Why is the international media focusing only on what the US and UK are doing in Iraq? Australia also actively participated in the war. It seems that by sending only 2000 troops to Iraq, Australian prime minister John Howard succeeded to avoid the media spotlight that is now focusing predominantly on the US and to a lesser extent the UK. Less troops meant less chances of Australian casualties (there were none), earning John Howard increased support at home for the war and his government. The next few days will show whether he earned his prize for joining the US and UK coalition.

One of the reasons Australia went to war was to protect its wheat trade from falling entirely into US hands. What the media has avoided to explain is that Iraq is one of Australia's biggest wheat customers. Australian farmers have been suffering their worst drought in a century. They have also been worried that a US victory in Iraq will give American farmers preferential access to Iraqi markets. Surely, it is no coincidence that Australia is now showing an interest in rebuilding the agriculture sector in Iraq. Which goes to show this war was not only about oil, the only resource the media seems to be focusing on.

If Australia assumes control over the agriculture sector in Iraq does that not pose a threat in the long-term for land-ownership issues in Iraq? Will Iraqi land remain in the hands of the Iraqi people? Why is there no in-depth analysis of these issues? Why has the media also failed to remind us that three years ago the current Australian government barred UN human rights inspectors from visiting Australia? Apparently they didn’t like UN criticism of Australia's treatment of asylum seekers, and of its own aboriginal people. They thought the UN committee was intruding unreasonably in domestic Australian affairs. While the majority of the international community remain unaware of these issues, this same Australian government is now planning to participate in the administation of Iraq.