The natural environment is also a potential loser during a war. Oil spills, groundwater contamination, spent munitions, soil erosion and compaction, spills from damaged facilities can all contribute to ongoing environmental degradation. In the case of Iraq it may be that the country will be in no position to undertake an extensive clean-up after the war ends. The New Scientist says that one ongoing impact of the last Gulf War was the contamination of freshwater aquifers in Kuwait as a result of seepage of spilt oil.


The United Nations Environment Program has begun looking into the potential impacts of the war.

Geneva, 20 March 2003 - UNEP's Post Conflict Assessment Unit (PCAU) has initiated a Desk Study of the environment in Iraq, aimed at providing a rapid and timely overview of key environmental issues in the context of the current conflict. The study has been requested by UNEP's Executive Director, in line with the mandate for UNEP post-conflict activities set by the organization's Governing Council. The work is financially supported by the Government of Switzerland.

The UNEP web pages have heaps of relevant links including satellite photos of burning oil wells. As well as a plea for post war reconstruction to include efforts to save the Marshlands of Mesopotamia.

Archaelogical sites may also be damaged during the war. From New Scientist:

Archaeologists from six nations, including Iraq and the US, say that Iraq's unique heritage "appears now to be in grave danger". The statement, published in Science warns of "irreparable losses both to local communities and to all humanity".

In February, US archaeologists gave the coordinates of over 5000 important sites to the US Department of Defense so that they could be actively avoided in bombing raids. But many sites have potential military targets nearby and so could be hit by accident.

"Archaeological sites have been placed on no-strike lists," a Pentagon spokesperson confirmed to New Scientist. But they stressed that if Iraqi weapons were placed at these sites, they would become legitimate targets.

Canberra Considers V8 Race Return. Oh, yes the event that results in one of the National capital's key national areas (the parliamentary triangle) being dominated by concrete crash barriers, wire fences and petrol heads. Perhaps any future loss can be subsidised from the foreshadowed introduction (by the very same NCA) of pay parking.

A little late, and unlikely to succeed (again from ABC):

The Democrats want laws changed so Australia's involvement in any military conflict in the future requires parliamentary consent.
The Democrats hope to introduce a bill to that affect in the Senate today.
The current war is the first time an Australian Government has committed troops without the majority support of the Parliament.

Personally, the last line is of real interest. I hadn't even wondered about that issue (as far as I recall House of Reps supported and Senate did not). We are accustomed to the Senate rejecting something the government dominated House of Reps passes, but it may be that this is actually a first.

From ABC Online
The United States has conceded its military coalition may have been responsible for the deaths of at least 14 civilians in a Baghdad marketplace by targeting an Iraqi missile launcher.
Mr Howard says he believes the US did not intend to cause the deaths.
"On the information in my possession I am satisfied the incident was not the result of deliberate targeting of civilians by the United States or of an indiscriminate bombing policy," he said.

Thank goodness for that clarification, without it (given US military officials are quoted as saying they targeted the missile and rocket launchers which were located less than 100 metres from a populated area) I might have been a little confused.

I have little doubt it wasn't deliberate targetting of civilians. But it would appear that the decision was made to target military facilities in the knowledge that they were so close to a civilian area. Possibly some might say that the missile and rocket launchers were there to try to protect nearby areas?

Does the modification of the the opposition leader's stance on return of our troops have anything to do with this? or is he just being practical? Once again, its getting hard to see the difference between either major party.

This is something I just don't know what to think about. It makes me rather ill that the scramble is already on, but it would be naive to think that such things can wait.

Debate about how well, or not so well the invasion of Iraq is proceeding is valid, but it should not be confused with the issue of whether we should be there in the first place. If it is wrong to do something, then the manner in which the act is carried out cannot change the fact that the act is wrong to begin with.

Last Sunday, 23 March I attended the Convergence on Parliament protest. As usual, my arrival was a little late, but I still heard several of the speakers before the protest headed off for a little march down Commonwealth Avenue, across Commonwealth Bridge, and back again. At one point, both segments of Commonwealth Bridge were covered by the protest. It was estimated that about 5000 people attended. Judging by the banners, Tshirts etc, there is a wide variety of viewpoints present at these marches, ranging from human rights concerns, general desire for peace, to more politically oriented statements directed towards the Australian or USA governments in particular. I was reminded of blogging when I saw a sign reading "Johnny the Bush Kangaroo". While the Sunday march was peaceful, the Monday protest got out of hand, and it appears to have resulted in increased restrictions to public access around Parliament House. I saw one reference on the news to the public no longer being able to walk over the rooftop lawn. Not sure what it says when our general security alert for terrorist activity has not been heightened due to the war, but security measures against protests have.

Margo Kingston with Judi Foster bring forth a piece from the last effort in the Gulf - Death and vomit: the real meaning of war, by Peter Smark.

Yesterday was the first time I have really felt ashamed about my country's actions on the international stage (note that I was pretty young during the Vietnam war). Sure, there have been a few things that we have done in Australia that have reflected badly on our image (though how internal the Tampa issue was is questionable), but participation in the coalition of the willing's attack on Iraq is definitely an export I am ashamed of.

I can't understand why the PM thinks that our participation will do us, or anyone else, any good. I cannot see our participation reducing the threat of a terrorist attack on us or anyone else (it could even increase the chances). Although John Howard is now citing how important our relationship is to the US as a reason for our participation, I disagree that such close shadowing is necessary for an alliance. We are an independent country, not a client state or dependency, and as such our allies should respect that we may not always agree with them to the extent of taking active participation. Some have alleged the objective is ensuring the proposed free trade agreement - such an agreement could in itself be a two edged sword. The PM has also claimed that an attack benefits human rights through freeing the oppressed Iraqi people. I think that he has also stated however, that this issue alone would not be enough for Australia to go to war on. As such, I don't think it can serve as justification.

On Wednesday, in speaking to some Greenpeace protesters who had chained themselves to the gates of The Lodge (The PM's residence when he chooses to stay in Canberra), the Prime Minister was reported as asking the protesters to respect his opinion. I can respect that he had an opinion, but as the PM, the conversion of his opinion into policy has far greater ramifications than the expression of personal opinion by most normal Australians. I suspect that the concept of Australia participating in a war without UN approval, in a scenario when we were not directly under threat, was not on the minds of many Australians who voted at the last election.

I also feel afraid for where this will leave us after the immediate issue is resolved. Will this change how other countries see Australia? Perhaps some will view us as so closely allied to the US, that they may as well assume we always have the same position. Will it change the way we participate in the UN? I have always seen the UN as a key mechanism for modern international relations. Sure, its not perfect, but isn't it better than anything that has gone before? I cannot believe that any one country, or group of countries can, by simply providing strong and decisive leadership, replace the role of the UN. The potential to weaken the UN is, along with the potential loss of civilian life, a key negative outcome of this action.

In the end, if it is all over quickly, Saddam is ousted, not many civilians die, infrastructure and the natural environment remains mostly intact, and food, water and medical supplies are made available to the Iraqi population while a new fair and democratic system of independent government is rapidly and fairly put in place ... if all that is achieved, perhaps many people will conclude that given Saddam may have been such an oppressive dictator, perhaps it was a good thing, and no harm done. My concern then is, will this be the only such action to be taken by the coalition of the willing? Could it be that the US and its allies find cause to implement the same solution upon other potentially threatening and undemocratic regimes? And if so, will the case for benefits to the people concerned always be so cut and dried? The world has not appointed this coalition to make such decisions by themselves (although I think there have been times in the past where the USA, for example, has also been criticised for not taking action). Although Australia, the USA and Britain all have comparatively healthy and successful democracies, none of them are anywhere near perfect, and each country's own solution to peaceful democratic and fair existence cannot be assumed to be able to be directly transplanted as the solution to the problems of another country (didn't we learn this from the end of the colonial era?). Now that we have pinned a "deputy" badge to our chest, I hope that we don't find it too hard to remove.

Last Thursday the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, chose to speak at the National Press Club on the topic of Iraq. National Press Club speeches are usually held at the National Press Club, just down the hill from New Parliament House here in Canberra. However, a couple of days before the speech was to occur, it was decided that in this case, the presentation would occur in the Great Hall at Parliament House. Some commentators suggested that perhaps this change was made so that the Prime Minister could avoid the hassle of making his way through a potential blockade of protestors. Whatever the case, on the day I made my way up the hill to witness/possibly add my presence to the protest. It turned out I was a little late. When I arrived just after 1pm, although the PM was still in full swing, most of the protestors had headed off. A passing friend returning to our place of employment informed me that indeed one could still enter the public areas of Parliament house and that for the convenience of those so inclined, the live broadcast was available on television sets within the foyer.

I made my way to the entrance, only to be informed by the security guard that, for the moment, the House was closed. He explained that there were just so many people inside, no more could be let in, for our own safety. Looking through the glass doors I was a little bemused to only be able to see a few security guards standing around. A few others turned up and were a little more insistent in their questioning of the guard. He explained that there were about five hundred people who were being kept to either side of the foyer. He also noted that the regular public tours of the building had been cancelled. After a while some of those present put to the guard that about thirty people had left the building while we waited, and that perhaps it was time to allow more people to enter. Calls were made, and we finally entered through the standard security screening.

Coming out of the security check area I expected to find the foyer abuzz with hundreds of people. Instead I could only see about 20 people standing on each side of the foyer, gathered around a couple of television sets showing the PM answering questions from journalists. The PM was in fact only about 100m away, through a couple of closed wooden doors, across the parquetry floor of the great hall. In front of those doors stood two security guards. I wondered whether the concern with numbers was less so much about public safety, and more about how many (so inclined) people it would take to cause an undesirable noise for those inside. Whatever the case, I think a little more honesty about the real situation inside the building would not have harmed anyone.