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.