and some civilians were shot as they tried to swim across the Tigris. It has even been reported that weapons of dubious legality were used in Falluja, such as cluster bombs, napalm, incendiary white-phosphorus and thermobaric, or "fuel-air" explosives, which can have the effect of a tactical nuclear weapon without residual radiation. http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1647716,00.html
The International Red Cross estimates that at least 60% of those killed in the assault on the city were women, children and the elderly; a pattern of destruction that has persisted throughout the occupation of Iraq, and, as much as we would like to shut our eyes, this has served to boost the recruitment of insurgents and harden their resolve. In May last year, the city of al-Qaim near the Syrian border was the target of a major offensive known as Operation Matador, which resulted in hundreds of Iraqi casualties. This operation also displaced thousand of civilians, destroyed entire neighborhoods, polluted water supplies and put one hospital out of action. Six months later in al-Qaim, Operation Steel wiped out the General Hospital, other medical centers, some mosques and schools, even the electricity station. http://www.warcrimeswatch.org/news_details.cfm?artid=155&cat=7
These are the facts. There are many more examples. And they raise serious concerns for the future predicament which our Government and our party may find ourselves facing. We have been lucky up to this point, because the full extent of the mayhem resulting from our U.N sanctioned occupation has not been dwelt upon by the Australian media. You can draw your own conclusions why this is so. However, having been kept well briefed on the conflict by our intelligence agencies, I can assure you that many unpleasant details are still to emerge.
Also, on a personal note, it would be inaccurate for me to maintain that the events unfolding during course of the occupation have left me unmoved. It has long been my habit to keep acquainted with opinions opposed to my own, and to canvas a wide range of views. If an edited version of this talk is made available, it may reference sources from the internet.
Under international law, all military forces owe a 'duty of care' to the civilians of an occupied city. And I am starting to ask myself if this is a commitment we have betrayed. In fact, I dare to wonder if we have betrayed the very ideals that I invoked in my support of the invasion.
In my 2004 speech to the Institute of Public Affairs in Melbourne, I said that, 'Iraq now has a growing and robust independent media, which is absolutely essential for the development and maintenance of a healthy democracy'. Well, I am afraid that was a little premature. Our US partners thought it necessary to suppress the more irresponsible organs of opinion. Several editors were arrested. And while I accepted assurances from our allies that the bombing of the Baghdad offices of Al Jazeera in 2003 was an accident, I must say, that in light of the recent unearthing of the Downing Street memo, the contents of which are available to my Government, I now hold grave doubts about the official story. All told, since the start of hostilities in Iraq, it appears that 82 media personnel have lost their lives. http://www.rsf.org/special_iraq_en.php3
1 | 2
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Editor |
|
|
|
|
| 9 comments |
|
Its a Hoax
lok at the URL its no the PM's site, the domain name is registered to rneville, california and the the link at the bottom of the article is Richard Neville, so it looks as if Richards up to some funny business by craig (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Monday, Mar 13, 2006 at 6:10:41 PM  (0+)
|
|
Not a Hoax - It's Political Satire
[This comment is not by the poster 'ctindale' - there's a bug in the comment posting web page, it's by Mark.] Hoax is too strong a word, it's very dark political satire. Though it would have been better to put a by-line on the bottom saying 'John Howard spoke exclusively to Richard Neville' or something similar. Those of us in the 'lucky country' would know Howard would never make a speech that even mentioned the civilian deaths in Iraq, let alone express any regret for his government's part in the killing. Richard Neville is quite a clever writer. I recall a problem he had getting a story published uncensored in (I think) The Bulletin because he used the term "planet f***ers" to describe corporations who abuse the environment. Quite an appropriate term I reckon. by craig (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Monday, Mar 13, 2006 at 6:29:11 PM (0+)
|
|
Dark satire or Hoax ?
Mark, Yeah your right although it had me going for a while trying to figure it out. Yes us Aussies know John Howard to be incapable of such a speech. But its a bit past satire when you fully integrate a site with its own domain into the official PM's site. Someone's gone to a bit of trouble, so to me its more hoax than satire, enjoyable all the same he is a great writer. by craig (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Monday, Mar 13, 2006 at 7:04:32 PM (0+)
|
|
What is the purpose of this?
The International Red Cross estimates that at least 60% of those killed in the assault on the city were women, children and the elderly; a pattern of destruction that has persisted throughout the occupation of Iraq, and, as much as we would like to shut our eyes, this has served to boost the recruitment of insurgents and harden their resolve. In May last year, the city of al-Qaim near the Syrian border was the target of a major offensive known as Operation Matador, which resulted in hundreds of Iraqi casualties. This operation also displaced thousand of civilians, destroyed entire neighborhoods, polluted water supplies and put one hospital out of action. Six months later in al-Qaim, Operation Steel wiped out the General Hospital, other medical centers, some mosques and schools, even the electricity station. This is from the Prime Minister of Australia the willingest of the willing. How long can Americans keep telling themselves we have not become what we fear. Robert Chapman Lansing, New York by Robert Chapman (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments) on Monday, Mar 13, 2006 at 6:26:43 AM (0+)
|
|
Get the Hell out of Iraq
John Howard apologizes I think a bit to late. And if he was a leader he would have known the realities before now. He should be on the phone with Bush telling him he has lost one of his coalition partners and that Australia is pulling out. Instead John is canvassing his public for his leadership duties. Don't think this apology is going to get you off the hook for supporting these War crimes by the Bush administration. I would suggest that the more action you as a leader take in ending the Bush relationship the better off for Australia. The reason I think you are coming forward is because you really had nothing to do with the US concocted story in the first place. To include and I am sure you are aware that People are hunkering down into realizing Bush is behind the 911 attack, and duped the world into believing it was caused by Bin Ladin and his terrorist pal Saddam Hussein. John we need more than your apology, we need you to start saving lives, by getting the hell out of Iraq. by Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments) on Monday, Mar 13, 2006 at 7:03:01 AM (0+)
|
|
That's not an apology
Howard slaps a disclaimer onto the end of his 'apology'; "I speak as a troubled private citizen, and not as the Prime Minister of Australia". That's not an apology, it's simple politicking. Howard is astute enough to realise that the brown stuff has already hit the spinning thing; all he's trying to do is avoid getting splattered. But, it's too late for that Johnny Boy; you marched in lock-step with Bush and Blair, condemning uncounted hundreds of thousands to death. And for what? Because it was the 'Christian' thing to do? Because it was part of some secret trade agreement? Because you were promised a job with the Carlysle Group, along with Blair? Because you were trying to be macho to compensate for being a cretinous dwarf? Whatever the reasons, Howard knew what he was doing when he signed Australia up for the Iraq invasion and no half-arsed mea culpa will change that fact. I find it exceptionally odd that Howard now 'apologises' for his role in the Iraq slaughter, but has always refused to apologise to the Aboriginal Australians for their centuries-long slaughter by his forebears; the word 'hypocrite' fits comfortably here. by Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments) on Monday, Mar 13, 2006 at 4:15:07 PM (0+)
|
|
Garbage
OpEdNews should be ashamed of itself for publishing such rubbish as this so-called statement by the Australian Prime Minister, without first verifying it's authenticity. We strongly support your position on this unjust war, but this act (publishing the article) is something that President Bush would resort to. Here's hoping that John Howard takes you to court for libel and drives you out of business! by Kay & Carl Hunter (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Tuesday, Mar 14, 2006 at 11:29:50 AM (0+)
|
|
Yep its Richard
Yes its Richard as I suspected. For those who dont know Richard he is like the Rush Limbaugh of far left journalism. He suffers from a form of Journalistic Narcistic Personality Disorder that infects commentators on both sides . Symptoms include Kantor (1992, pp. 203-204) describes the clinical characteristics of NPD as: * inordinate self-pride; * self-concern; * an exaggeration of the importance of one's experiences and feelings; * ideas of perfection; * a reluctance to accept blame or criticism; * absence of altruism although gestures may be made for the sake of appearance; * empathy deficit; and, * grandiosity. Problem is I share many of his beliefs, unfortunately his manner destroys the credibility of his cause and the impact he might otherwise make on the world. http://www.richardneville.com/ STOP PRESS!! 15 March 2006 JOHN HOWARD'S APOLOGY Reflections of the Situation in Iraq. The site hosting this controversial speech has been shut down by persons unknown. Within 24 hrs of its posting it received 8,500 visits. The web hoster, Yahoo, has not yet responded to enquiries. A low res pdf is all that's available at the moment. We are working to restore www.johnhowardpm.org and to host replica of the original. "The new anti terror laws will not target free speech", John Howard. To download the low res PDF, click here. To link to a text only version, click here by craig (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Wednesday, Mar 15, 2006 at 12:16:22 AM (0+)
|
|
That Really Sucks Rob.
That Really Sucks Rob, by ikster. Submitted on 2006-03-25 08:17:20 ikster says: You know Rob that really sucks, allowing people to write fake, unreal, articles. I think that gives OpedNews a bad rap. My question is did you know this before it was written, and why would you go along with it? If you did....I see you have got a problem. Yeah Rob it really sucks when someone is writing comments using my name. The following in the John Howard article is not my comment, yet they have used my name and it is in my file. What the hell is this? I did not write this comment... the following.. That's not an apology by ikster. Submitted on 2006-03-13 17:15:07 ikster says: Howard slaps a disclaimer onto the end of his 'apology'; 'I speak as a troubled private citizen, and not as the Prime Minister of Australia'. That's not an apology, it's simple politicking. Howard is astute enough to realise that the brown stuff has already hit the spinning thing; all he's trying to do is avoid getting splattered. But, it's too late for that Johnny Boy; you marched in lock-step with Bush and Blair, condemning uncounted hundreds of thousands to death. And for what? Because it was the 'Christian' thing to do? Because it was part of some secret trade agreement? Because you were promised a job with the Carlysle Group, along with Blair? Because you were trying to be macho to compensate for being a cretinous dwarf? Whatever the reasons, Howard knew what he was doing when he signed Australia up for the Iraq invasion and no half-arsed mea culpa will change that fact. I find it exceptionally odd that Howard now 'apologises' for his role in the Iraq slaughter, but has always refused to apologise to the Aboriginal Australians for their centuries-long slaughter by his forebears; the word 'hypocrite' fits comfortably here. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I wrote: Get the Hell out of Iraq by ikster. Submitted on 2006-03-13 08:03:01 ikster says: John Howard apologizes I think a bit to late. And if he was a leader he would have known the realities before now. He should be on the phone with Bush telling him he has lost one of his coalition partners and that Australia is pulling out. Instead John is canvassing his public for his leadership duties. Don't think this apology is going to get you off the hook for supporting these War crimes by the Bush administration. I would suggest that the more action you as a leader take in ending the Bush relationship the better off for Australia. The reason I think you are coming forward is because you really had nothing to do with the US concocted story in the first place. To include and I am sure you are aware that People are hunkering down into realizing Bush is behind the 911 attack, and duped the world into believing it was caused by Bin Ladin and his terrorist pal Saddam Hussein. John we need more than your apology, we need you to start saving lives, by getting the hell out of Iraq. --------------------------------------------- And to Mr. Neville, The moment you start writing fake and false articles, is the moment you lose creditability, not John Howard. Forging apologies to make him say UNCLE is really stupid writing. It is neither cute, legitimate, or honorable. John Howard can also go to hell, as far as I'm concerned. by Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments) on Saturday, Mar 25, 2006 at 8:10:56 AM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
