Was it a bit imperialistic to be one of hundreds of Aussie civilians sitting in the Melbourne Town Hall listening in on a debate on the justification for risking Australian lives in Afghanistan while millions of Afghanis (and desperate folks elsewhere) are living war every day? But I guess that’s the luck of the draw; despite our tragic individual losses, we win already. I’m not saying we shouldn’t debate such things; it just felt very academic; because, in effect, the war doesn’t really touch most of us.
But I digress. The Affirmative party, arguing that there is no justification for risking Australian lives, was comprised of: lawyer Kelly Tranter; Raoul Heinrichs, scholar, editor, and former foreign and security advisor to Kevin Rudd in Opposition; and Eva Cox, ex-academic, ex-political advisor (weren’t told to whom,) sociologist by trade and a promoter of ideas (!) Arguing against the proposition were: Jim Molan, retired Major-General who, from 2004, oversaw a multinational force of 300,000 troops in Iraq; Sonia Ziaee, Afghan businesswoman and community activist; and Peter Singer, philosopher identity who needs no introduction.
First speaker Kelly was dressed in a black suit and white ruffled shirt ensemble, plus fab glasses and hairdo, suggestive of an American TV series lawyer type. She tucked straight into some unpleasant facts as a result of her research; apparently, governments are not telling us the truth and things are pretty awful on the ground in Afghanistan, worse than when the war began in some respects and in some parts of the country, strongly challenging whether our 1550 troops, as part of a 340,000 foreign troop contingent, are really necessary to what her information suggests is an unsuccessful war effort. Unfortunately, she wasn’t much of an orator. And a microphone malfunction meant that some people down the back didn’t hear much of her speech which justifiably irritated her. Second speaker Jim also conformed to stereotype: a tall, bluff, manly man, just the type you’d expect for running things and wrangling hundreds of thousands of other manly men. And in retirement, still fit, still got his fingers in pies, still authoritative, still able to convince that he’s in charge and we should just listen up and take orders from him, (except that it’s now called advice.) He spoke really well: paced himself; made his points clearly; had a terrific timbre; and he pleaded the anticipated party line about fighting for democracy and backing up our big ol’ ally, the US of A.
As would have been expected, these first speakers set the pace and tone for their respective teams. I can’t remember what Raoul said, but when all speakers were given a chance at rebuttal he did raise a good point around the concept of a ‘just war’ - one criterion for waging such a war is a realistic expectation of winning it. According to the Negative team, the war against anti-democratic forces will be won in 2014 because that is the proposed date for withdrawal of all US and other foreign troops. By 2014, there will be 30,000 more trained Afghani soldiers, the economy will be in better shape, and with a bit of luck (I believe that was the term used) Karzai and his corrupt government will be voted out. The Affirmative side made much of the lack of true distinction between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance, Afghanistan’s main political forces, when it comes to human rights and totalitarianism, but the Negative didn’t really address this problem satisfactorily, which begged the question: ‘Which party/people, then, in three years’ time, will form a democratic government that guarantees equal rights and security for women and oppressed ethnic groups such as the Hazara?’ The second speaker for the Negative side was an Afghani woman in her late 20s who lived in Afghanistan until she was 12, (with a stint in Pakistan,) and so was able to tell us her memories of that time. She also relayed a message of thanks from her father to the Australian people (represented by us.) An interesting speech that called for an empathic response from the audience, but not totally to the point.
Lastly, and at last, the big two – Eva and Peter. Eva had to follow Sonia; it’s a big call to follow an emotive appeal from an attractive young woman, but Eva does have her own refugee credential, and an impressively cranky, don’t-give-me-that-crap attitude when she took the mike and even when she was just sitting there on the podium. She was satisfyingly succinct, to the point, logical. From where I was sitting halfway down the Hall, I’m sure I saw her rolling her eyes, if not actually then figuratively. (Or perhaps this was just transference on my part.) My favourite bit was when she told Peter Singer she didn’t want to hear any more, thanks all the same, about men going to war to protect women. And if we really cared as a nation about women, Afghanis and refugees, we wouldn’t be letting our government treat asylum seekers the way it does. The much lauded Peter Singer was hugely disappointing and waffly, trucking out unconvincing (to me) points about democracy and women’s rights. He tried to have half each way by protesting that he’d taken a public position against the war when it started in 2001, but had since come to understand that we were ethically obliged to keep on making war (killing more people) now we were in it.
After these podium debaters had stated their positions it was Open Mike time for the audience. This allowed for some obvious and not-so-obvious points to be raised. My favourite of the latter was made by an older man who complained about how the price of bananas and coal was affecting Australian pensioners. Him being a strongly accented gentleman of European extraction, it was a little difficult to understand exactly what he was saying or meaning, but he seemed to be complaining that the debate, or perhaps the government, was off-topic and should be focusing on the shocking lack of affordable bananas on the home front. His polar opposite was an equally older woman who whinged that the billions of dollars spent in maintaining the war may have been better deployed in establishing a strong Afghani infrastructure – health, education, roads etc to kickstart the country after the mess everyone’s made of it since the Russians first moved in in 1979. Others queried that if we were so bent on rescuing women from oppression, why we weren’t liberating them in other countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran. The answer to this, according to Jim, is that we can’t do good everywhere, but we should do it somewhere; Afghanistan won the jackpot.
Two more points about my evening out are worthy of note. Firstly, in the row in front of me were four teenagers, fourteen year olds - I know this because I asked them afterwards. All through the debate, they were leaning forward in their seats, rapt. One of them even took the opportunity to participate in the floor debate. This dynamic teenage engagement in seriousness gave me a thrill. The other cause for alternative excitement was when a man sitting in the aisle seat next to the teenagers left the hall in the middle of proceedings, leaving his backpack behind on the floor. Who would do that? Leave his personal belongings unattended in a crowded hall of people discussing terrorism and the Taliban and (briefly) Al Quaeda? After a couple of minutes I considered getting up and also leaving. Then, when the bomb was detonated – presumably by his mobile phone – I would be saved. But what about everyone else in the auditorium? Should I yell, Bomb Bomb! just in case, to alert them all of potential catastrophe? How much trouble would I be in, exactly, if it were a false alarm? How bad would I feel, exactly, if the hall and everyone in it were to be blown up and I had made a lucky escape? Happily the man returned shortly, saving me from an awful ethical dilemma.
The result of the debate? On entering the auditorium we were asked to participate in a poll: at that juncture, 37% of us were undecided; more than 37% were for the proposition, and considerably less were against. After the debate we were polled again: 7% undecided; and this time, the Negative team clear winners. I guess people are more persuaded by emotive appeals and big, strong, important men who claim to know how best to protect us than by dry facts and common sense. Eva shrugged; I guess she’s used to it.
No comments:
Post a Comment