BY ALISON DELLIT
SYDNEY — Living in Parramatta, one of Australia's most marginal federal seats, I have received a startling increase in mail over the last few months. On October 10, two remarkably similar letters were plopped into my letterbox.
Liberal Party candidate Ross Cameron's letter was headed with the slogan, "Strength. Security. Community". Labor hopeful David Borger's letter proclaimed, "Putting Parramatta first".
Both candidates argued that their party: had the fairest tax policies; would create more jobs; and would fund better community programs, schools and hospitals. All these are important issues. But I felt like asking both men: "Hasn't anyone told you there's a war on?".
The November 10 federal election contest between Prime Minister John Howard and Labor's Kim Beazley will go down in history, not for what the protagonists said but for what they didn't say. They are conspiring to conduct an election campaign without a public debate on the key issue facing the Australian people: the government's participation in the slaughter of Afghan people.
Take the evening news. First we have the "real" news: bombs raining down; US people scared almost witless by constant media speculation about chemical and biological attacks; and growing fury in the Third World against a war viewed as imperialist and anti-Muslim. Then we get the election news: baby kissing; cosmetic debate over school funding; emphasis on small differences in environmental policy; and a fierce debate over whether a coast guard or the navy would be more efficient at keeping refugees out.
Howard, of course, is glad the war is scaring people into voting for a "proven" leader. But he doesn't want to debate it. "I don't want to use this as a partisan wedge", he said on October 8.
Beazley would rather the war just went away for a few months and came back after the election. "The Labor Party and the Liberal Party are as one in supporting the activities of our allies", he said in an October 8 press conference. He has rarely mentioned it since.
Both sides of the corporate parliament don't a real debate about who gains from the war, who loses from it and who controls it. This is because both sides of parliament are firmly in the pockets of the ruling capitalist class, which continues to ride on the coat tails of a world made safe for US exploitation.
Howard and Beazley would have us believe that supporting the US government's campaign is our only option if we want to sleep safe in our beds. But we do not even have conclusive evidence that the perpetrators of the crime are in Afghanistan. What we do have conclusive proof of is that the war has already cost the lives of scores — possibly hundreds — of poor, desperate Afghans.
It is entirely possible that in the coming weeks Australian SAS troops will be engaged in a bloody ground war in Afghanistan while our "leaders" talk about everything but.
Australian Democrats
The Australian Greens and the Australian Democrats must take some blame for the vacuum of debate on the war.
In the September 17 Senate debate, the Democrats voted to invoke the ANZUS treaty, but its senators were split on the question of Australian military participation.
Some Democratsleaders, notably Lyn Allison and Andrew Bartlett, have attended and supported peace vigils and rallies against the war. At an October 9 meeting, organised by the Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network in Sydney, Democratssenator Vicki Bourne told Green Left Weekly that she "did not support dropping bombs and then food. Let's drop food and then more food, and solve the humanitarian crisis first". She also argued that "no-one" in the Democrats would support giving the US government "this sort of blank cheque".
Other Democrats, including leader Natasha Stott Despoja and Andrew Murray, spoke in favour of Australian support for "United States-led action" in the Senate debate. Stott Despoja also called for increased funding for intelligence services, arguing that "the war on terrorism may entail further restrictions on privacy", although "if we create a police state then terrorism has won".
This apparent division within the Democrats has been reflected in a lack of Democrats press releases or statements on the bombing of Afghanistan. On October 8, the day the bombing started, Stott Despoja's only press statement posted on the site was headed, "So it's your first time: get some protection!".
Even those Democrats who claim to oppose the bombing seem unclear on an alternative. Bourne emphasises that the ANZUS treaty (which she spoke in favour of invoking) had not been followed, because the treaty requires any action to be "reported to the Security Council of the United Nations". The treaty goes on: "Such actions should be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and harmony".
It is hard to see how the current military actions contradict the treaty. The UN Security Council already has endorsed the bombing, and has made no attempt to take over the action — not surprising given that the US holds a veto in the council. The Security Council is neither more "democratic" nor "safer" than the US government — unlike the UN General Assembly, in which the Third World has a much greater voice.
Greens
Bob Brown, the only Greens MP in the Senate, voted against the invocation of the ANZUS treaty and the commitment of Australian support to the military campaign. Although he has argued that some form of "military action" is necessary to apprehend "those responsible" for the September 11 attacks in the US, he argues that the decision to offer Australian support to "Bush's crusade" is "a mistake".
Speaking at an October 11 anti-war rally at the University of Tasmania, Brown emphasised that the terrorists should be prosecuted by international bodies, not by US courts. Like Bourne, Brown argues that the UN should lead action to "bring the terrorists to justice".
Neither Bob Brown nor the Greens' NSW Senate candidate Kerry Nettle have made opposition to the war the central part of the party's election platform, choosing instead to concentrate on greenhouse gas emissions and youth policy.
While Brown has used the media to vehemently oppose the government's refugee policy, he has not used the same methods to oppose the war or publicise peace rallies.
The Greens (WA), which remain separate from the Australian Greens, emphatically condemned the US and British bombing on October 9, launching its peace platform at a protest outside Perth office of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The party called for the UN to use "non-violent means of apprehending those responsible" and bring them to trial in the International Court of Justice.
The federal election campaign offers an enormous opportunity to build the anti-war movement. The guaranteed media attention and public profile that progressive candidates get can be used to convince their supporters to join the street protests and force an end to the government's participation in the US war.
Socialist Alliance
This is the sort of election campaign that Socialist Alliance is planning. Members of the Socialist Alliance, which is contesting its first federal election, were among the instigators of the first vigils and rallies that followed the September 11 mass murders. The Socialist Alliance has unequivocally condemned the bombing of Afghanistan and is campaigning against the big business parties' bipartisan support for Washington's "war on terrorism".
"Imagine if the [US]$40 billion being spent on the war was instead allocated to providing essential services", Pip Hinman, lead Socialist Alliance Senate candidate in NSW, told Green Left Weekly.
"Just $9 billion would provide water and sanitation for all who need it; $12 billion would cover reproductive health for all women; $13 billion would provide every person on Earth with basic health and nutrition and $6 billion would provide a basic education for all", Hinman said.
"Imagine what a different world this would be if everyone had access to these basic necessities. Imagine how much more this would be in eliminating 'terrorism'."
Hinman is passionate that anti-war activism must be at the centre of any progressive election campaign, rejecting the claim that more "domestic" issues are important. " Opposing the Howard/Beazley pro-war consensus is the most important issue in this election campaign. Australia may be an island, but it is not insulated from the consequences of war and poverty", she said.
To illustrate this, she points to the growing refugee crisis: "Those few people from Afghanistan who try and make it to Australia are fleeing a regime which the US government until recently backed.
"The government is prepared to spend tens of millions of dollars preventing refugees from arriving, and funding a military attack on Afghanistan, but none on giving refugees a decent home. You can't provide a solution to the refugee crisis unless you also provide a solution to war.
"This money could be better used to reinforce badly run-down public services, such as health, education and public transport, things which should also be afforded to all asylum seekers."
For Hinman and the Socialist Alliance, the campaign against the war is more important than getting candidates elected. Socialist Alliance argues that's its about people power, not just ballot power.
"We'll need more than UN conventions to end the war against international terrorism. This war can only be won by the mass of people united in action to seek global justice through economic and social justice. This is what our election campaign is devoted to."
[Visit the Socialist Alliance web site at < http://www.socialist-A HREF="mailto:alliance.org"><alliance.org>.]