- Bligh unveils 20-year infrastructure plan
- Torres Strait pleads for climate change action
- Overcrowding in parliamentary precinct worsens, Opposition says
- Minister apologises for 'boisterous' comment
- Junee senator questions Australian Quarantine rules
- Carbon price 'disastrous' for mining companies
- Local MP urges PM's carbon tax tour to visit Riverina
Latham slips on recalling troops
The Herald is reporting that Latham has had his first slip in the polls on the issue of recalling Australian troops from Iraq. At first glance some might thing this is strange given that when Latham makes negative comments about the Iraq war, his popularity goes up.
What Latham failed to realise is that there are really three significant camps on the withdrawal of troops issue. First there are those who supported the war - they are not likely to support withdrawal of troops at this stage. Then there are those who opposed to the use of armed force for anything at all. Finally - and this is the group Latham did not take into account - there are those who were opposed to this war rather than force in general. The latter group (unlike the "no armed force, ever" group) is likely to weigh a variety of factors in evaluating the merits of a particular decision.
This latter group, which forms the recently dubbed "challenger" demographic, would look at the likely consequences of a withdrawal of CoW troops. Even with the troops there, the situation is, to quote C3PO, "not entirely stable". If the CoW troops were to be withdrawn, Iraq could be expected to be plunged into a period of bloody unrest for an indefinite period of time. Thus to this last group, a withdrawal now would simply compound the wrong of the original war.
Aside from these practical situation, the CoW countries are occupying powers under international law. While the original invasion was probably illegal under international law, it is perfectly clear that a withdrawal now would be illegal under international law. Occupying powers have an obligation to maintain order and ensure an orderly return of self-rule to the occupied territory. A withdrawal now would be a clear breach of that obligation.
This may be Latham's first slip, but it is unlikely to be his last - simply because all politicians inevitably make slips. It serves to show that the old saying, "a week is a long time in politics", remains true. In political terms, the distance between now and the next election is an eternity, and it is far from guaranteed that Latham will remain on top that long.
Maybe I should explain this a little better
It seems the Greens, including Andrew Wilkie, are still calling for a recall of troops. This might seem to point to a huge conflict in views.
In reality, the area of disagreement is a rather small one. Both the Greens and I agree that minimisation of violence in the region is the important thing. The duty of the occupying forces is to take steps to ensure peace and security in the region. I think the best way to do that is to keep the troops there until a stable government is established. The Greens think the best way is to get our troops out because they're the ones inciting people to violence.
There is a certain amount of truth to the Greens view. Certainly the presence of the Coalition of the Willing troops is causing some of the violence. The difficulty now is that having several factions resorting to violence, a withdrawal risks the factions fighting eachother rather than the occupying forces, and without the dominant occupying forces there this has little chance of ending happily.
In the view of the Greens, the probability of this is small.
International Law
You say "Aside from these practical situation, the CoW countries are occupying powers under international law. While the original invasion was probably illegal under international law, it is perfectly clear that a withdrawal now would be illegal under international law." What international laws are these? I've heard the words mentioned many times in relation to the Iraq war, but never yet heard what these laws are, who formulated them, when they were formulated and who voted in the people who made them. Can you shed light on these questions, please?
International Law
International law comes in to major varieties. One is "customary international law", which in simple terms means rules that nations have shown by their conduct that they agree to.
The other major type of international law relates to treaty obligations. Most international law in modern times comes from treaties.
International law is made by nations ("States" in international law terminology). A State is bound by any treaty it has agreed to, and is normally bound by any customary law that has developed enough support among States (how much is "enough" is one of the toughest questions in international law).
A breach of a treaty is against international law in the same way that a breach of a contract is against the law within a country. A breach of a customary international law is against international law in the same way as trespassing on somebody else's land is against the law within Australia.