MOTION: That the Rudd Government immediately initiate a referendum process to seek to change the Federal Constitution during the current term of government, which would require all future Governments to hold a binding compulsory referendum (Yes or No?) on committing Australia to any mooted war or military adventure or military intervention.


One of the principal arguments against such a proposition is that the actual democracy inherent in such a proposition would destroy Australia’s military alliance with the United States, which would be an outcome contrary to the supposedly professed desire of the Australian people. But why would that be the case? By way of example, New Zealand managed to deny the entry of nuclear power, nuclear armed US navy ships, to New Zealand ports without much ado, other than being downgraded from “Ally to Friend”. NZ doesn’t have much in the way of earthly resources or oil and gas reserves that the USA would feel the need to protect against foreign interlopers. New Zealand is also a long way from Asia but does serve a paternal role in the South Pacific. Being downgraded from ally to friend is no big deal, except in the eyes of most obsequious political lapdogs.

The ANZUS Alliance no longer functions formally as it once did prior to 1985, whereby New Zealand was expected to commit troops to every US inspired conflict regardless of the actual merits of doing so.

The proposition that the US would downgrade the OZUS Alliance to that of “friend-only-status” beggars rational belief. Tell that to Canada! The USA needs Australia infinitely more than vice versa. Australia has ready markets in Asia today. Australia’s strategic location means that the USA would be loath to lose Australia as a captive ally. Never the less, most Australians would prefer to have the opportunity to vote on commitment to any given war without having endlessly compliant OZ governments railroading the nation into unnecessary wars such as those of Vietnam and Iraq 2003. Similarly, Australia’s vast gas, coal and mineral resources would also be of paramount importance to the USA. The Yanks would much prefer Australian governments to be in their back pockets, rather than in those of the Chinese, but the transition is already in progress and well established. Unequivocal OZ Government commitment to US Administration inspired wars, regardless of their merits, is totally unnecessary and totally undemocratic.

The obvious question has to be, why should the Australian populace be a captive of the whims of every undemocratic Executive Government of Australia and every loony US Administration, especially when mammoth scepticism prevails amongst the Allied home populations as it did in the case of the Iraq War 2003? Why? There is no good reason. Amongst other considerations, the USA would have been much better off economically if GWB had not set up the world to spend about $US3Tn on the Iraq War with worse than dubious consequences for the world economy. At least, Australia would not have contributed to the delinquency of Bush, Howard and Blair if their respective constituents had had a binding vote.

If and when international push comes to international shove and if Australia were to be subject some calamitous external strategic threat, then the USA would come running to our defence regardless of whether or not Australia’s bipartisan support for the existing alliance arrangements with the USA were to remain intact.  Why? The USA will need access to Australia’s vast mineral resources sooner or later, so it is in their interests to defend Australia. The strategic location of Australia in SE Asia is another reason. We don’t need obsequious self-serving OZ PMs kowtowing to every maniacal US Administration to have nuclear armed missiles in Australia pointing at China. We need public debate followed by a specific vote!

Ever since the failed conscription referenda of 1916 and 1917 for the 1st World War, Australian Federal Governments have sought to circumvent the nation’s distaste for committing the nation to unnecessary wars. In the case of the 1st WW, our Monarchy supporting politicians resorted to brainwashing Australia’s youth into volunteering instead in the name of King and Country. Troop ships transported our troops off to the slaughterhouse. In the end the immense waste of resources, the waste of our nation’s “best and brightest” youth as cannon fodder, ultimately amounted to little more than the re-alignment of a few border lines on the geopolitical maps in the name of “Freedom and Democracy” and the installation of puppet governments. Important as they may be to politicians clamouring for a mention in the history books, to Allied empire supporting minions, obsequious political lapdogs, to armaments’ manufacturing money mongers and to resource chasing business interests, the consequence of wars to civilians victimised and to the families of the service people permanently wounded and those who never came home always has been devastating.

On the positive side, wars do little more than to salve the egos of the politicians and to make money for the military industrial complex. Wars are always said to be necessary to make peace - on the winner’s terms of course. Okay for as long as our side actually wins and in whose image history will be written. Australia has been the “Lucky Country” in that respect, but we may not be so lucky in the long run on the “War on Terror” to which Howard committed Australia. For all of our organised religion’s insistence that praying to God will bring “Peace on Earth”, the reality is that there will never be peace on Earth until everyone on Earth has access to a specific vote on every mooted war.

All supposedly democratic governments fail that simple test of democracy. Constitutions that give executive governments the legal right to commit their nation to war without the explicit imprimatur of its people cannot be construed as being democratic by any logical definition of the word unless Orwellian contradictions of the “War means Peace” variety prevail. That is, to our Pollie spruikers and brainwashers, “Robust Democracy” and a plain ordinary “Democratic election” per se, means ongoing undemocratic government with impunity and lots of hubris. Political tyranny is not the exclusive domain of supposedly non-democratic states. Political tyranny has been embedded in so-called western democracies as well, because their constituents have no say in the matter.

Organised religions also fail the test of supporting the masses, by failing to campaign for a specific vote of the people if and when wars are mooted. The only possible explanation for the failure to do so is that the loss of power inherent in actual democratic consultation with the people would blow away the egos of those who want war. Do you want the mooted war or military action? “Yes or No?” Ever since the 1st WW, our politicians have refused to give the people a specific vote on any aspect of any mooted war. Invariably, Pollies typically dissemble, lie, deny hubris and cite all sorts of BS reasons justifying their proposed commitment to war while ignoring the wishes of the people.

Ever since Federation, Australia has been obliged to acquiesce to our Allies’ demands regardless of the merits of our Allies’ claims for the need for a war, because that’s “what’s in the best interests of the nation” ostensibly. Supporting Britain’s imperial wars were usually conducted in the name of “King and Country” until the first half of 20C and the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II in 1953. Since 1948, the demands of the Judeo-Christian Empire, has included Christian protection and defence of Israel’s existence in permanently hostile Islamic territory, justly or otherwise. In effect, when US, British and Australian governments continue to declare their unwavering support for the right of Israel to exist and to subjugate its neighbours, it has been the global power and influence of the Jewish community that has been calling the shots.

Out of the Holocaust has come the unbridled power of the Jewish community to dictate terms to the predominantly Christian West within the ambit of “Political Correctness”. Compare that with the West’s acquiescence to Communist China’s invasion and annexation of Tibet in 1953. No complaints there. Today, our leaders declare that we accept China’s territorial right to subjugate Tibet. No oil there of course, so the West’s inaction and ongoing acquiescence is perfectly understandable. Subsequent Australian governments have seen fit to support every US Administration’s wars, right or wrong, just or otherwise, in the name of “President and Bounty” minus democratic input.

Prior to the introduction of black and white television in Melbourne in 1956, just in time for the Olympic Games and the Pan Pacific Scout Jamboree in Ringwood attended by some 17,000 Scouts, the populace got their steady diet of brainwashing from the black and white “News Reels” at the local cinema.

According to some historians, the Machiavellian Menzies’ support for the Vietnam War was a subterfuge to inveigle the Americans into a pact to defend Australia against the prospects of Indonesian hegemony. And so, Menzies’ message to the masses was that the Communist menace had to be stopped in its tracks. Menzies’ committing of Australia to the Vietnam War on devoutly anti-Communist grounds, justified his re-introduction of conscription which had been done away in 1960. The people had no say in the matter. The anti-communist “Domino Theory” prevailed big-time. Brainwashing was rampant then, as it is today. The lies continue - only the terminology changes.

Upon Menzies’ retirement in 1966, the new PM Harold Holt was sworn-in. Holt received a visit from the Texan, Lyndon Baines Johnson who had taken over after JF Kennedy’s assassination. Harold Holt declared that Australia would go, “All the way with LBJ!” And that sounds an awful lot like Howard declaring that Australian troops would pull out of Iraq “When the job is done!”

By 1966, the Vietnam War had become a no-brainer for increasingly boisterous street marchers. The then Premier of NSW, Robert Askin, when confronted with war dissidents, famously prompted his driver to “Run over the bastards!” The rationale today is the same. Cook up any old BS and serve it up hot, as did Bush, Blair and Howard and then run over the dissident bastards, even if they are a majority of the voting population. Similarly, Howard’s committing of Australia to the Iraq War 2003, was an equally scurrilous exercise in applied hubris sans majority support. Both Menzies and Howard needed decent wars for their memoirs and to ensure their places in the history books. Not democracy by any stretch of the brainwashing. That Howard spent his political career emulating Menzies is exemplified by Howard’s ill fated promise that he “would not do anything to trash the Liberal Party’s future”. Costello might disagree with that proposition.

The greatest contradiction in Howard’s political career is that he was Treasurer in the Fraser Government during the early stages of the Vietnam War and obviously subscribed to the anti-communist rhetoric of the time. Howard recently declared that he still believes that the Vietnam War was right and just or some such nonsense. In fact the Vietnamese were seeking liberation from the oppression of foreign powers. Perhaps Howard’s memoirs will enlighten us as to how he juxtaposes his version of truth, considering that his Government had no philosophical problem with kowtowing to Communist China on human rights abuses. The simple answer is that they don’t matter, just as the killing fields in Iraq don’t matter. Bipartisan Australian Government acceptance of China’s annexation of Tibet is another contradiction derived from political expediency. Today, the Rudd Government has fallen into the same deep hypocrisy hole. “Speak no evil, see no evil, and hear no evil”, unless a political advantage at home arises? Sure? Or is it a case of “Monkey see - Monkey do”?

The tyranny of the conjured-up enemy always justifies commitment to any war. Wars are no more than expressions of tyranny versus tyranny. That also means telling lies and brainwashing at home to arouse sufficient public indignation to justify sending our troops into conflict. If the need for war were as great as our Pollies love to pretend, we should expect our Pollies to be volunteering first to go the front lines as an example to the masses. But they don’t, which says a lot about their motivations. So goes the adage: “The first casualty of war is the truth”. Despite the demonstrable lies that were dished up to the general public in the USA, Britain and Australia regarding the need for an invasion of Iraq in 2003, Simon Crean as the then Leader of the Opposition failed to campaign for a binding referendum on commitment on behalf of the majority of Australians. The general public knew instinctively, that the supposed justifications for the mooted Iraq War 2003 were lies and BS but Simon Crean’s Opposition and OZ Media allowed Howard to get away with it. The undemocratic escape clause, to which they all subscribed, was that the Constitution provided the Executive Government with the power to commit the nation to war without the need for specific reference to the people. Therefore, acquiescence to GWB’s war plans represented democracy in action, perhaps?

Without much doubt, George W Bush has overseen the greatest travesty of just causes since the Vietnam War, but refuses to accept that he made a terrible undemocratic mistake driven by hubris and lobbyist influences. History may well show Dick Chaney, who had vested interests in Haliburton’s potential reconstruction contracts for Iraq, to have been a Rasputin character who surreptitiously pushed war favouring rationales. The following article provides extensive opinion pieces.

Similarly, the SBS TV (Documentary Series) recently shown on the Cutting Edge program, entitled “Bush’s War” provides a view of the extraordinarily undemocratic process that lead to the invasion of Iraq.

John Howard likewise refuses to admit that the Iraq War has been a disaster. Without much doubt, the Iraq War has made the global prospects of Islamic terrorism worse than ever before. Organised religion is responsible for war. The extremists on both sides incite their brainwashed subjects to anger. At least in the West, the portrayal of Jesus in cartoons and in satirical movies such as “The Life of Brian” is acceptable to the thinking majority. The Jews love to slander Jesus. (Jesus was the bastard child of a Roman soldier!). The brainwashing of Catholics is bad enough but the extent of brainwashing of Moslems is ridiculous and indicative of their absurd view of the Universe. If Islamic clerics were to lighten up and not take themselves so seriously, the World would be a much happier place – but that would be inconsistent with the power mongering of Islamic clerics. The reaction of Islamic clerics to the Danes’ publication of satirical Mohammed cartoons is indicative of the extent of oppression and brainwashing of their subjects. What Moslems need more than anything else, just like the rest of us, is a specific vote on the big issues. Then and only then, the War on Terror job would be done. Howard could then rest in peace. 

Of all of Howard’s failings, the greatest has been his undemocratic determination to attach good ship Australia’s anchor chain to George W Bush’s Administration. How can anyone justify spending $US3 trillion to subdue Al Quaeda in Iraq when Al Quaeda did not operate in Iraq prior to the war? How can Bush and Howard justifiably claim that the hundreds of thousands of their innocent victims of Iraq are of no consequence and also claim to be Christian? How can Bush and Howard claim that the monumental and wilful squandering of planetary resources can be justified in a world of shortages for millions of starvers? How can Bush and Howard claim that the “War on Terror” will ever succeed or that it will subdue extremist Islamic terrorism by any name, or that Al Quaeda by any other name, will ever be beaten?  War begets war, does it not? Brainwashing on either side to the effect that any such war is or will be “right and/or just” simply precludes any prospect of peace prevailing by exacerbating retaliation prospects. The battles between Palestinians and the Israelis don’t seem likely to end any time soon. If anything, the war seems destined to continue forever or until the demise of humanity, which ever comes first.

Similarly, how could John Howard as a doyen of “Peace and democratic freedom” justifiably claim that the despicable Vietnam War was in effect, “right and just” as he did in 2007, despite the evidence that the Tonkin Gulf Resolution that supposedly justified the war, was predicated upon lies, as was the Iraq War 2003? How could John Howard justifiably maintain such views despite the overwhelming gross evidence of innocent human suffering that continues today as a direct result of US military practises in Vietnam and Cambodia? They cannot. The war was completely unnecessary and served only those with vested interests in war mongering. Diabolically evil ordinances were used indiscriminately on Viet Cong and civilians alike. The dioxin laced Agent Orange used as a jungle defoliant lingers on in human genetic defects likely to last for generations and a day. Napalm was used to wipe out entire villages. Carpet bombing of the North, by its nature could hardly be described as having been selective. Land mines planted during the war continue to maim innocent people in Cambodia and Vietnam today. All care taken ostensibly, but no responsibility? Sure.

And so war is derived from tyranny on both sides of the conflict. But our Pollies always know best what’s in the nation’s best interests and they persist with perpetuating the lie that we live in democracy. Our Pollies exercise tyranny against Australia whenever they usurp Executive Powers of the Federal Constitution to bypass the wishes of the majority of the people. Not democracy, but the potential for tyranny was written into the Constitution by the Founding Fathers whereby Executive Government was granted the power to commit Australia to any war without the specific imprimatur of the people. Not democracy. Never has been. And it never will be - unless democratic change occurs. Only a change to the Constitution can rectify that most egregious fault in the Constitution.


Click here to Return to the INDEX