Subjects: Iraq; United Nations.
E&OE...........
MCKEW:
Prime Minister welcome to Lateline.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
MCKEW:
You alluded to this yesterday in your Press Club address but what do you see as, if you like, the primary case for saying that September the 11th really represents a transformative moment?
PRIME MINISTER:
Because it demonstrated something we didn';t really believe before and that is that we are truly vulnerable. When terrorist groups can audaciously hit citadels of economic and military power of the most powerful nation mankind has seen, that does transform things. It does mean that in future there could be greater cost in leaving potential threats unaddressed. That';s the real link if you like between the 11th of September and future threats.
MCKEW:
In terms of the scale of the historic shift that we may be living through, it was interesting the other night on Lateline Dr Henry Kissinger made this analogy: he said the world could be facing something similar to what occurred in Europe after the reformation when all of the principles were rearranged and of course that led to the very bloody Thirty Year War. Do you think that is broadly right? Do you see it in those terms perhaps?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't think obviously the circumstances are similar and probably Dr Kissinger didn';t either. But I do think it';s that kind of magnitude. We are living under different modalities. Nobody really thought that you could have the centre of a city hit like that, such devastating loss of life. We theorised about it but I don';t think we really believed it and as a consequence things have changed.
MCKEW:
I suppose the critical question in this post 9/11 world now is how America chooses to use the immense power it has, as you say, because it has emphatically made this shift, that it won';t wait around for its enemies necessarily to strike. The question for alliance partners such as Australia has to be the extent to which we can influence Washington for the wisest use of power. How do you see Canberra';s capacity here?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well in the end America is the most powerful country in the world and America will ultimately call the shots in relation to any alliance partner whether it';s Britain, Australia or any other country. However, and contrary to what is said by many, they do listen to friends. I think America';s approach to the United Nations to be represented by President Bush';s speech in a few hours time comes both out of views within the Administration and also the views of others and I think that includes Australia. We did put that view to the Administration before I had my telephone discussion with President Bush. I';m desirous of the United Nations being involved to the maximum extent feasible. I hope the United Nations does rise to the occasion and does compel compliance and that will be a very good thing for the world if it happens.
MCKEW:
Why did you see that as the way to go because as you said yesterday you talked to Ambassador Thawley in Washington late last week and asked him to convey this to senior members of the Administration, why did you see [inaudible] as the point to push?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think it gives any action that might have to be taken that much greater authority. I don';t see it in only if terms. I don';t think you can ever do that because in the end you have to make an assessment of the justice of the case irrespective of particular paths that are followed. But overwhelmingly in this instance because Iraq is so nakedly in breach of Security Council resolutions it makes great sense and it provides great advocacy, certainty, to go to the UN.
MCKEW:
It seems something of a departure though from only weeks ago when your Foreign Minister was saying that to appease Saddam is nothing short of folly.
PRIME MINISTER:
But there';s nothing inconsistent in that statement in going to the UN.
MCKEW:
But the UN wasn';t mentioned was it?
PRIME MINISTER:
But look part of our concern about this is that the UN has done nothing about Iraq';s defiance. Now I don';t see those two things as being inconsistent.
MCKEW:
So why weren';t we saying it weeks ago?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you handle those situations episodically.
MCKEW:
Has Australia sided then if you like with the Secretary of State Colin Powell because he is the one member of the Administration who has been saying use the processes of the UN, get the inspectors back in?
PRIME MINISTER:
I haven';t really sided with anybody. I mean the American Administration operates differently from a government in the Westminster mode. One of the differences with the American political system is that you tend to have a range of views expressed and it';s regarded as normal and then the President makes a decision as to how he';s going to handle it. We haven';t sort of gone into any particular point of view and in the end I don';t think the differences are very great. I really don';t. If you look at the totality of Colin Powell';s statements I don';t think they';re all that different from those that have been made by others.
MCKEW:
And yet if you like, you';ve seen how the debate has played out in Europe. You were in Germany not so long ago yourself and as we';ve seen someone like Schroeder has used if you like the division in Washington to great effect to run against any idea of war against Iraq. Wouldn';t you say that in fact the apparent division in Washington has been exploited by others?
PRIME MINISTER:
I haven';t really thought much about that because I don';t preoccupy myself with that a great deal. I';m focused on how Australia should react and what emphasis we should put on particular approaches.
MCKEW:
Last night in an ABC television interview Condaleeza Rice repeated if you like the Dick Cheney line and that is that inspectors have continually been undermined in Iraq and that as she said regime change is still official US policy. I suppose my question would be is regime change Australian policy?
PRIME MINISTER:
Our policy is a full compliance with the United Nations Resolutions and no ifs buts and maybes. That';s our policy and I want everything done to achieve that, everything. Now the question of regime change, I think it would be very desirable. I don';t put it on quite the same footing as the removable of the weapons of mass destruction because that is the threat. But in a way the two are intertwined aren';t they. It';s hard to conceive that if the whole weapons of mass destruction edifice collapsed in what ever way that were to come about, it';s hard to see the regime surviving. But my concern is the possession of weapons of mass destruction and the threat that poses to neighbouring countries, potentially others. And that';s what I want to see removed.
MCKEW:
But it may be that you can only get the inspectors in successfully, comprehensively, after there';s a new regime.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you';re asking me to do something I won';t do in a situation as serious as this and that is hypothesise. I just deal with events as they come along and I state a goal and our worry is about the weapons of mass destruction. We want them removed. We want to be satisfied that they have been removed. We want to be completely satisfied that the threat is gone. Now if in the process of that the regime changes I think that would be great but the central goal as far as I';m concerned is what I';ve just described.
MCKEW:
And regime change is therefore secondary?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the central goal is what I';ve described and I also hold the view that if that were achieved I find it hard to believe that the regime would not change.
MCKEW:
The question of the UN. You spoke yesterday of the unwillingness of the United Nations to do its job, to enforce the resolutions as you said against Iraq. Now the key members of the Security Council already know presumably the case against Saddam Hussein, they know it backwards. Why do you think anything might change on that front?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think faced with the pressure of world opinion the collective that the UN represents will probably behave with a greater sense of urgency. That';s just the dynamic of an international organisation. You can find plenty of examples of international organisation in its collective sitting on its hands and not doing something but when the pressure of events builds up it feels the need to react. I think that';s happened a lot in the past and it will happen again in the future. It';s the way international organisations work.
MCKEW:
Let me ask you how you think most Australians see this. I mean say the person who probably had no difficulty in accepting say the proposition of the first Gulf War, they could see that Iraq was an obvious aggressor. Would the same individual might say now well we know, you know, Saddam Hussein is a threat but we live with lots of threats, why not continue I suppose the current policy which is one of containment?
PRIME MINISTER:
I do think a lot of people';s views have been influenced by what happened on the 11th of September last year.
MCKEW:
Even though there';s no established link between the two?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there';s the generic link of which I spoke at the beginning of this interview. I think people do understand that if something happened that we didn';t think was going to happen before it does mean that we have to look at potential threats in the future differently and more warily. I think people do understand that. It is a more complicated issue than the first Gulf War. I acknowledge that. It requires explanation and advocacy. I accept responsibility for that. I don';t like to ask the Australian people to support action that might lead to difficult situations. I hope it doesn';t and I think everybody wants it to be resolved by diplomatic and peaceful means. Nobody including myself wants it resolved by military conflict.
MCKEW:
But with the debate you';ve now flagged for the parliament next week, I mean what would be the things that you would be saying to someone say in Bundaberg or Albury or Cunnamulla or wherever who might say yes we understand September 11 was about Al Qaeda, yes Saddam Hussein is out there with very nasty weapons? But frankly you say there';s a generic link. That is not a direct link. We are talking as you know about the most serious thing anyone can do and that is committing servicemen and women to a conflict.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we';re not talking about that yet.
MCKEW:
Possibly….
PRIME MINISTER:
I mean next week we';re talking about, initially we';re talking about Iraqi non-compliance and that';ll obviously take place that debate in the wake of President Bush';s speech and will therefore be a focus I predict on the role of the United Nations and the willingness of the United Nations in its collective to deal with this problem. I think that is what we';ll be doing next week. To talk beyond that is inviting me to hypothesise and I don';t want to do that and I don';t think the public expects me to do that at this time because they';re all hoping like I do that the thing can be solved through diplomatic means.
MCKEW:
Well hang on diplomacy has failed for ten years. What if diplomacy fails yet again? Is Australia prepared to back a US military invasion of Iraq with a view to rebuilding a democracy in that country?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don';t think the diplomacy of the last ten years has the same sense of urgency that it has at the moment. So the real test will be what happens over the next few weeks or months.
MCKEW:
Nonetheless it will be surprising if you had not thought through and I';m sure you have and I';m sure this has been addressed by the National Security Committee of Cabinet - what happens if Saddam Hussein does not comply with renewed pressure from if you like the greater sense of urgency from the UN? What happens then?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well clearly we think sensibly in a contingency sense of what might happen in the future but our policy goal is to achieve a completely diplomatic non-military solution.
MCKEW:
I understand but will these contingencies be debated in the parliament next week?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you don';t debate contingencies. You debate proposals, you debate behaviour, you debate attitudes, you debate….
MCKEW:
But Prime Minister all of this is being debated openly in Washington and all other capitals of the world. Why wouldn';t it be debated here when we have expressed our full support for the US? When are we going to have if you like the debate about the nature of a conflict we would support, the operational support we would provide, and the conditions that would have to be met before we say an absolute yes? When will we have that debate?
PRIME MINISTER:
Those things have not been debated openly in Washington. That is not a correct statement. There hasn';t been any debate in Congress involving administration figures.
MCKEW:
[inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
No I';m sorry….
MCKEW:
You could open [inaudible] all the scenarios for the war.
PRIME MINISTER:
No no I';m sorry. That';s media speculation and there';s some of that in Australia.
MCKEW:
And it';s all coming from insiders. [inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
No no. Well I';m talking about a proper parliamentary debate and scrutiny. Now what I';ve said plainly is that if, now I';m not talking about Iraq, I';m talking about any military involvement, if this country in the future gets involved in military conflict than that would be fully debated in the Parliament and I';ve given that assurance and I';ll behave no differently from how I did in relation to East Timor or how Bob Hawke did in relation to the first Gulf War. But we are patently not talking about that at the moment and you know it. We';re talking about an effort by the world which Australia supports to solve this problem without resort to military conflict and it doesn';t serve the national interest to behave as though a decision has been taken to be involved in military conflict when no decision';s been taken to be involved in military conflict and no request has been received from the United States, and when I last spoke to the President of that country five days ago he said he wanted a peaceful solution.
MCKEW:
Alright. How then do you see the scope of what should be discussed in Parliament next week? I mean will there be a full examination of the evidence thus far of Saddam Hussein';s pile up of weapons of mass destruction and where it may be leading?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think what will happen next week is we';ll have a statement from the Foreign Minister and I expect to see the draft of that in the next couple of days which will detail Iraq';s non-compliance. It may go into some other matters in relation to Iraq';s behaviour. But I don';t see next week';s statement as the only parliamentary offering on this issue but it is appropriate at the moment because the issue in front of the world is Iraqi non-compliance that we have a statement from the Foreign Minister about that. If other statements are needed from me or from him or from the Defence Minister well they will be made. There will be no holding back on the opportunity that people have. And can I remind your listeners that the decision to commit Australian support to the Gulf War in 1991 did not involve any prior consultation of the Parliament and in fact Bob Hawke said in his statements that it';s an executive decision. Now I';m not criticising how he handled the Gulf War. We supported him. But I just want to make it plain that we';re not running away from the Parliament. We';re very happy for these things to be debated but I don';t want to debate a hypothesis, I don';t want to debate something that may not happen. I don';t what to have a debate which is premised on the assumption and the belief that we';re going to be involved in a military conflict unless and until that';s a proper assumption to make and I hope it';s not.
MCKEW:
Prime Minister for that thank you very much indeed.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[Ends]