O'BRIEN:
John Howard, I know that you are still hoping for a diplomatic
solution, on Iraq, what do you think the odds are of that solution
being found diplomatically?
PRIME MINISTER:
Difficult, Kerry. I spoke to President Clinton after I had made
the Government's announcement to the Australian people and
he still entertains some hope that there could be a diplomatic solution
and he believed, and there is some support for the view, that the
greater the gathering of international opposition to Saddam, perhaps
the greater the opportunity there might be some compromise.
But I have to be honest and say to you, and through you, to the
Australian public, that the prospects are not terribly strong, that
there will be a diplomatic solution that we must continue to try
because I don't want there to be a military strike. It's
the hardest decision that we have had to take, in terms of personal
responsibility, because it might involve the exposure of Australian
lives. It's certainly the most solemn and the most serious
decision I have had to take as Prime Minister and I just don't want
any stone left unturned to try and find a diplomatic solution.
O'BRIEN:
How much has the President told you about the range of options
that might be covered, by what America is calling, a substantial
attack on Iraq?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, you understand that I can't go into too much detail,
and he didn't go into an enormous amount of detail, but he
made it very clear that perhaps one of the worst of all worlds would
be if military action were needed and taken, and that military action
were only token, and that served to strengthen Saddam Hussein's
position in Iraq and amongst his neighbours. I mean, what has to
be done, if a military strike is necessary, is to cripple the capacity
for the retention and delivery of the weapons of mass destruction.
The biological and chemical warfare material which could reek havoc
on, not just thousands but millions of people, if it is used indiscriminately.
And we have not only got to deny that in relation to Iraq but also
by demonstration, in relation to other countries, that might feel
that they also can do it if Saddam Hussein gets away with doing
it.
O'BRIEN:
To what extent would the forces be hamstrung by a lack of knowledge
about where some of these chemical weapons caches might be, given
that the inspection teams have not been able, really, to pin-point
all that they suspect is there?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I can't assert that the knowledge is total, and therefore
there has to be some constraint there, but the advice I have received
is that the Americans have a great deal of information and that
their capacity to deliver an effective, disabling strike, in relation
to that material, is quite high.
O'BRIEN:
Are you disappointed that so few countries have pledged military
support, so far, compared to the powerful alliance of the Gulf war?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, because I don't think the returns are all in on that.
I think you will find, over the days and weeks ahead, that there
will be more contributors. You have got to remember, with Desert
Storm, that there was a four or five month lead time. The Desert
Storm operation was mounted after the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait
and there was a deadline set, the line in the sand, which is passed
into our language, this is a different situation and I think it
is all together premature to say that the response has been insignificant.
O'BRIEN:
Is Australia there for as long as it takes, and if it comes to
that, how long might that be? Is this an open-ended commitment?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well nothing is open-ended, of course it is not open-ended. I mean,
we have made a measured decision and we are talking about the sort
of forces that have been discussed in the news tonight. It is not
certain that they will be the forces that end up going. They're
the type of forces that we are discussing with the Americans that
might be suitable, it could well be that the Americans will come
back to us and say, look, it would be better if you considered something
else of a like order of magnitude. But, I want to make it plain
that we are not considering any kind of open-ended commitment. It
is quite defined, it is quite limited but it is very effective and
we want it to be strategic.
O'BRIEN:
Norman Schwarzkopf, the hero of Desert Storm, says of the Clinton
plan quote: "We run the risk of doing the same thing we did
in North Vietnam. We escalated the bombing and every time they survived
it, they came back, came out, brushed themselves down and said,
well, we survived and it toughened their resolve. What weight do
you give to General Schwarzkopf's concerns?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I certainly give a great deal of weight to General Schwarzkopf's
military capacities and I understand the enormous role that he played
in Desert Storm. I think you have got to - I don't know the
total context of those remarks and it is always difficult to just
comment on one segment of the speech of that kind - but the fact
remains a matter of, I guess, elementary principle, that if Saddam
Hussein is allowed to thumb his nose at the authority of the United
Nations and thumb his nose at, what I think is, collectively, the
civilised world, then that makes the Middle East a lot less secure
and it also sends a signal to other nations around the world that
similar conduct by them could perhaps suffer the same lack of response.
O'BRIEN:
What consideration have you given to the possibility that this
alliance might be playing into President Saddam Hussein's hands,
given the cat-and-mouse games he has played in the past, it is openly
being speculated in the UN circles that his game plan may be to
provoke military action, which is inconclusive, heightens anti-American
sentiment in the region, particularly, and results in a weakening
of sanctions against Iraq.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that sort of argument can always be mounted. I guess that
goes back to an earlier comment of mine that if the military strike
- if it regrettably becomes necessary - is not sufficiently strong,
then that could be the result. I mean, one of the worst outcomes
would be to have a moderate strike that doesn't disable, builds
the propaganda status of Iraq, that would be damaging.
O'BRIEN:
Prime Minister, your reaction to the lack of progress among the
Republicans to the Convention. I hope you are not too distressed.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I don't think you have heard the last word on this. I
think the Convention has been very successful and I am still very
confident that a clear voice in favour of a particular republican
model will come out of the Convention. I hope it does because I
have pledged my Government to have a referendum next year and at
no stage have I tried to stop a clear expression of republican opinions.
I haven't tried to be obstructive. I have tried to facilitate,
to help, to urge and encourage people to get together and talk and
reach an agreement. I want unity and national Australian purpose
to be maintained on this issue and I think the spirit of the Convention
has been remarkably positive right across the board.
O'BRIEN:
What vote would you accept? As a rough rule of thumb, what vote
would you accept as significant enough to become the model that
you would put to a referendum?
PRIME MINISTER:
I am sticking to what I said at the beginning, and that is a clear
view. Now I am not going to start dealing in numbers. You know that
it would be very...
O'BRIEN:
No, I think we would be very puzzled at this stage as to what you
mean.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I don't think many people at the Convention would be puzzled
about that.
O'BRIEN:
I bet you've got a number in your head.
PRIME MINISTER:
No I have a clear view and the clear view depends on the circumstances.
O'BRIEN:
If there is no clear republican model, or no clearer view of a
republican model by the end of the week, then I guess we are left
with your commitment to a plebiscite. Would you reserve the right
to campaign individually for the monarchist status quo in that plebiscite
and/or referendum?
PRIME MINISTER:
Kerry, I have stated the Government's decision and that is
that at any referendum or plebiscite, members of the Liberal Party
of Australia will have a free or open vote and it follows from that
that if we have a referendum next year, the Government won't
be supporting either a yes case or a no case.
O'BRIEN:
But you seemed the other day in your comments to be leaving open
the possibility that you may all campaign individually on different
....
PRIME MINISTER:
Well yes, I mean, and it follows, if you have an open vote then
you don't have a Government position. Now what I as an individual,
look, I mean look Kerry, I have never disguised the fact that I
will vote as of now to support the status quo. I will vote for the
status quo at the Convention in the final run off with a preferred
republican model because I don't think any alternative I have
seen will deliver a better system of government. Now I am not trying
to ram that down people's throats but I have been consistent
on that all along.
O'BRIEN:
But you are leaving open the possibility that you as Prime Minister,
one individual, but as Prime Minister, campaigning for your preferred
position if and when a referendum, or even a plebiscite...
PRIME MINISTER:
Of course I am leaving that open but the extent to which I campaign,
if I were to decide to do that, could take many forms.
O'BRIEN:
And if we have a plebiscite, I am just interested in this because
we could have you campaigning for the status quo, we could have
Peter Reith campaigning for the... Peter Costello going for the
McGarvie model, Peter Reith campaigning for an elected president,
Robert Hill pushing another one. I mean, that's a fascinating
concept.
PRIME MINISTER:
And of course on the other side, if you wanted to continue it,
you could have Peter Beattie, the Labor leader in Queensland and
Geoff Gallop campaigning in one direction and Kim Beazley in another
but in a sense, I think the Australian people accept the maturity
of the Liberal Party's decision to allow a free or open vote
but can I say in relation to the plebiscite, I think a plebiscite
would be a big mistake. I think what we want is a clear republican
model out of this Convention and that can be pitted against the
status quo next year. I have said all along I want a vote so that
if people do want to change, the change can come into effect on
the centenary of our federation as a nation, the first of January,
2001.
Equally, if the public doesn't want a change next year, then
it's off the agenda for the centenary celebration. I am not
saying it's off the agenda for all time because obviously it
wouldn't be. It's the sort of thing that could always
come back and probably would. I think the temper of this issue is
that it will, if it's defeated next year, it could easily come
again in a few years time. It may not be defeated next year. I don't
know and I don't think we should take too much notice of opinion
polls except to note that even the best republican result in that
Newspoll this morning, which was 56 per cent for a direct president
against the status quo, 56 per cent is not a big lead to start with.
O'BRIEN:
It's pretty significant compared to the other votes, though.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, except that there was some referenda proposals in 1988 that
started with 80 per cent in opinion polls so all I am saying is
that there's a lot of sort of volatility in this issue and,
can I say of the Convention, I think it's been an outstanding
success but the spirit that it's demonstrated, I have seen
people right across the political divide and within each side have
completely different points of view and they have done it with immense
stability and decency and I think it really bodes well for the soul
of Australia that we can have a gathering like this conducted in
such a simple manner.
Omanner.
O'BRIEN:
John Howard, thanks for talking with us.
PRIME MINISTER:
It's a pleasure.
[ENDS]