Who’s lying now?
Breaking News on TV today. Australia’s Chief Clerk, Kevin Rudd is talking about his mad-cap scheme to send the Navy thousands of miles away to ‘monitor‘ and ‘get evidence‘ of the Japanese harpooning whales;
“We all know what the Howard Government did about whaling – nothing!”Wow, I thought, fancy the government not doing anything – this can’t be real – is it? No, it’s not true. I Googled Howard Government+japanese whaling and come up with hundreds of hits. Sought legal advice…advised Japanese won’t accept International Court rulings on the matter….applied pressure…Howard writes letter to Japanese PM…Downer applies diplomatic pressure, etc, etc. Obviously Rudd’s staff could’ve done the same as me, or just referred to Hansard and would therefore know that the Howard Government had been applying pressure for years to get the Japanese to stop whaling so the only take I can get from Rudd’s opening line is that he is lying. Tell the lie often enough and people believe. Tell it and people, possibly even those ones who voted him in, will believe. Look at that Howard…never done anything to save those poor whales….what a bastard. Look how world savvy and compassionate Rudd is! Of course the media, being totally unbiased, picked up on it and raised the question – like hell. I’m not holding my breath for any mention tomorrow either.
Facebook
Twitter
Its a lot like the “work choices” fiasco; Julia Gillard during the election said in response to a question about how hard it might be to wind back work choices, that AWA’s only account for about 5% of the employment market; Gee, if they are only 5%, why were they such a big deal?
Kev
Just two comments relevant to this issue. It was an election promise, so Rudd should be condemned (and would be, I’m sure on the Tory blogs) if he didn’t act.
Secondly, I doubt they’ll use the Navy. The asset designed for this purpose is the “Oceanic Viking”. This extract comes from the Australian Customs website –
“The Oceanic Viking is the full-time contracted vessel being used to conduct armed Customs/Fisheries year-round patrols of the Southern Ocean in virtually all weather conditions. The 105-metre Oceanic Viking is fitted with two deck mounted 0.50 calibre machine guns, has a fully equipped medical centre staffed by an Australian Antarctic Division doctor, and carries a full civilian crew and steaming party capable of sailing any apprehended IUU vessel, as well as a Boarding Party of specialist trained Customs officers armed with handguns and two Australian Fisheries officers. As part of the Government’s anti-illegal fishing strategy in Australia’s northern waters, Oceanic Viking is also used for two northern patrols each year.”
For mine, I’d rather see my taxpayer dollar spent on this than on preventing a merchant vessel (MV Tampa) from disembarking refugees as an exercise in wedge politics.
.50 cal MGs, boarding parties, apprehending vessels, armed custom agents – all irrelevant as is the Navy’s firepower and crew. The Japs don’t hunt whales in our waters – they are on the high seas.
In the initial interview Rudd refused to rule out using the RAN and RAAF and even if he uses the Viking it will not be able to do anything other than monitor a situation we already know about.
To what end – harassment?
MV Tampa and wedge politics. We have to draw the line somewhere on wedge politics. We can’t have each and every decision made by Howard defined as wedge – It is irrational and ideological. Tampa was a lesson to refugee runners, the Indonesians and the world that refugees must use the system and not just drop in sans official papers. It worked – Indonesia cleaned up it’s act and the Snake Head people runners were curtailed.
The only logic to be drawn from Rudd’s stance is tying up Greenie votes
What you are suggesting is that it’s OK for anyone to land on our shores and take up residence without papers; even to commit piracy on the high seas as did the Tampa guys, but if a sovereign nation harpoons a whale thousands of miles from our shores then we send out the navy (or an armed vessel) and…and…do what exactly?
And that is better use of our money?
If you are a signed-up member of Greenpeace – just say so – It’s the only way to make any sense of your logic.
I am not a member of any political organisation – I avoid it like the plague.
There is a moral dimension to this – in the case of the Tampa, almost all were genuine refugees. The legal piracy may have been committed by the Tampa crew- the moral piracy was committed by the government of the time. The point on border security could have been made without the bizarre intervention of the navy.
As to whaling and logic – how logical is it to harpoon whales? Once the economic benefits of whale watching enterprises, hotels, restaurants and other tourist amenities are considered, hunting whales is a net economic loss, at least in this country.
There is also a very basic political logic. The government was elected on an anti-whaling platform –
“Labor has a clear policy position that we will enforce Australian law banning the slaughter of whales.” (ALP website – 18th September 2007)
It strikes me as logical that they will attempt to keep this promise. The Howard government said heaps – did nothing, with the exception of lobbying at the IWC. You might reasonably accuse the new government of naivety about international law, but you’re drawing a long bow to accuse them of lying.
I can’t see why there is a problem with hunting whales. They don’t go after endangered species, and really whales are just big wet salt water cows that taste delicious. Funny enough people don’t mind aborigines using guns, boats and landcruisers to kill dugongs and turtles or Inuit to kill seals as that is their ‘Traditional Food’. The Japanese and Norwegiand have been eating whales for thousands of years, surely it is their traditional food. As usual there is a racist element to this subject and the racists or those who want to stop the Japs from eating a very nice animal. I wish I could buy whale or dolphin here in Melbourne it would definately make my table.
….but you’re drawing a long bow to accuse them of lying.
It goes like this – Rudd said the Howard Government did nothing; The Howard Government did lot’s of things. Rudd knows this therefore he is telling a lie to reinforce his good guy image. Very short bow.
The point on border security could have been made without the bizarre intervention of the navy.
Not really. First we had queue jumpers taking over the ship that had rescued them and demanding the Captain take them to the port of their choice rather than an Indonesian port (the nearest as dictated by International Law) and then a Captain who buckled under the threat even though he would’ve had weapons in his armoury.
An agenda maybe?
None of this engineered by the Howard Government so I have trouble seeing it as ‘Wedge Politics’
The government then reacted as I think they should – they took command of the situation, gave medical and logistic assistance and then processed them for refugee status
The bizarre intervention of the Navy was actually the SASR. The RAN were simply the delivery agent – the bus, so to speak. The ship wasn’t geared for hundreds of shipwreck survivors and the Captain said he was worried about his crews safety so the SAS boarded and did the humane thing.
If the government hadn’t acted as they did the point that Australia has no border security would’ve been broadcast to the world.
“We can’t have each and every decision made by Howard defined as wedge”
Yes we can and that is how it is defined. Wedge politics is defined as doing anything that the left disagrees with, Tampa is the perfect example regardless of the fact that the majority of Australians fully supported it and that it was a standard example of border security.
Why must everything Howard did be classified as ‘tricky politics’ or ‘wedge’ – simple, the left can’t acknowledge the fact that the majority of Australians have no interest in their lunatic propositions. proof = Labour had to market Rudd as a younger John Howard and had to muzzle the rest of their candidates to get elected.
Sending a customs boat down south to waste its time and our money filming something that is totally legal just to buy green votes is hardly principled politics.
“None of this engineered by the Howard Government so I have trouble seeing it as ‘Wedge Politics’
He did a pretty good job of engineering a response as he went along. In what became an integral part of the 2001 federal election, Howard’s Government refused to countenance what was spun as an invasion of Australia’s territorial sovereignty, saying repeatedly: “We decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.” So electorally compelling was this message that it was incorporated into the Liberals’ election poster, showing a resolute Howard, fists clenched, flanked by Australian flags.
What has always irked me about this activity in my name – apart from the cynical use of a boatload of refugees – is the way in which the soldiers and sailors were used. Arne Rinnan (Captain of the Tampa) made the comment – “The soldiers obviously didn’t like their mission”.
Now put all this in the context of hot air – no real action – about whaling, and the bleating we’re hearing now from those previously hot and strong on border security, and the double speak is stark. I’ve got no strong feelings about whales, but hypocrisy pisses me right off.
Sorry 1735099 but I have no idea what you are trying to say, you seem to be trying to put whaling and illegal immigrants into the same basket. Then you mumble something about hypocrisy. Really what are you trying to say?
Let me spell it out. The same people who were so gung ho about border protection in the case of the Tampa are now lambs when it comes to our fishery. I call that hypocrisy, and I had a gutfull of that on RTA in 1971. I’d also call the Japanese contention that the whale hunt is research total hypocrisy.
“Japanese won’t accept International Court rulings on the matter”
is, with due respect to Kev, simply an assumption. We don’t know how they’d react, and should remember the result of pressure applied to the French by the much-maligned greenies over nuclear testing in the Pacific.
Japan could also be hauled before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Hamburg for breaches of the Law of the Sea Convention. One of the advantages of this option is that the Tribunal can issue immediate provisional measures requiring Japan to cease its unlawful whaling activities. Other equally strong options include initiating compliance procedures under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species which could lead to a collective trade embargo.
An alternative is to take Japan to the International Court of Justice in The Hague for breaching the Whaling Convention, which allows genuine scientific research but prohibits plainly commercial whaling. Both Australia and Japan have accepted the jurisdiction of the World Court, so there is no impediment to bringing a case immediately.
They’re both national sovereignty issues, but the first one was cynical political opportunism – the second honours an election promise. Another fundamental difference is that new government has apparently drawn the line at using the military, something that Howard did at the drop of a hat.
The Howard Government increased immigration and refugee intake.
The ‘moral’ sledgehammer from people like you 1735099 helped the One Nation Party gain popularity.
Economic refugees aren’t legitimate.
“We decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.”
Well if not us then who,1735099?
A UN bureaucrat
N.Korea
Pakistan
“Arne Rinnan (Captain of the Tampa) made the comment – “The soldiers obviously didn’t like their mission”.”
Having lost control of his ship to boarders, good old Arne might also have just been looking to shift the focus off his own incompetence, but lets assume he wasn’t, that he told the complete, unvarnished truth – fair enough, we now only accept as valid military missions that the troops enjoy…
I recall reading all of those accounts of Diggers giggling their way up to Kokoda, the laughter at Long Tan was legendary and apparently Kapyong was all waterslides and fairy floss.
New job for the (silent) environment minister.
Figure head on the Anti-Whaling Spy Ship.
He’d scare the Japanese away.
If you can’t see the difference between illegal refugees pirating a ship and forcing the Captain to take them to Australia and a sovereign nation fishing in international waters then you can’t expect anyone to take you serious
Another fundamental difference is that new government has apparently drawn the line at using the military, something that Howard did at the drop of a hat.
The new government backed down on using the Navy because someone pointed out that it was stupid and if anyone made a mistake it could be classified as piracy and would stuff up diplomatic relations between Australia and Japan for years. Need I point out that Japan is a major trading partner?
Howard used the SAS, shipped to the area by the navy because dear Arnie had a problem, it dealt with hundreds of people taking over his ship and he was worried about the safety of his crew. Your darling refugees were threatening him and severely outnumbered him and his crew.
Rudd is doing it for Greanpeace/Greenie votes so don’t expect me to agree with it. There are thousands of other problems he needs to sort out before flying with the faries.
Kae, I particularly like the cartoon depiction where his lips are stitched together – now that would scare the whales away.
“There are thousands of other problems he needs to sort out before flying with the faries.”
Thousands? – After 11 years of joy and prosperity- surely not?
Harry Buttle
Vietnam wasn’t much fun, but at least I was aware that I was doing what I had been well-trained for, and not impersonating a customs officer so a little man in Canberra could look a bit macho.
Nor did my dad enjoy his stint in the RAAF in New Guinea, but he understood the stark necessity. Your sarcasm reflects the cynicism towards the military that permeates conservative correctness.
Neither were the SAS impersonating Custom agents. Customs are simply not empowered to handle such cases as people taking control of a ship and trying to circimvent our laws.
Well maybe not thousands unless we count each unionist as a problem, but at least hundreds. Just look at them – controlling the unions so they don’t run rampant over the economy like they want to; Keeping a tab on the greenies/Global Warming apostles within the party to ensure they don’t close down Australia’s coal industry as they have stated they want to; the list goes on but you can see where I’m heading.
“Anyone but Howard” is the catchcry, isn’t it, numpty# 17xxxx?
FFS. Who said the SAS team who boarded the MV Tampa “didn’t enjoy their job”?
The Captain? He who had just handed his ship over to pirates?
The Press? Who weren’t there?
The Reffos? Who had a vested interest in getting to touch base in Australia? Better than winning Lotto.
You seem to just make shit up, and malign dedicated and hard working servicemen doing their job, safe in the knowledge that they can’t comment back at you.
PQ,
I have never heard this ‘They didn’t enjoy their job’ and I’ve spoken to guys who where there. There was one however – the ex SAS Officer who nominated for the ALP in Fremantle (I think) but he had an agenda.
“You seem to just make shit up, and malign dedicated and hard working servicemen doing their job, safe in the knowledge that they can’t comment back at you.”
Rinnan made that comment in an interview with a Norwegian newspaper- I didn’t make it up. Nor did he “hand his ship over to pirates” – in fact his crew corralled the refugees into one section on the deck where they sheltered between containers. He copped some criticism because he wouldn’t let them use the heads on the Tampa – hardly piracy.
Perhaps the experience I had in the early seventies on RTA has taught me that any government that commits its servicemen to a politically driven agenda, which has scant bearing on national security deserves to be condemned. Back then my service was maligned and denied by the government that sent me. I had a Liberal candidate tell me to my face in 1975 that Vietnam wasn’t a real war, and that I wasn’t fighting for Australia. This wasn’t made up – it was lived experience.
So I know a little bit about being maligned, and have a long memory, obviously a bit longer than your’s PQ. Every time I see hypocrisy I’ll call it.
And Kev, what’s your problem with an ex-serviceman nominating for the ALP? As I understand it, one of the principles we were fighting for was freedom of association.
I had a Liberal candidate tell me to my face in 1975 that Vietnam wasn’t a real war, and that I wasn’t fighting for Australia.
Funny what different folk remember. You remember a sole Lib of poor taste and I remember a complete ALP Party in opposition and government. A Deputy PM who had a track record of flying to the USSR and fawning to them while they were financing the Viets; who organized the entire anti Vietnam war movement and who was complicit in the collection and movement of funds from his junior ALP members at Universities to the NLF. I remember a later PM who jumped into bed with China so quick that the bodies of Viet vets had had time to grow cold
The Libs may not be covered in glory from the Vietnam days and they never backed the enemy.
Nothing wrong with ex-servicemen nominating for the ALP but there is a fair bit wrong with current serving officers canning the government. Tinley claimed to be traumatized by his experience on the Tampa – if so what sort of mission brief did he give his troops?
So 1735099 . Do you object to all deployments that have ‘scant bearing on national security’?
Jim Cairns. The Digger’s friend.
Opened his arms and his heart to all the Vietnam returned soldiers.
Sometimes arseholes are just arseholes, and all the happy clapping in the world won’t change that fact.
Gary
Yes & Merry Christmas.
No, 1735099 my sarcasm doesn’t “reflect the cynicism towards the military that permeates conservative correctness”, I’m showing what a ridiculous buffoon you are (and its worked a treat) – you are the one quoting poor old Arnie about the troops not enjoying their mission as if that is in some way relevant to grown ups, not I.
BTW only a complete fool would believe that the SAS boarding a vessel illegally entering Aust waters whilst under the effective control of boarders is a job for Customs.
Harry
I’d suggest you do some reading on the facts about Tampa. It might also be a good idea to try to understand why a respected and decorated SAS officer decided to enter politics after his experience with this episode. Perhaps he was an immature buffoon. But there may have been another explanation. Check the following for an interesting interview: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1798696.htm
If you read Australian military history you’ll note that Australian soldiers generally take a dim view of being used for purposes other than genuine national security, but will fight like cornered cats when they believe in the cause. Try these monographs – “Monash” – Roland Perry, “Kokoda” – Peter Fitzsimons. For a darker picture, try “The Minefield” – Greg Lockhart and “The Year I Said Goodbye” – Peter Winter. This thread runs through all of them
The last book resonates for me, because Winter was in my unit, and the account of his disillusionment with our role in Vietnam is reflected totally in the letters I wrote at the time, all of which I still have.
The best summing up of this issue I have come across is in Paul Ham’s recent work “Vietnam, the Australian War”. His take on what some commanders thought of the war is pretty clear –
“They saw Australia’s involvement for what it was: a diplomatic gesture rather than a military necessity. In essence, the troops were being asked to risk their lives to fulfil a diplomatic courtesy to America.” (p444)
Merry Christmas
Thanks and Merry Christmas all.
Then I assume you include these.
East Timor
GW1
Afghanistan?
All UN ‘peace’ missions.
1735099, you seem to be assuming that I’m not ex military. 11.5 years, 6.5 of them as a Para.
The ex SAS officer was no doubt respected as a military officer, outside of his professional standing, that tells us NOTHING about what sort of person he is or what is ambitions are. a puff piece in the ABC is of little use here.
Re taking a dim view of being used for other than national security, grow up, Tampa was about national security. if we refuse to secure our borders, then by definition our nation is not secure.
re Winters book, if he can’t see that an alliance is by neccessity a 2 way street, then he is a fool. if we won’t turn up to help the US occaisionally, how can we expect them to turn up for us when we need it?
If you were to read a tad more widely than books by people with an axe to grind, you’d see that the last person who can give you the real strategic picture is the guy in the trench, he is too busy focussing on his immediate problems and that colours his long term perspective.
So the requirement for good mission now is that it has to be both ‘fun’ and one that the troops ‘believe in’, are they allowed to come home if it stops being fun? or if they ‘stop believing’?
“11.5 years, 6.5 of them as a Para” – and one or two hard landings by the sound of it. Tony Jones is one of Australia’s most respected political journalists. He does not do puff pieces. Did you even read the transcript?
“Tampa was about national security.” Two months out from a federal election in which the government was struggling? Sure it was Harry. If you believe that you will probably believe that John Edward can talk to the dead. As John Edward will be at Australia zoo on Jan 5th maybe Kev could get down there and ask John to contact the spirit of Richard Nixon. He could ask Nixon if Whitlam’s July ’71 visit to China influenced his own visit six months later. A visit Nixon later described as “the week that changed the world.”
As for the book by Peter Winter, you don’t say that you have read it so I will assume you haven’t. Neither have I. I will reserve my judgement as to whether the author is a fool or not until I have.
Well Felix, I did read the transcript. there is not a single hard question put by Jones, most of them are virtual Dorothy Dixes. Jones has been doing leftist puff pieces for much of his time at the ABC (unsurprising, if he wasn’t doing them he wouldn’t be at the ABC, its their stock in trade).
re Tampa, tell me how national security would have been promoted by allowing illegals to hijack commercial vessels to come to Aust? The Govt is required to act on national security issues no matter how long it is until an election – shall we expect the current Govt to not act in Australias interests from a point 6 months out from the next election just to satify conspiracy theorists?
The problem that conspiracy theorists run into is that sometimes good policy is popular. Tampa is and was.
Anyone who believes that an alliance is a one way street is a fool, published or not.
Harry
At my age being told to “grow up” is refreshing. Thank you.
“how can we expect them to turn up for us when we need it.” They turn up when they need it – not when we need it. Sometimes the two coincide.
I don’t read books written only by authors with an axe to grind. Back in the seventies as a Nasho, I did a rehab course post discharge. I finished up with two degrees, one of them an Arts degree with a major in South East Asian history, mainly because I’d become interested in the background to the war. The reading list consisted of over two hundred monographs by a wide range of researchers. This, together with my travels since in Singapore, Malaysia and Vietnam have coloured my perceptions. The guy in the trench may have a narrow perspective, but he’s at least as qualified to have an opinion as the colonel blimp in the deckchair whose contribution increases as the years go by.
Present company excepted, of course………
Two years of compulsory military service from thirty five years ago, and there follows a lifetime with the snout in the Government trough.
Jeez, Harold has a lot to answer for. He had the chance to knock NS on the head and wimped out.
No wonder he went for the long swim.
Yes, 1735099, I’m sure being told that you are behaving like a child is refreshing.
Tell me how the US ‘needed’ E.Timor to be freed, yet they told Indonesia to back off and handled much of our logistics. possibly prevented us being dragged into a war that we had no ability to win, would have dragged on and would have done serious economic damage to us (at best).
Actually, the guy in the trench can only comment on what happened in and around his trench, if you got that, then I’d have some respect for your arts degree, unfortunately whatever qualifications you may hold you have coloured them with a childish set of conspiracy theories and continue to quote authors with an axe to grind.
Again, how about an answer – is the requirement for good mission that it has to be both ‘fun’ and one that the troops ‘believe in’, are they allowed to come home if it stops being fun? or if they ’stop believing’?
Or are you going to keep evading?
PQ
“a lifetime with the snout in the Government trough”
Wrong assumption – The rehab course lasted one year – it simply got me started. I finished my degrees (and a further post-graduate qualification) after ten years of part time (evening) study. It took until 1981. I’ve worked for a living since discharge, and at age 60 am still working – not because I have to, but because I enjoy it.
Your attitude to Nashos was not reflected in my service. Generally once in uniform, nobody could care less. There were more immediate concerns. Your attitude to Vietnam Veterans is depressingly familiar.
Harry
“Or are you going to keep evading?”
Nothing to evade. My simple point is that in a free society, the soldier is not treated as a political pawn. He/she should also believe in the mission. Whether he/she enjoys it is irrelevant. I enjoyed some of my service – some not. I was a conscript. My reg colleagues seemed to have a very similar attitude to mine.
It’s important that we have alliances, but an alliance is not a servile relationship. Look at the “Free” Trade Agreement with the US, the way our beef market has been manipulated, the sad history of military procurement of unsuitable US equipment (the M1 Abrams, Raytheon’s tender for the combat system for the Collins class subs, and the purchase of the Superhornets – are examples) to appreciate the reality.
You can posit that the Yanks were behind the successful Timor operation, but there are plenty in the last government who wouldn’t agree with you. It was after all a UN mission established by Security Council resolution 1246 and extended until 30 September 1999 by resolution 1257.
I don’t think anything we get from the US would satisfy you 1735099.
I maybe mistaken but wasn’t it handed over to UN control after hostilities ended.
What did the UN provide?
What threat did poss to Australia?
Gary
John Lee Hooker, Blind Boy Fuller and and Big Bill Broonzy all come from the US, and they’re OK by me.
The sequence of events in Timor was as follows – Following a UN-sponsored agreement between Indonesia, Portugal and the United States and a surprise decision by the Indonesian President B. J. Habibie, a UN-supervised popular referendum was held on August 30, 1999. The East Timorese voted for full independence from Indonesia, but violent clashes, instigated primarily by the Indonesian military and aided by Timorese pro-Indonesia militias led by Eurico Guterres, broke out soon afterwards.
A peacekeeping force (INTERFET, led by Australia) intervened to restore order.
The UN were involved from the beginning. They provided the mandate. You could argue about any real threat, apart from the “arc of instability”, but Timor is a bit closer to home than Iraq for example.