It is a sign of how strong opposition to a war against Iraq has become that the Labor Party federal caucus on November 12 shifted its position slightly. But the shift is an illusion. Come a war, the ALP will almost certainly support it.
The ALP now argues that it will not support a US attack on Iraq that is not sanctioned by the UN. What federal Labor leader Simon Crean has refused to comment on, is what the ALP will do if the US attacks on the basis of UN Security Council resolution 1441, which was passed on November 8.
The ALP's enthusiastic support for resolution 1441 comes despite the fact that it will almost certainly pave the way for a US-led war on Iraq, which could cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. The resolution sets down conditions that are almost impossible for Iraq to meet. US national security adviser Condoleezza Rice has stated that even a two-hour delay of weapons' inspectors should be considered a violation.
Labor's difference with the US is fairly minor. It is simply arguing that the US should wait for the Security Council to reconvene to discuss any accusations of Iraqi noncompliance before launching an attack. But this has been accepted by Washington. However, resolution 1441 does not require the council to authorise an attack, simply to "consider the situation".
Even if the Security Council — itself hardly a democratic or representative body — does not endorse an attack, the ALP has still left open the option of supporting a US attack at that stage.
But this is a point Crean is hardly keen to play up in the media. At a doorstop interview on November 12, Crean was asked what the ALP would do if there was "an approach to the Security Council and no further progress". He answered: "Well, the answer to that question is, I want the United Nations resolution to work. I don't want to make the assumption that it doesn't work."
Later in the same press conference, Crean was even more belligerent, responding to an almost identical question with: "Well, I don't believe that it's an appropriate question, with respect, because now that we've got the resolution ... we've got to make it work."
The Australian Greens have a vastly better position. Although the party has yet to specify whether it supports or opposes UN Security Council resolution 1441, it has stated that no war on Iraq is justified.
In a press statement released on November 13, Greens leader Bob Brown stated: "We welcome the change announced by opposition leader Simon Crean but he should go further. There is a strong feeling in the community that we should not be involved in a war on Iraq whether the UN endorses it or not. The attack on Iraq, whether backed by the UN or not, will be exactly the same as far as the US is concerned. The physical nature of the attack will be no different."
The Socialist Alliance has also opposed any attack on Iraq.
That "physical impact" Brown spoke of will devastate the long-suffering people of Iraq. They will be no better off if they are being bombed with or without UN endorsement. If we are to stop the coming slaughter, we cannot have illusions in the willingness of major-party politicians to defy the US government and the business interests that they represent.
More than ever, we need as many people out on the streets demanding "No war" as is possible. The best opportunity for this will be at the national weekend of action against the war on November 30-December 1. Get involved in organising it, or come along on the day. The details are advertised on page 7.
From Green Left Weekly, November 20, 2002.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.