The politics of Australia's withdrawal from Iraq

This article examines the complex matrix of public, political and policy debates that were brought to bear on Australia's decision to withdraw from Iraq. In analysing the ‘politics of withdrawal’ in Australia, this article identifies four dominant frames that served to polarise the issue along party-political lines and reduce the complexities of Australia's withdrawal to a set of simple polarities (such as ‘stay the course’ versus ‘responsible withdrawal’). Specifically, these frames obfuscated an assessment of the myriad challenges facing post-Saddam Iraq and the prospects for peace, security and development beyond Australia's withdrawal. Understanding the ways in which Australia framed its decision to disengage from Iraq is critical to further analysis of Australia's approach to current (or future) military draw-downs (such as in Afghanistan), as well as those conducted by other liberal democracies, such as the US and the UK.

澳大利亚从伊拉克撤军的决定引起了公共、政治、政策上的舌剑唇枪,本文探讨了这些辩论的复杂背景。本文分析了澳大利亚的“脱身政治”,发现有四个框框依政党—政治思路将话题两极化,将澳大利亚脱身的复杂性简化成一套极端性（如“坚定不移”对“负责任地脱身”）。特别是这些框框妨碍了对后萨达姆伊拉克所面临的无数挑战的认识,对澳大利亚撤军后的和平、安全、发展前景的认识。理解澳大利亚形成其退出伊拉克决定的方式,对于分析澳大利亚最近的军事低介入（例如在阿富汗）,以及其他自由民主国家如美英的同类选择,都至关紧要。     

French Intellectuals and the Iraq War

Because of its representation of marginal and often violent milieux, the status of noir fiction has long been that of an ‘inferior’, less ‘literary’ genre. It could be argued that its frequent references to popular culture, and especially television and film, explain its appeal to a wide audience, one that does not necessarily read other genres. The intrigue and setting of the noir novel enables it to be perceived primarily as a ludic activity while often dealing with issues which are both political and ideological. Brigitte Aubert's work makes frequent references to film, TV and popular literature, and this article aims to examine the way these are used, how they play with notions of reality and fiction, how they can create an ironic distance which allows the writer both to create a sense of complicity with the reader and to criticise the society she presents.     

America after Iraq

America won an asymmetric war in Iraq and lost an asymmetric peace. Translating material power advantage into favourable political outcomes has been a challenge for great powers down the ages—what makes this bridge even more difficult to cross today is the raised expectations on the part of liberal publics about the moral purpose of US‐led interventions. In this sense, Iraq is part of the explanation for why influential liberals believe there is a ‘crisis’ in America's world leadership. ‘America after Iraq’ subjects this claim to analytical scrutiny—in particular it addresses whether Iraq was simply a chapter in a longer book detailing American power and purpose in the post‐9/11 world? In answering this question the article is drawn to consider conceptual debates about a shift in the international system from anarchy to hierarchy with the US as the hegemonic power. While it rejects strong versions of the hierarchy thesis that imply the Washington is the new Rome, it is nevertheless drawn to an understanding of a hierarchical form of ordering where the US oscillates between a hegemonic role and an imperial outlaw. Seen through this lens, the Iraq War was an intervention that happened because it could, and not because it was just or necessary. Public opinion and the weakness of domestic institutions are also critical factors in explaining how it was possible for a previously status‐quo oriented hegemonic power to act recklessly and put the rules and institutions of international society under strain.     

Getting out of the Iraq trap

The Iraq crisis has been variously defined as a problem of local leadership, regional security, culture clash, arms control, neo–imperialism, transatlantic relations and international legitimacy. The competing definitions reflect the worldviews of different actors with a stake in the outcome of the crisis. Each perspective has validity for its proponent and none of them can be expected to triumph to the exclusion of the others. Consequently, it is argued here, whatever the goals of UN and/or military intervention in Iraq, at the receiving end, the experience will be at odds with what is meant or sought by such intervention. A way to understand the problem and thence to address it is ventured which combines local, regional and international perspectives and calls for a multitiered, multilateral approach to rethinking Iraq and the region. The intention is to take on 'the hawks' who claim that the United States can deliver democracy to client states, challenge their logic and propose an alternative vision that would require all parties, international and local, to take shared responsibility not only for Iraq but for Palestine too.     

Softly,softly to Iraq: Removing the inverted commas from Japan's security contributions

This article considers the Japanese Government's decision to send self-defence force personnel to Iraq 'for humanitarian assistance' as a basis for examining the tensions between expectations and aspirations of Japan's security identity. The deployment presents us with an opportunity to examine prevailing assumptions about international security and what it means for Japan's international 'contributions'. The article seeks to explore the theoretical constructs and practical constraints which foster the tension between those who expect Japan's military capability to be equal to its economic status (that is, a 'normal power') and those who champion Japan's 'comprehensive security' position as a long-standing alternative security interpretation. The article acknowledges that while the deployment may well represent the very limits of constitutional interpretations of the famous Article 9 (or peace clause), it also presents an option which ought to withstand ongoing international and domestic pressures to revise the 1947 Constitution.     

Protecting Cultural Heritage in Times of Conflict: Lessons from Iraq

The past as taught in schools around the world still focuses on what differentiates us rather than what we have in common. This is surely an increasingly important issue as the world appears to be dividing into antagonistic camps that refuse to comprehend each other. We need, in the words of the British archaeologist David Clarke, to “come of age”—and to influence school curricula. We also need to influence general public understanding of the past and its importance and we need to focus attention on groups in society that have particular roles in protection of sites: for example the military. This article is based on a Plenary Session presentation with the same title at the sixth World Archaeological Congress, held in Dublin, Ireland in 2008.     

Contested Nations: Iraq and the Assyrians

Abstract. The formation of nation‐states from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East after World War I, under colonial auspices, proceeded with negotiations in some instances and hostilities in others from previously autonomous communities, some of them formally designated as millets. Iraq comprised a diversity of religious and ethnic communities. The Assyrians, Christian mountain tribes, mostly refugees from Turkish Kurdistan under British protection, were one community which actively resisted integration into the new nation‐state and, as a result, were subject to violent attacks by the nascent Iraqi army in 1933. This episode and the way it was perceived and interpreted by the different parties is an interesting illustration of the political psychology of communitarianism in interaction with nationalism, complicated by religious identifications, all in a colonial context. Subsequent histories and commentaries on the episode are also interesting in illuminating ideological readings.     

'International community' after Iraq

One frequently hears statements about the damage done to the 'international community' by disagreements about the invasion and occupation of Iraq. It is clear from the general nature and frequency of its use that the term 'inter‐national community' has an important political function in generating legiti‐macy for those who act in its name. It is also clear from its popular usage that 'international community' means very different, and often quite opposed, things to different people. Why is the strong term 'community' chosen when 'inter‐national society' might be more useful? Longstanding debates within political theory and the English school provide helpful insights into why people use this term in the ways that they do. This article will argue that international community implies a deep and robust sharing of identity, and that in relation to the Iraq war, the most important meaning of it equates broadly with the West. The authors look at the effect of the war on the western international com‐munity through its impact on NATO, the EU, the UN, the WTO and public opinion. They further argue that the evidence from these sources does not yet suggest that the western international community has been fatally damaged.