As Australia was
positioning to take up the fight in Iraq, those with first-hand experience in
the region were under no illusions about the patience required, the low
prospects for success, and the specific challenges of guerilla warfare against
religious fanatics.
One, who had been
at the tip of the spear in previous campaigns, gave me a chilling prediction:
"These guys will melt back into the civilian population and they'll
extract a heavy moral price in Iraq if we want to go after them."
Already, that's
been proved correct which is why when Australia flew its first active combat
missions this week, the FA-18 Super Hornets returned to base after seven hours
aloft, their lethal payloads still heavy under-wing. It was at once a sign of
Australia's essential civility – refusing to pursue and eliminate targets when
civilians became endangered – and, of the likelihood that this will be a
protracted battle with only so much achievable from the air alone. Two bombs
were finally dropped on Thursday.
A moral price,
however, is being paid at home, as the government introduces controversial
measures to counter the internal threat, both real and perceived.
Three tranches of
anti-terror laws are in train, providing new powers for security agencies and
police, and severe penalties for acts that before now were not even
offences. They deal with updated powers for ASIO, tough new restrictions
around foreign fighters, and the retention and use of so-called meta-data.
Few would argue with
Tony Abbott's proposition that the primary responsibility of government is to
defend its people and keep them safe. But a clear and present danger arises if
pursuing this rReesponsibility is done so singularly that it overrides other
fundamental imperatives such as maintaining pluralism, protecting basic
freedoms, and guaranteeing universal human rights.
Signs of imbalance
are mounting. Illiberalism is probably the natural corollary of war. On
Wednesday morning for example, Abbott went as far as apologising to the
conservative radio shock jock Alan Jones and his like-minded audience, for not
having moved earlier to curb freedom of association and thought among those who
oppose the US-led mission in Iraq/Syria.
His target was the
group Hizb ut-Tahrir, an organisation which, let's be frank, holds extreme
views most people would deem antithetical to Australian traditions and
interests. Jones told Abbott that the group was planning a forum in western
Sydney on the weekend titled "The War to End a Blessed Revolution" and
would be bringing in an international speaker for the purpose.
"Are you, before
Friday, as Prime Minister of Australia going to proscribe this movement? That
is, put them outside the protection of the law, reject them as dangerous and
exile them?" he said. His naive overstating of prime ministerial authority
aside, Jones' outrage would doubtless have been shared by many of his
listeners. That was certainly Abbott's view.
"Alan, I
understand your frustration and anger and I'm frustrated and angry
myself," the prime minister said. People should not be allowed into
the country to spruik their poisonous views, he said. "I am sorry we
haven't red-carded these hate preachers before but it will happen and it will
happen quickly."
Abbott is no fool and
knew full well that the power to restrict entry already exists. The government
can, and has previously denied visas on character grounds or on suspicion of a
visitor's intentions to cause harm or social division. Could he
have another motive? Perhaps to build popular support for other new powers
currently before the parliament? Powers which would not just ban Hizb ut-Tahrir
and potentially other groups, but would make membership illegal and could see
people jailed for simply saying objectionable things?
There will also be
severe custodial penalties for journalists revealing anything about a
"special intelligence operation" as designated indefinitely, and a
reversal of the onus of proof for people returning from certain prescribed
countries or regions.
Legal expert Professor
George Williams says it's amazing how quickly the government has shifted from
the free-speech bias it was pushing as justification for watering down the
section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, to advocating extended jail terms
for stating different views or for journalists simply doing their work.
One of surprisingly
few true liberals in the parliament, David Leyonhjelm, is also worried about
where all of this is leading. Like Hizb ut-Tahrir, Leyonhjelm thinks the war is
wrong, although not for the same reason. He argues that the Australian public
"has been scared into believing that this somehow relates to their safety
at home".
"I don't think
that's the case," the senator told Fairfax Media. Both sides of politics
disagree with him. He says, incidentally, that the war will also take longer
than intended:"It's going to be expensive and we will withdraw due to
frustration, not due to military success."
Leyonhjelm should not
be dismissed lightly. He was the first to warn that proposed anti-terror laws
had opened the way for security agents to engage in torture with impunity. His
objections were first scoffed at as "absolute rubbish" by Attorney
General George Brandis before it was realised they stacked up, forcing
amendments.
All of this
would have been politically unviable outside the framework of a national
security threat. Underpinning much of the cynicism is the suspicion that if
governments don't actually like wars, they tend to hate them less than the rest
of us. There is an all-too-convenient link between the perception of a threat,
and voter support for the incumbent. There's no denying it is there.
When John Howard
joined the coalition of the willing in announcing a troop deployment on March
18, 2003, his numbers improved immediately. Within one week Newspoll reportedly
showed a five-point jump in the Liberal primary vote to 41 per cent and the
Labor primary dropping by three, to 34 per cent.
Howard's own numbers
rebounded even more strongly, with his approval shooting up by eight points, to
56 per cent, and his disapproval dropping by the same amount to 35 per cent.
Even more striking was a nine-point leap in his preferred prime minister
rating, to lead Simon Crean 60 to 19 per cent.
It is an old refrain
but no less true today than at any other time: democracy cannot be strengthened
by being narrowed and restricted.
Mark Kenny is Fairfax
Media's chief political correspondent.
No comments:
Post a Comment