Wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_CIA_involvement_in_the_Whitlam_dismissal
Like I guess we all just collectively agreed to not talk about this?
Apparently the Queen and the CIA thought Australia was getting a little too progressive in 1975. They were pulling out of Viet Nam and doing things like welcoming refugees from Chile (who were fleeing a different coup engineered by the CIA).
The 50th anniversary of the coup just passed (Nov. 11th), and Consortium News republished an article originally written in 2020:
Gough Whitlam was driven from government on Nov. 11, 1975. When he died six years ago (2014), his achievements were recognised, if grudgingly, his mistakes noted in false sorrow. The truth of the coup against him, it was hoped, would be buried with him.
During the Whitlam years, 1972-75, Australia briefly achieved independence and became intolerably progressive.
The last Australian troops were ordered home from their mercenary service to the American assault on Vietnam. Whitlam’s ministers publicly condemned U.S. barbarities as “mass murder” and the crimes of “maniacs.” The Nixon administration was corrupt, said the Deputy Prime Minister, Jim Cairns, and called for a boycott of American trade. In response, Australian dockers refused to unload American ships.
Whitlam moved Australia towards the Non-Aligned Movement and called for a Zone of Peace in the Indian ocean, which the U.S. and Britain opposed. He demanded France cease its nuclear testing in the Pacific. In the U.N., Australia spoke up for the Palestinians. Refugees fleeing the C.I.A.-engineered coup in Chile were welcomed into Australia.
Yet we still have shills like Paul Kelly on ABC radio saying the CIA definitely, 100% wasn’t involved.
The CIA also disappeared Harold Holt. It wasn’t the Chinese, for once.
I wouldn’t consider it a coup. Coup typically means an unlawful takeover of a government, in the case of Whitlam, it was and still is in the power of the governer general (who is directed by the king or queen) to appoint or dismiss a prime minister.
This is what happens in Australia when there’s our equivalent of a govt shutdown. A shutdown implies the leaders have failed at their jobs, so the governer general just dismisses the PM via the king and appoints one who can do his job properly and get things working again.
Confounding this was the fact that both the PM and the GG have the ability to appoint and dismiss each other, in a roundabout way. The PM advises the king or queen to appoint a GG and the king is obligated to follow that advice. The GG advises the king to approve the ascendency of the elected PM, but can advise the king to dismiss them as well. Ultimately it’s the king or queen who calls the shots, but by modern etiquette, the monarch is just a conduit for that advice.
When both try to dismiss each other, it really comes down to who gets their letter into the king’s hand first. In this case, it was Kerr.
I don’t doubt that the CIA interfered and manipulated circumstances, but I don’t think the term “Coup” fits.
Coup typically means an unlawful takeover of a government
The queen and the CIA conspired to overthrow a democratically elected leader in a foreign nation, and replace him with someone that would fall in line with their policies.
That is the basic foundation of every CIA coup that has ever occured.
Is it a foreign nation if it’s under the monarchy of the UK? Foreign to the CIA yes but not the Queen.
It’s an independent country though.
If people in Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, etc. found out Prince Charles was working with the CIA to interfere with local politics in order to establish more conservative leadership, would they view this as foreign interference? I guess it might depend on the individual, but I have a hard time believing it would be seen as simply an act of tough love from their overbearing mum and her dickhead boyfriend.
I’m talking about technically not individual opinions. That is, it’s not a foreign coup.
Agreed. And even if it wasn’t an independent country, the monarch should not EVER be getting involved in ousting an elected political leader. Including here in the UK, if it came to it (as it could have when Johnson tried to prorogue parliament - that was outrageous, but if the queen had stepped in that would have been much worse IMO)
Things are kind of going a little off kilter in the U.S. lately, and it’s led me down a bit of a CIA history rabbit hole because reasons…
Anyway, I always knew the CIA did plenty of fucked up shit abroad (and at home), but really sitting down to just skim some of it (and that’s the stuff we’re actually allowed to know about) … good night nurse. Where do you even find the time to do this much bullshit? To soooo many countries all over the world?
Somehow ending up on the receiving end of our very own coup just makes me want to say, A. Sorry and B. We probably should have seen this coming.
You should check out the book Legacy of Ashes. It’s a very detailed account of CIA fuckery. I don’t remember if this comes up, because I listened to it on tape quite a while ago. So long ago it was literally on tape!
Tape? Like, actual cassette tape? Oh, if thats the case, there’s so much more new additions since then. You’d need like 5 more tapes!
And also…ya know…transfering them over to a more modern format.
Book dates from 2007, and is followed up by “The Mission” where Tim Weiner details the more recent quarter century.
People focus on the bigger crimes but I also enjoy reading the smaller ones like when the CIA tried to bribe some guy in Singapore.
“Well may we say ‘god save the queen’, because nothing will save the governor-general”, was what Whitlam said of the queen’s representative who pulled the metaphorical trigger.
Nah the leading scholars on the crisis consider this a conspiracy theory. In reality our governer general (basically an unelected president whose job is to mostly just do what the elected PM wants) decided that the progressive government’s impending potential of not funding the government due to political deadlock under a PM who would do anything to run out his term in government regardless was untenable, and so basically put the opposition in charge so they could immediately call an election to settle this. I don’t think he made the right decision, and I wouldn’t be surprised if some Americans and Brits the GG invariably spoke to as part of his job thought he should do that or something like it, but I think it was wholly his decision in line with his known political modus operandi.
The idea that there was some underhanded plot from the US though is a conspiracy that has rapidly grown recently due to various unscrupulous political commentators.
The “conspiracy theory” was an almost open secret at the time, only confirmed later by the released letters.
Lack of supply is a trigger for a double-dissolution election, but certainly not grounds for firing the PM and putting the opposition leader in charge. Anyone who thinks that is standard practice needs their head examined.
I’m not familiar with this situation. Who are these political commentators and what do you think their motivation is for pushing the conspiracy theory?
called for a Zone of Peace in the Indian ocean, which the U.S. and Britain opposed
They really were Hell-bent on Diego Garcia.
deleted by creator
