In a nutshell, Kevin Rudd who wanted us to believe he was anti-war turned out to be really the opposite of what he projected in the election campaign. Labour might have got rid of a tough talk wimp as PM but his presence continued to be felt as FM and the successor PM Julia Gillard is just a woman with Rudd substance as far as foreign affairs are concerned. As Wikileaks are published in the local media, the more embarrassing our leaders look in the international stage.
Why aren't our politicians cleverly utilising resources from the intelligence agencies and military to go for win-win in smart and effective ways? We knew that Rudd did not pay due respect to the military commanders by turning up late for meetings. Perhaps it would help to pause and listen more to the professionals since they are less politicised, fairly independent and seem to know their craft well. The pun in intelligence must tell leaders to take heed.
After many catastrophic lessons in history, we know that the world is made of people who are not stark black and white as what some political leaders call good versus evil empires. Real world situations are a lot more complex though politicians have a penchant to simplify matters for the masses whom they believe will not understand politics. More likely, the leaders deal with world issues on the basis of their personal prejudices.
Politicians are very selective in making use of intelligence as evidence to bolster their ventures. Much rarer would they share with the public what really went on behind the scenes at real time.
Remember the episode that WMDs in Iraq which never existed. The slightest hints from untested and unreliable sources and Saddam's rhetorics were taken too seriously and sexed up to help President GW Bush muster support to invade oil-rich Iraq, remove Saddam Hussein and opened up opportunities for instability, violence and terrorism to spawn in a weak Iraq. Most of the time, intelligence has been ignored if it does not help to strengthen individual leaders' beliefs and policies. However, undertakings which involve commitment of troops (lives of Australians) and taxpayers' money ought to be measured, debated and well considered. There are times we need to be assertive but to volunteer Australia to get into more wars especially with nuclear powers is far from being responsible.
Read more :
AUSTRALIAN intelligence agencies fear that Israel may launch military strikes against Iran and Tehran's pursuit of nuclear capabilities could draw the US and Australia into a potential nuclear war in the Middle East.
Australia's peak intelligence agency has also privately undercut the hardline stance towards Tehran of the US, Israeli and Australian governments, saying its nuclear program is intended to deter attack and it is a mistake to regard Iran as a rogue state.
The warnings about the dangers of nuclear conflict in the Middle East are given in a secret US embassy cable obtained by WikiLeaks and provided exclusively to The Age. They reflect views obtained by US intelligence liaison officers in Canberra from Australian intelligence agencies.
''The AIC's [Australian intelligence community's] leading concerns with respect to Iran's nuclear ambitions centre on understanding the time frame of a possible weapons capability, and working with the United States to prevent Israel from independently launching unco-ordinated military strikes against Iran,'' the US embassy in Canberra reported to Washington in March last year.
''They are immediately concerned that Iran's pursuit of nuclear capabilities would lead to a conventional war - or even nuclear exchange - in the Middle East involving the United States that would draw Australia into a conflict.''
Australian concerns about a possible Israeli military strike against Iran are also recorded in another US embassy cable, sent to Washington in December 2008, reporting on discussions between Peter Varghese, then chief of Australia's peak intelligence agency, the Office of National Assessments (ONA), and the then head of the US State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), assistant secretary of state Randall Fort.
The embassy's report of the meeting says that ''ONA seniors and analysts were particularly interested in A/S Fort and INR's assessments on Israeli 'red lines' on Iran's nuclear program and the likelihood of an Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear facilities''.
An earlier cable, sent in July 2008, records that former prime minister Kevin Rudd was ''deeply worried'' that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's intransigence concerning Tehran's nuclear program meant that the window for a diplomatic solution was closing and that ''Israel may feel forced to use 'non-diplomatic' means''.
Last week Mr Rudd called on Israel to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty as part of a broader effort to establish the Middle East as a nuclear-weapon-free zone.
The US embassy's March 2009 report told Washington that the Australian government was ''more broadly concerned about the potential for renewed nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, driving south-east Asian states to abandon the [nuclear non-proliferation treaty] and pursue their own nuclear capabilities, which could introduce a direct threat to the Australian homeland''.
Australian intelligence views on Iran were solicited by US officials in response to a request from Washington to ascertain reactions to the possibility that the US might seek to discuss regional security issues with Tehran.
The US embassy cables confirm the presence in Canberra of representatives of all US national intelligence agencies: the CIA, the National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, the National Geospatial Agency, the Defence Intelligence Agency and the FBI.
US intelligence liaison officers engaged all their Australian counterpart agencies on the Iran question including ONA, the office of the National Security Adviser, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, the Defence Intelligence Organisation, the Defence Signals Directorate, the Defence Imagery and Geospatial Organisation, the Defence Science and Technology Organisation, and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.
In its July 2009 report to Washington, the embassy noted that the Australian intelligence community had ''increased its collection and analytic efforts on Iran over the past decade, demonstrating Australia's strategic commitment to engage substantively as a significant US partner on Iran''.
US diplomats expressed ''high confidence'' that the Australian government would have no objections to US efforts to engage Iran, noting that while Australian troops remain stationed in Afghanistan ''the Australians will look to increased US engagement with Iran to improve upon creating a realistic framework for an accelerated reduction and eventual cessation of Iranian support to the Taliban, al-Qaeda and related groups, and Hezbollah. Simultaneously, Australia will look for increased US-Iranian engagement to lead to a more stable governance environment for Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and the Levant.''
The US embassy's cable on the December 2008 intelligence exchange in Iran reported ONA director-general Varghese's view that possible conflict between Israel and Iran ''clearly represented the greatest challenge to [Middle East] stability''.
ONA analysts said the Iranian government appeared determined to acquire nuclear weapons, though this was probably driven by the desire to deter Israel and the US rather than an intention to strike against other Middle East states.
''ONA viewed Tehran's nuclear program within the paradigm of 'the laws of deterrence,' noting that Iran's ability to produce a weapon may be 'enough' to meet its security objectives,'' the US embassy reported.
''Nevertheless, Australian intelligence viewed Tehran's pursuit of full self-sufficiency in the nuclear fuel cycle, long-standing covert weapons program, and continued work on delivery systems as strong indicators that Tehran's preferred end state included a nuclear arsenal.''
ONA analysts told their US counterparts they were not alone in this assessment, asserting that ''while China and Russia remain opposed to it, they view Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons as inevitable''.
However, ONA urged a balanced view of Tehran as a sophisticated diplomatic player rather than a ''rogue state'' liable to behave impulsively or irrationally.
Mr Varghese said ONA was telling the Australian government: ''It's a mistake to think of Iran as a 'rogue state'.''
The embassy cable reported: ''ONA analysts assessed that Tehran 'knows' about its lack of certain capabilities, but plays 'beyond its hand' very skilfully … ONA judged that Iran's activities in Iraq - both overt and covert - represented an extreme manifestation of Iranian strategic calculus, designed to 'outflank' the US in the region.''
However the Australian intelligence analysts ''asserted that … the most effective means by which Tehran could ensure its national security would be a strategic relationship with the US via some 'grand bargain'.''
http://www.theage.com.au/national/nuclear-war-our-fear-of-iran-20101212-18u0q.html
x x x x x
ISRAEL'S ambassador to Australia found Kevin Rudd to be ''very pro-Israel'' and senior Australian diplomats warned the former prime minister that his condemnation of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad risked retaliation against Australia's embassy in Tehran, according to leaked US diplomatic cables.
A highly experienced Israeli diplomat, ambassador Rotem told US officials in July 2008 that during his first meeting with Mr Rudd after Australia's 2007 federal election, the newly elected prime minister had described Iranian President Ahmadinejad as a ''loathsome individual on every level'' and said that the Iranian leader's anti-Semitism ''turns my stomach''.
Asked by the US embassy about whether Mr Rudd's views on Iran had elicited any response, Mr Rotem said the Iranian government had reacted to the prime minister's statements by taking ''retaliatory measures'' against the Australian embassy in Tehran.
''These measures make it harder for the embassy to conduct its day-to-day business,'' Mr Rotem observed.
The Israeli ambassador added that the Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Michael l'Estrange, and Office of National Assessments director-general Peter Varghese had ''met several times to convince the PM to think through the consequences of his rhetoric on Iran''.
The ambassador added that Israeli officials would normally have been concerned at the prospect of an Australian Labor government: ''However, this was not the case because Rudd had long gone out of his way to stress his strong commitment to Israel and appreciation for its security concerns. Rotem said that he has had excellent access to Rudd and noted that the PM has taken a strong interest in even minor issues involving Israel.
''Commenting that DFAT officials are very frank in expressing their annoyance with the PM's micromanaging of foreign policy issues, Rotem laughingly said that 'while I understand their point of view, how can I complain about having that kind of attention from the PM'.''
The Israeli ambassador's enthusiasm for the Labor government extended to deputy prime minister Julia Gillard, with the US embassy reporting in January 2009 that Mr Rotem was ''very satisfied'' with the Australian response to Israel's military offensive in Gaza.
Mr Rotem added that Ms Gillard's statements surprised many Israeli embassy contacts as being ''far more supportive than they had expected''.
Ambassador Rotem added that he would be ''playing to Rudd's vanity'' to encourage him to pay an early visit to Israel and continue to speak out in support of a hard line against Iran's nuclear ambitions.
In a meeting with US diplomats in October 2009, First Assistant Secretary Patrick Suckling and then assistant secretary, now Australian ambassador to Israel, Andrea Faulkner, said Australia ''fully supports US efforts to engage with Iran'' but expressed ''deep official scepticism'' about the prospects for diplomatic progress. Mr Suckling said: ''Australia wants the most robust, intrusive and debilitating sanctions possible.''
http://www.watoday.com.au/national/rudd-derided-loathsome-ahmadinejad-20101212-18u0s.html
No comments:
Post a Comment