CORRESPONDENCE

Response to 173 editorial
by GERARD HENDERSON

IN THEIR EDITORIAL, ‘Utopia? Australian Idealism’ (Overland 173), Katherine Wilson and Nathan Hollier maintain that, in my syndicated Fairfax column on 9 September 2003, I falsely “accused Iraqi intelligence whistleblower Andrew Wilkie of fabricating a quote from John Howard”. The editors also asserted that I obtained my material from John Howard's office and “toed the line without checking . . . Hansard”. Both statements are completely false.

During his appearance before the Parliamentary Joint Committee’s Inquiry Into Iraq WMD Intelligence on 22 August 2003, Andrew Wilkie asserted that, pre-war, John Howard had claimed that Iraq possessed a “massive”and “mammoth” WMD arsenal. When asked by Labor Senator Robert Ray what was the source for this claim, Mr Wilkie replied: “Off the top of my head, I cannot recall.”

In fact, the Prime Minister used the terms “massive”or “mammoth” on two only occasions in the lead-up to the Second Gulf War.

On 4 February 2003, John Howard told the Parliament that “in 1995, the international community was confronted by Iraq’s massive program for developing offensive biological weapons . . . ”. In other words, the Prime Minister did not say (as Mr Wilkie alleged) that Iraq had massive or mammoth supplies of WMD. But, rather, that in 1995 evidence was produced with respect to Iraq’s massive program for developing WMD.

In his Address to the Nation on 20 March 2003, John Howard referred to Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons “which even in minute quantities are capable of causing death and destruction on a mammoth scale”. In other words, the Prime Minister did not say (as Mr Wilkie alleged) that Iraq had massive or mammoth supplies of WMD. But, rather, that Iraq’s WMD were capable of having a mammoth effect – even if used in “minute quantities”.

It is true that Robert Manne accused me of misquoting Andrew Wilkie. In a postscript to my column of 30 September 2003 I rejected Professor Manne’s allegation and wrote that I would provide, on request, a “documented explanation” in support of my claim that Andrew Wilkie had misquoted John Howard. I forwarded a copy of this document to Robert Manne – he did not respond. I would have provided a copy to Overland's editors – had they bothered to ask.

One final point. Contrary to the assertion in Overland, the Prime Minister’s Office did not draw my attention to Robert Wilkie’s misquotations. Rather, I noticed Mr Wilkie’s errors when reading Senator Ray’s comments – as reported in Hansard.

GERARD HENDERSON

Robert Manne responds to Henderson:

MIGHT I COMMENT on the characteristically disingenuous Gerard Henderson letter? In his original article on Andrew Wilkie, published in the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald, Henderson claimed that “as part of his confused and confusing performance at a parliamentary inquiry”Wilkie argued that “pre-war, the government had maintained Iraq possessed a ‘massive’ and ‘mammoth’ WMD arsenal”.

Henderson continued:

When asked by Labor Senator Robert Ray what was the source for the claim that the Government had used the words ‘massive’ and ‘mammoth’ with respect to Iraq’s WMD, Wilkie replied: “Off the top of my head, I cannot recall.” Ray subsequently demonstrated that Wilkie’s (alleged) quotes had been taken out of context. The former ONA officer did not seem to understand the seriousness of the charge.

In order to decide whether it was Wilkie who misled the parliament or Henderson who misled his readers (and now, with his letter, readers of Overland), a certain amount of detail is required. The opening exchange between Wilkie and Ray in the parliamentary Inquiry into pre-war intelligence occurred more or less in the way Henderson outlined. Later in the hearing, however, Ray returned to this question. He now acknowledged that Howard had indeed used the words ‘massive’ and ‘mammoth’ with regard to WMD, although not exactly in the way Wilkie had stated. This is what Ray said: “I will just clear one thing up. You use the words ‘massive’ and ‘mammoth’. I could not find them, but I have found both quotes now. They do not actually refer to the amount of weapons of mass destruction, so neither you nor I are wrong. I will put the quotes on record.” And he did. It is at this point that the matter should have come to an end.

Ray had acknowledged that Wilkie was not wrong. In his determination to discredit Wilkie, Henderson did not inform his readers that Ray had corrected himself. Instead, Henderson wondered aloud whether Wilkie “understood the seriousness of the charge”.

The seriousness of what charge? The clear implication here was that Wilkie had misrepresented the Howard government’s prewar position not merely on the matter of words, but, more substantively, with regard to the whole question of WMD. In his letter to the Editor in Chief of the Age Henderson appears to amplify the nature of Wilkie’s supposed misrepresentation like this: “The fact is that Andrew Wilkie alleged that the Howard government had claimed that Iraq had a ‘massive’ and ‘mammoth’ arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. And the fact is that neither the Prime Minister nor any of his ministers made any such claim.” More than words seem here to be involved.

In order to show that it is Henderson and not Wilkie who is grossly misrepresenting the position of the Howard government, the context surrounding Howard’s use of the word ‘massive’ with regard to Iraq’s WMD arsenal is helpful. It came in the course of Howard’s most important prewar speech, his parliamentary address in February last year. The context makes absolutely clear that Howard was talking about Iraq’s WMD capacity – not a WMD program, as Henderson falsely claims:

There are 6500 chemical bombs, including 550 shells filled with mustard gas, 360 tonnes of bulk chemical warfare agent – including 1.5 tonnes of the deadly nerve agent VX, 3000 tonnes of precursor chemicals – 300 tonnes of which could only be used for the production of VX, and over 30,000 special munitions for the delivery of chemical and biological agents – all unaccounted for. In 1995, the international community was confronted by Iraq’s massive program for developing offensive biological weapons – one of the largest and most advanced in the world. Despite four years of intensive inquiries and searches, the weapons inspectors did not even know of its existence until Saddam’s son-in-law, Hussein Kamal defected. Faced with its duplicity Iraq finally admitted to producing aflotoxin – which causes cancers, the paralysing poison botulinum and anthrax bacteria. It admitted to manufacturing 8,500 litres of anthrax. A single gram is enough for millions of fatal doses.

The context makes it clear that Howard asserted that by 1995 Iraq already possessed a massive arsenal of biological weapons. He was not speaking of unfulfilled plans. It also makes clear that he suggested that Iraq still possessed the weapons. This is not a minor matter. It was because of such assertions that we went to war.
On 20 March 2003, in his speech to the Australian nation on the eve of the war, Howard returned to the question of Iraq’s vast arsenal of chemical and biological weapons. He spoke thus:

We are determined to join other countries to deprive Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction, its chemical and biological weapons which, even in minute quantities, are capable of causing death and destruction on a mammoth scale.

What Howard was suggesting here was that as Iraq possessed vast quantities of biological weapons agents (like the 8,500 litres of anthrax he had earlier spoken about), the deadly threat from them could best be grasped by the fact that even a tiny dose of a biological agent could cause death and destruction on a ‘mammoth’ scale. It is true that Wilkie misremembered Howard’s use of the word ‘mammoth’. Howard had previously spoken about Iraq’s “massive” biological weapons program, and he now spoke dramatically about the “mammoth” destruction such weapons could cause. To regard this misremembrance as a serious error is, in my opinion, absurd.

On the issue of semantics, Henderson did not inform readers that Senator Ray had been obliged to retract his original (not particularly important) claim. As Ray acknowledged, Howard had, indeed, used both words with regard to WMD. On the more substantive matter, Henderson’s original article asked Wilkie if he understood the seriousness of the charge he was making against the Howard government. The implication was that Wilkie had seriously misrepresented the government’s prewar position when he argued that Howard had claimed that Iraq possessed a vast arsenal of WMD. It was precisely because of this case that we followed the USA and Britain in going to war against Iraq.

On both the semantic and substantive issues, then, it is not Andrew Wilkie but Gerard Henderson who has sought to obfuscate and mislead.

ROBERT MANNE

Click here to order