BY SARAH STEPHEN
British Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George Bush are facing inquiries into allegations they fabricated evidence on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in order to win public support for going to war.
In Australia, however, the Labor opposition has so far put minimal political pressure on the Howard government to account for the part it played in the conspiracy by the "coalition of the willing" to deceive the public.
Greens' senator Bob Brown called for a Senate inquiry, but on June 18 the ALP rejected the Greens' proposal and instead backed an inquiry to be conducted by the parliamentary joint committee on the spy agencies that are formally accountable to parliament. This committee is dominated by government MPs and, according to Brown's spokesperson Ben Oquist, has a "cosy relationship" with the spy agencies. Asked why he thought the ALP had taken this step, Oquist said that Labor "had a tradition of supporting the government on security issues".
The inquiry won't have access to key intelligence reports without the consent of foreign governments something written into the legislation that established the committee.
Asked why a Senate inquiry would have been superior, Oquist explained: "Our main concern is that the government will control who is called as a witness and how long the inquiry goes for. The terms of reference specifically exclude the Office of National Assessments and the Defence Intelligence Organisation two key organisations for such an inquiry. ONA generally provides advice to government, so it's there that any intelligence would have been sexed up."
After giving mixed signals about whether or not the government would cooperate with the inquiry, PM John Howard announced on June 24 that, despite his opposition to the inquiry, he would allow the ONA and the DIO to make submissions and appear before the inquiry.
While a Senate inquiry formally has the power to subpoena anyone, including MPs, to appear before it (it also has the power to fine or jail anyone who refuses), in practice this rarely happens. Oquist agreed that "there are problems with Senate inquiries, primarily because their full powers aren't utilised".
An example is the "children overboard" inquiry, where the government was a minority on the committee, yet Labor refused to subpoena former defence minister Peter Reith and his advisers to give evidence because of the precedent it might set when Labor is in government.
More recently, immigration minister Philip Ruddock announced that, based on "precedent", he would not appear before an inquiry into his exercising of ministerial discretion in granting visas.
Oquist told Green Left Weekly that an independent judicial inquiry into the WMD issue would be ideal. "We will continue to call for it", he said, "but without opposition support for that, we decided to push for a Senate inquiry."
Asked if the Greens had considered tapping into the strong public opposition against the Iraq war and directing it into mass public pressure for an independent inquiry, Oquist said that the Greens would be looking at what they can do.
The Socialist Alliance is calling for an open, public inquiry one that has the power to compel all the ministers, senior public servants, military and spy chiefs who were involved in the WMD deception to give evidence. "Howard, [foreign minister Alexander] Downer and his spy chiefs must be brought to public account for their great deception!", said Peter Boyle, acting national co-convenor for the Socialist Alliance.
From Green Left Weekly, July 2, 2003.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.