It’s a while since I’ve done a full-length post on the AWB scandal, so I thought it might be time to see if anything surprising had emerged. Based on past experience, it seemed pretty clear that we could expect to find out that
1. Both Downer and Howard knew that the AWB was paying kickbacks to the Iraqi regime
2. This information was transmitted in a way that preserves deniability, so no conclusive proof will emerge
3. No government minister will resign
4. Endless hair-splitting defences of the government’s actions in this matter will emerge from those who have previously made a loud noise about Oil for Food.
The only surprise has been how thoroughly each of these has been confirmed.
On point 1, if you haven’t followed the news closely, Tim Dunlop at Surfdom
has a good job. On point 2, we’ve seen the word “know” stretched to its absolute limits, but the government is still maintaining the line that despite cables, meetings, inquiries and so on, no-one in Cabinet knew what was going on. Point 3 is even more of a foregone conclusion than before. With virtually all the government’s senior ministers (except Costello) implicated, there’s no point in tossing a junior minister to the wolves. If Vaile weren’t leader of the Nationals he might possibly have gone, but that’s purely hypothetical.
Point 4 is most interesting in relation to the blogosphere. The mainstream media, notably including Murdoch’s Oz, have been quite critical of the government’s performance on this. But the right-wing blogosphere, has been, as far as I can see, solidly behind the government. The main lines have been:
* They really, truly, didn’t know. Here’s the normally sensible Currency Lad, as of 1 Feb, pushing this line. And here’s Tim Blair on 19 Jan. Those pushing this line have mostly gone very quiet in the last few weeks, but none, so far as I know, has changed their view.
* This is the way of the world/everybody does it. Some defenders of the government have been positively Parisian in their cynical disdain for Anglo-Saxon notions of propriety, others have blustered about looking after Aussie wheatgrowers. This defence runs into trouble with the fact that the Canadians were asked for the same bribes, and refused to pay. Of course, they didn’t get the deal.
* It’s all the UN’s fault. By setting up Oil-for-Food, the UN created an opportunity for bribery and corruption, and of course we took it, thereby proving that sanctions wouldn’t work and that the only thing to do was go to war.
The only good thing about this tawdry episode is that it’s demolished, once and for all, the claim that blogospheric supporters of the war have the interests of the Iraqi people at heart. If they did, they would be outraged at a deal that stole $300 million from the Iraqi people, dividing the proceeds between Saddam’s regime (who got the lion’s share), the high-flyers at AWB (who paid themselves handsomely out of the proceeds) and wheatgrowers (who got the crumbs).
John Quiggin 
John, as long as the share market continues to boom and property prices remain high or rise Howard could run amok with a gun and the average Australian couldn’t care less.
The political apathy that is gripping this country is worrying. It seems that people couldn’t care less that Howard was telling us we could be hit by Iraqi nuclear missiles while simultaneously, he allowed payment to Saddam of millions of dollars.
What will it take to stir Australians into action? Putting people in gaol for dedition? Death squads? Rendition?
Seems to demonstrate better the degree to which the war hawk narrative vis a vis Oil-for-Food is tortured.
Shooters would be mighty annoyed if after enduring Howards gun reforms it turned out that there were no armed citizens left to gun down a homocidal PM running amok. They might also feel vindicated.
I’ll agree with John and accept that the Howard government is corrupt. Power does that to people.
I still won’t vote for Beazley.
Terge, instead of bagging Labor, have you ever thought of agitating for complete renewal of the Labor Party?
We desperately need some sort of strong opposition to the corrupt and despotic Howard Government. How else will we regain our democracy?
P.S. Sorry about the spelling of ‘sedition’ above. Sometimes I get too passionate about what I’m writing!
Bothered,
I preferenced the ALP before the Liberals at the last election (except in the senate). I agree that we need a stronger opposition. If we don’t then it is hardly my fault. For what it is worth I would be happy to see the ALP ditch its antiquated constitution and its mandatory union membership clause for candidates.
Regards,
Terje.
mandatory union membership clause for candidates.
Is this true? This is the first time I’ve heard of this.
Mind you, all of this should be in the factions thread, next one over.
Call me a Conspiracy Theorist if you must, but I find it more than a little strange that the architects of the Iraq War – US, UK and Oz – all have (a) very business-friendly governments and (b) oppositions that will be forever incapable of taking taking control as long as (c) the complicit media keeps sniping at them at every opportunity, while virtually ignoring the ruling party’s massive (and criminal) faults.
I am not apologising for Labor or the Democrats, much less the UK Conservatives, but personally I would rather have the RSPCA running Australia now that John Howard’s Liberals.
Only a fool would now believe that Howard and Downer did not know about the AWB kick-backs. And yet we went to war in Iraq, a pre-emptive war of choice, in contravention of International Law, because – we were told – the UN sanctions were not working. How’s that for criminal hypocrisy?!?!
More amazingly, the man who signed the latest Iraq-Australia wheat deal is none other than former US neo-con darling Ahmed Chalabi (they called him the “George Washington of Iraq”)!
This is a man whose INC provided the CIA with intelligence from a source named “Curveball”. This is a man who provided Judith Miller with content for her front page NYT scoops on WMDs. This is a man who could only get 1% of the vote at recent Iraqi elections, yet still controls Iraq’s finances and oil! This is a man whom the USA once tried to arrest for fraud, a man whom Jordan still seeks to arrest as a fugitive banking fraudster, a man who remains under the cloud of several simultaneous investigations, and yet he wants nothing to do with the AWB because (get this) he wouldn’t want to be associated with corruption!
And yet our media totally overlook this hypocrisy. Perhaps, like Chalabi, Bush, Blair and (presumably) Howard, they think they are “heroes in error.” Or perhaps they are just doing what Rupert Murdoch and his Big Business friends tell them to do.
To be fair, gandhi, Murdoch’s flagship paper is bagging them pretty hard now.
Marginal voters have come to regard Howard as totemic of their imagined good fortune. This association is between Howard and success is largely superstitious, and all the more tenacious because of this fact.
Superstitiously, certain sportsmen don’t change their jockstraps until their winning streak ends.
Many Australian voters feel themselves to be on a dizzyingly probability-defying winning streak.
And Howard is the soiled, but still supportive, jockstrap of the winning team.
They won’t peel Howard off themselves until they think their winning streak is at an end.
And Howard has told them that “disunity is death”. Therefore, Vaile, Downer et al. must be protected for the sake of the streak.
Not hard enough for my liking, John.
We need to DEMAND some accountability, not just for the AWB scandal but the whole string of Iraq War lies.
What’s it going to take before we get headlines demanding Howard’s and Downer’s resignations?
An example of media accountability here.
Ghandi, do you really think the media moguls are going to seriously criticise the duplicitous goose (Howard) that allows them to collect a bonanza of golden eggs?
Pigs might fly!
Bothered,
The thing is, if they ever did actually tell the whole truth about the Iraq War, it would be headlines for months and months. It would sell a lot of papers!
Imagine Nuremberg-style trials featuring Bush, Blair and Howard, live on CNN! People would be glued to their screens!
The reason they don’t do it is because Big Media is complicit. Murdoch, the NYT’s Salzberger and many other publishers would also be in the dock.
I bet that like Car Howard will jump ship when it suits him and that will be when he see’s the economic downturn coming around the corner.
I don’t know which will stumble first the US or China but when they do and interest rates start to climb and the mortgage belt screams Howard will have already gone so as not to sully his legacy.
To me the interesting thing will be when Labor get in will they stoop as low as the Libs and do the same thing.
My only hope for accountability is that in 20 years or so Howard jets off somewhere and gets arrested and put before the World court for his illegal war. Now that would be Justice!
I have received the following twice. Author unknown.
With apologies to Banjo Paterson.
I had written him a letter which I had, for want of better
Knowledge, sent to where I met him at the wheat board, years ago
He was chairman when I knew him, so I sent the letter to him
Just on spec, to make the point, that “Howard doesn’t want to know”.
And an email came directed, not entirely unexpected
(And I think the same was written in some Middle Eastern bar)
‘Twas his CEO who wrote it, and verbatim I will quote it,
“Trevor Flugge’s gone to Baghdad and we don’t know where he are.
But when he left Australia, he was going to meet with Alia,
A trucking mob in Jordan, who were keen to grease the wheels
For 10 per cent commission, they could swing Saddam’s permission
To get our wheat accepted: it’s the mother of all deals.
But I guarantee, Prime Minister, that there’s nothing at all sinister:
The chaps at DFAT told us that the sums looked quite okay.
When you’re selling wheat in billions, what’s a quick 300 million?
If it keeps the Nationals happy it’s a tiny price to pay.”
Sitting here at Kirribilli, I’ve been thinking, willy nilly
That it’s somehow reminiscent of the children overboard:
But I can handle Rudd and Beazley as I always do, quite easily,
By endlessly protesting that there’s nothing untoward.
I’ll tell Bush next time I meet him at
The White House, when I greet him,
That I’m sure he’ll understand about the wheat board’s quid pro quo:
He’ll forgive this minor error in the global war on terror
When I look him in the eye and tell him Howard didn’t know.
When Labor get in…
The problem is, of course, that Big Business lobbies both sides of politics, so both sides are always complicit in the cover-ups.
For example, do you really think former Defence Minister Kim Beazley (best mate in the USA is Richard Armitrage, right-hand-man to Colin Powell) is ever going to challenge the waste of taxpayer funds on military programs and resources?!
Why do you think Hillary Clinton is not calling for a pull-out from Iraq, hmmn?
Ghandi, the thought of seeing Blair, Bush, and Howard standing in a Court whining, ‘No one told me…I can’t remember…I wasn’t there…God ordered me…I was merely a servant of the people…someone else is to blame…etc’ fills me with disgust.
Talk about the three Stooges!
Katz, that jockstrap/lucky-streak analogy was a work of brilliance.
Bothered, aren’t you worried by the admission of incompetence inherent in all of these claims? When will we get a government that wants to know what’s happening, and uses its unrivalled investigative tools to find out?
When we get politicians who put their country before themselves, 06!
To achieve that capitalism, greed and self-interest must be minimised or modified so don’t hold your breath.
Katz – they’ll also change that jockstrap when it gives them a malodorous rash, regardless of winning streaks. I’m sure an economist like Prof Q could do a graph plotting the declining utility of said garment against the rising disultility of stink and irritation. I guess some of us have more sensitivity than others to a pathogenic ulcer like Howard and his crew.
‘I find it more than a little strange that the architects of the Iraq War – US, UK and Oz – all have (a) very business-friendly governments and (b) oppositions that will be forever incapable of taking taking control as long as (c) the complicit media keeps sniping at them at every opportunity, while virtually ignoring the ruling party’s massive (and criminal) faults.’
It’s not conspiracy theory, it is the awful truth, spun as conspiracy by (c) above in the interests of (a) and, increasingly (b) too.
Control of resources, Israel, imperial hubris, racism – all played their part in Iraq, but the role of greed generally, and as it relates to elected decision-makers in particular, tends to be overlooked. Dick Cheney’s obscene profiteering from the blood of innocents and the destruction of a nation (not accidentally either, but carefully planned for the purpose) is only the most obvious example, presiding over a host of improper relationships in and around the Bush energy industry-heavy administration.
But the Democrats can’t afford to crow because Diane Feinstein’s husband Richard Blum has made hundreds of millions of dollars out of Iraqi misery. They’ve just bought themselves a nice little beach shack at the knockdown price of $US 17 million, thanks to the accommodating Iraqi people. They wouldn’t be Lone Rangers. Blair minister Tessa Jowell’s husband David Mills is in hot water for payola from Silvio Berlusconi and there are suggestions he tried to parlay his government connections into entree to Iraq and MidEast contracts as well. Jowell professes her ignorance of all this. Do we have any local analogues?
But it’s not that sort of real time payoff that sensible pols are after; it’s the post career trip into the pocket of some giant corporation that profits principally from people killing, torturing or simply illegally detaining each other with their products, or via the cleaning up of said violence. Richard Armitage was (still is?) a director of CACI which had interrogation contracts at Abu Ghraib and was implicated in the torture and abuse. Madeleine Albright too has some irons in the Iraqi fire I believe. Dear old Peter Reith is beavering away at Tenix. Prime examples of course are Thatcher, Major, Carlucci, Bush pere, Casey, Baker et al, in the pay of Bechtel, Carlyle etc.
How long before we hear that Alexander Downer has joined the board of one of these death-purveyors and violence-enablers? It will probably be reported here in respectful tones and some might even venture the opinon that it is ‘good for Australia’ as some sort of gold star for fealty.
‘aren’t you worried by the admission of incompetence inherent in all of these claims’
It’s that ‘incompetence’ that guarantees people like Downer their pass to sit at the top table. Eisenhower wasn’t invited to sit on the boards of the nascent military-industrial complex. Carter too missed that boat and despite his golfship with GHWB, Clinton has yet to ascend. Only warmaking ex-pols need apply, rightwing credentials preferred.
Mike Pepperday: It is a Mike Carlton piec.
Glenn, greed drives our world (some say into the ground).
I guess that’s why the Ancient Greeks had nothing but contempt for traders and couldn’t understand why self-respecting humans would want to spend their lives money-grubbing.
Now, rich money-grubbers like Packer and Murdoch are held up as role models.
Civilization is regressing it appears.
Bothered,
Maybe that is why the ancient Greeks, like other civilisations that disdained money grubbing, lost. Napoleon lost to the nation of shopkeepers. The Greeks lost to the superior commercial power, Rome – etc. etc. etc. Civilisation may be regressing in your opinion – but it may also be progress. Think about it.
It seems odd to describe Rome, the city of bread and circuses, as a commercial power. From its earliest days as a great power, Rome relied on the extraction of tribute, not on trade.
Carthage fits the bill much better, but of course they lost.
PrQ,
I would contend that Rome was a superior commercial power to Greece – particularly in the extent of the free trade zone and the (relatively) strong rule of law.
.
On Carthage, the fact that private citizens in Rome could finance the building of a complete fleet of ships out of their own pockets for the war, without taxation, to me speaks volumes. This was a powerful commercial power, and not one with a strong central government but one with a strong sense of civic responsibility.
Shortly, when the Israeli-American bombs start falling on Iran, I wonder if this talk about the ‘uplifting’ attributes of commerce will be as strident.
The relationship between greed and war, and religion and war, is well established. Are we humans destined to repeat the errors of the past forever?
Note well: those who profit from war never actually participate in it!
JH and Hal, thanks for your foundational comments.
I believe that John Howard usually perceives himself as a sturdy set of Y-fronts, with relaxed and comfortable gusset that affords ample wriggle room.
However, when in the presence of GWB, Howard’s mind often wanders in the direction of split-crotch camo fatigues trimmed with Belgian lace filtched from Janet’s going-away outfit.
A heady mix of martial potency, fetish, and traditional family values.
Bothered, the ancient Greeks didn’t have a problem with trade, only with demeaning manual labour for others. In fact, the Persians said they kept places in their cities where they went to cheat each other (the stoa was the location of both the market and the assembly). It was the mediaeval system that looked down on trade, largely in order to keep everybody at their proper occupation (i.e., no skiving off military duties to grub money for the aristocracy).
JQ, Rome did have an emphasis on trade (and on which social strata could indulge in it). Two of the early foundations for Roman influence over its Latin neighbours were treaties that gave it rights of connubium and commercium, which meant that citizens of those states could only intermarry or trade freely with Romans but not with each other.