The parliamentary inquiry examining the power to enter armed conflict and declare war has drawn rebukes for recommending reforms critics say are designed to lend a veneer of legitimacy to otherwise illegal wars.
The report, published last Friday, dismissed the vast weight of submissions to the inquiry, which — in line with community sentiment — had called for the prime minister to be stripped of the unilateral power to send troops into conflict without parliamentary approval.
Instead it recommended moves to “clarify” the role and power of the governor-general (acting on the prime minister’s advice) in the cabinet handbook to authorise conflicts that “are not supported by the United Nations Security Council, or an invitation of a sovereign nation”.
Clinton Fernandes, a professor in international and political studies and a former military intelligence officer, said the scope of the recommendation appeared to give expression to at least two, possibly three, scenarios of illegal conflict.
The first centred on those conflicts analogous to the Iraq War, which lacked a legal footing due to an absence of UN Security Council approval, and the second — focusing on the words “sovereign nation” — conversely appeared to contemplate involvement in a US-China war over Taiwan.
“This clause is saying that we reserve the right to deploy forces when a non-state actor, like Taiwan, that we deem legitimate has invited us [to intervene] regardless of any United Nations Security Council resolution,” Fernandes told Crikey, pointing out that non-state actors cannot avail themselves of a right to self-defence under international law in most circumstances.
“It’s bypassing international law and giving a back door to further military interventions overseas.”
Dr Alison Broinowski, a former diplomat and president of Australians for War Powers Reform, broadly echoed this sentiment, telling Crikey the “perilous clause” had come “out of left field”.
“It’s clear [the recommendation has] been very carefully and deliberately worded, and the government knows what the purpose of it is — and that’s my concern. I’m afraid they’re preparing for a false-flag event,” she said.
Against the backdrop of recent AUKUS announcements, she said the clause seemed to envisage Australia being drawn into a US-led conflict with China occasioned or “contrived [by] something to look like an attack on the United States”.
“We know the United States is not above doing something like this, and [the clause] would get around the UN Security Council,” she said.
Though the war powers inquiry was prompted by a Labor election commitment to address concerns over lack of transparency and accountability, senior ministers had from its outset repeatedly flagged the government’s opposition to any substantial reform.
As recently as last month, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese reiterated that stance, saying he had “made clear” his view that politicians ought to be allowed to express views on decisions to go to war but only after cabinet had made the decision.
Broinowski said such statements, which find reflection in the report’s recommendations, were little more than a nod to the status quo, with the consequence that other recommendations — such as the requirement to furnish Parliament with the reasons for deciding to go to war and their legal basis — were “largely cosmetic”.
“As far as we’re concerned the changes that they’ve recommended don’t go anywhere near towards what we’re aiming at,” she said, adding that the intention of the report, to her mind, was merely to give the appearance — as opposed to the reality — of more accountability: “Nothing about the way Australia decides to go to war will change as a result of these small changes.”
Fernandes was of the same view, describing the entire inquiry as little more than an “elaborate theatrical façade”.
“These [inquiries] are stitch-up jobs designed to provide a veneer of consultation but with a predetermined outcome,” he said. “It allows members of Parliament to make performative statements about the importance of Australian sovereignty without delivering what’s needed — namely, parliamentary authorisation on wars of choice.”
By “wars of choice”, Fernandes said he meant all military interventions — including humanitarian operations, peacekeeping missions and coalition operations, such as Australia’s controversial military operations in the South China Sea — barring those that directly invoke the right of self-defence, which he labelled “wars of necessity”.
When pressed on why the government was reticent to follow the lead of other Western democracies, including the United Kingdom, that had given Parliament a say over such matters, he said it was a common misconception to suppose Australia subscribed to international law and norms.
“We are not a supporter of international law; we are a supporter of US-led rules-based order — there’s an explicit difference between the two, as I’ve recently written,” he said. “The term ‘international rules-based order’ is just a euphemism for US supremacy, and Australia sees its sovereignty as subservient to that world order.”
To that end, Fernandes said the report’s contents were not surprising: “Nothing changes. The decision to send Australian troops, as usual, will ultimately be telegraphed by the United States embassy or US State Department to the Australian ambassador and our defence minister here.”
Broinowski agreed, pointing out her discomfort with the inquiry’s separate recommendation to reconstitute the joint standing committee on foreign affairs, defence and trade into two separate joint standing committees, with defence to stand alone.
The report said the shift would enhance parliamentary oversight over defence operations, but Broinowski argued it pointed to the looming primacy of defence over foreign affairs: “Make no mistake, this would be a massive addition in bureaucratic terms to defence and a weakening of foreign affairs and diplomacy.”
The report’s release coincided with the defeat of the latest bill to reform war powers, which was on this occasion introduced by Greens Senator Jordon Steele-John. During the debate, Steele-John said the need for reform was particularly pertinent given “we have seen, again and again, prime ministers lie to the community” about the stated reasons for war.
“Do you really want to give Peter Dutton the unilateral power to declare war? Do you really think that is a good idea? We can fix this right here,” he said.
In answer, Labor Senator Nita Green accused the Greens of “seeking to campaign on this issue”, which she labelled “pretty distasteful”.
“I did want to keep the tone of my contribution pretty respectful, but I don’t think there is a more self-indulgent, self-righteous, self-interested group in this Senate chamber,” she said. “These are people who should never, ever be involved in making national security decisions.”
Green’s statements, however, are at odds with a Guardian Essential poll published this week, which found 90% of Australians are in favour of subjecting the exercise of war powers to parliamentary approval.
The government is considering the report.
Would you be comfortable leaving the decision to go to war up to the prime minister of the day? Let us know by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
Nope, nope, nope.
Thanks for reporting this. The recommendation is a wonderfully sinister, sly and underhand piece of work:
How very Labor to pretend it’s addressing a serious concern and doing the right thing, while only making some cosmetic tweaks, and under that cover it quietly and cynically works in such a malign change. This might become known as the Putin option, given how his invasion of Ukraine is ‘justified’ to his supporters by just such an invitation that supposedly came from some people in Western Ukraine. Not that Putin invented this way of excusing a war of aggression of course, it’s been a standard operating procedure for quite some time among nations who have no respect for territorial integrity. Which must now openly include Australia if the recommendation is accepted. I say openly because our record, for example on invading Iraq, is not that great anyway.
Correction: delete ‘Western Ukraine’, insert ‘Eastern Ukraine’. Sorry.
I think Putin’s contribution to the genre was the addition of his “Little Green Men” into the mix.
For those who may not remember, serving members of the Russian military were covertly inserted in plain clothes into the Donbas, then used both as the core of the armed insurrection and as an example of the “Ethnic Russian” nature of the population.
At least Hitler didn’t need to populate the Sudetenland with Germans before using them as an excuse for invading.
Both populations were left beached by a receding hegemon.
Let’s hear it for a new Westphalia treaty.
That took some 30 years of bloodshed all around Europe.
So far we are only 1 year in.
Although to be accurate as the Treaty of Westphalia was negotiated in 1648, this one started only a few years later, so on a timeline we appear to be “tracking” fairly well. 😉
Apropos of Putin…
The Kremlin Goes NeoVon
Eric Draitser 6 March 2022 CounterPunch
…In fact, a sober analysis of the situation reveals that Putin is, in fact, carrying out a mirror image of Bush and Cheney’s monstrous crime against humanity in Iraq. If anything, rather than being a demonic ghoul whose shadows creep along the Kremlin walls like Moscow’s Nosferatu, Putin was a careful student of modern imperial power who, like so many Russian leaders before him, merely copied the attitudes and tactics of the empires of the West.
Take, for instance, Putin’s justifications for his criminal aggression. Here’s the Russian president describing the “existential threat” (sound familiar?) posed by Ukraine:
In reading the transcript of Putin’s speech, one wonders if David Frum has grounds to sue for plagiarism as it repeats, almost verbatim, the noxious talking points used by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the other neocon criminals about an imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction from a country that has neither a nuclear weapons program, nor the requisite uranium enrichment program necessary to make a weapon.
should be NeoCon!
’We (Aust) are not a supporter of international law, we are a supporter of US-led rules-based order – there’s an explicit difference between the two…’ Fernandes said. The term ‘international rules-based order’ is just a euphemism for US supremacy, and Australia sees its sovereignty, as subservient to that world order’.
Well said Mr Fernandes.
I recall Albanese returning from one of his early overseas visits as PM and enthusiastically promoting his support for the ‘international rules-based order’. Must have received his talking points from Blinken, Nuland and the rest of the US cabal…
Excellent, ongoing coverage from McGregor and Crikey on this issue.
What is this “Rules based Order”? It is often spouted by Pollies and Media Talking Heads.
But what,in fact, are the rules, and who obeys them?
Certainly not the so called Western Principle Democracies.
The Seppos for example (Free World Leaders) invade anywhere at will, apply covert economic sanctions against any nation to suit their own ends, do not sign anti weapons (landmines as an example) treaties, and on and on.
Other “Democracies” pick and chose or ignore at will.
“Rules Based Order” what a total farce.
Then there’s free trade..much the same thing the most powerful decides what is free and what is order.
This non-question of “jumping on the war wagon” is falsely predicated on the ‘urgent need’ appearing out of the blue – springing as t’were Athena fully armed from Zeus’ head, to cure the thundering Hegemon’s headache – and without preparatory drum banging, Belgian babies in bayonets or virginal British nurses being outraged by the Hun.
We’ve had the war drum banging for several years on the need for protection from an attack by our best export customer & largest import supplier on trade routes to our…aforementioned.
So now, as with all things nu-‘Labor’, the milquetoast ‘reform’ of a gabfest after the Cabinet (in DC? the Pentagon?) decision has been made is not what most half sane people would call reassuring.
Iraq2 was Howard’s war. Never again, please. I would not trust Parliament to make the right decision either, but it’d be better than what we have now. The UN is useless in this also. Geographically close allies would be better than the distant ones we have now who have interests apparently opposite to ours; misaligned, anyway. I remember the US ambassador (ex head of US navy) who said it would be great if Australia was a US State. Holy cow! We are in the position of being used as a launch pad for nuclear war – with no say or pre-knowledge. I would argue that the US has sufficient nuclear-armed air and naval forces to need us only as a patsy. They need us for routine intel, and as an ATM, nothing more, and nothing more should be allowed. They believe their own movies.
Or maybe their movies are more like the propaganda arm of their beliefs.
Alas, we too believe their movies.
Everyone enjoys a whiff of cordite, as long as it’s not too close.
And as long as it’s someone else’s kids getting shot at.
Prior to that US military adventures, The Iraq Fiasco, there was The Iraq Imbroglio which dragged on for close to 20 years, and Lest We Forget The Viet Nam Farrago all based on deflection, dissimulation, hypocrisy, mendacity and obfuscation with mendacity to the fore.
Into which The Lying Nasty Party marched off lock step with the USA, wasting the blood and treasure of the C of A in attacking countries that were no threat to Australia.
Furthermore these were not wars, as akin to the The Viet Nam Farrago there was no declaration of war neither here in the Parliament of the C of A, nor in the Congress of the USA.