The Australian War Memorial has been in the news recently since it made a bugger's muddle* of its decisions on the Les Carlyon prize and the Ben Roberts-Smith display. See, for example, the posts under 'News' on this website. Now, Canberra Times editor John-Paul Moloney (pdf from our subscription) and Crikey politics editor Bernard Keane (pdf from our subscription) have provided trenchant analyses.
John-Paul Moloney
Moloney's piece is headed, 'How we remember our heroes: the dilemma at the War Memorial':
The memorial, having put all its chips behind Roberts-Smith and his gallantry 15 years ago, has been in a very awkward position since news reports in 2018 alleging war crimes in Afghanistan emerged ... In the shining-war-hero stage of Roberts-Smith's public life, the memorial's then director, Dr Brendan Nelson, fawned over him. Even when he stood accused of the crimes, Nelson defended him as "the most respected, admired and revered Australian soldier in more than half a century".
To the Memorial's overselling of BFS has been added its reluctance to wind back on that (three rewrites of a still mealy-mouthed plaque), its $550m Big Build, its acceptance of money from gunrunners, and its equivocation on commemorating the Australian Wars, 'the little-acknowledged conflicts during the bloody settler expansion into Aboriginal lands'.
On BRS, Moloney concludes, 'The present line or two on a plaque seems wholly inadequate, and until there is more significant treatment of his story, his bravery and his crimes -as memorial chairman Kim Beazley indicated there would be - there will be doubt over where the memorial's governing board really stands'.
Bernard Keane
Under the heading, 'The Australian War Memorial’s refusal to nix murderer Ben Roberts-Smith speaks to its deeper rot', Keane says the Memorial's most recent plaque amendment
only relates to the physical memorabilia of Roberts-Smith. As of writing, the War Memorial’s website contains no mention of Roberts-Smith’s crimes or his efforts to deter the media from reporting on his crimes, instead offering lengthy, detailed descriptions of his valour. There is no mention of his murder of unarmed Afghan men, including disabled and elderly people, and his encouragement of other soldiers to do the same.
Keane devotes two paragraphs to the Memorial's failures on the Australian Wars:
It is only slowly implementing its commitment to recognise Australia’s Frontier Wars ... [M]ore than three years after its commitment, it has yet to start planning a display and no curatorial team has been appointed.
Moreover, the memorial’s intention is that the Frontier Wars will form just one part of a pre-1914 gallery involving the Boer War, the Boxer Rebellion and colonial interventions in New Zealand and Sudan. That Indigenous resistance to imperialism will be surrounded by the commemoration of Australian colonial involvement in 19th-century wars of imperialism suggests either a profound ignorance on the part of the War Memorial or a particularly strong streak of irony.
Conclusion
Defending Country and its sister site Honest History have occasionally been annoyed at the failure of the mainstream media to (constructively) criticise the Australian War Memorial. Moloney and Keane have made up in spades for those past shortcomings.
* 'Bugger's muddle': The Urban Dictionary gives four definitions, each of which apply: 1. Mess 2. Confusion caused by incompetence and/or lack of organisation 3. Complete cock up 4. Unsatisfactory result, often with comic consequences.
Picture credit (coming soon): Captain (later Rear Admiral Sir) Leighton Bracegirdle DSO RAN, c. 1932 (AWM). Bracegirdle’s military career began in 1898 and he served on the Board of the War Memorial from 1938 to 1962. His spirit surely lurks behind some of the Memorial's recent conservative and stodgy stances and decision processes.
This post also appeared on Defending Country's sister site, Honest History.
More from
General
category
