Subjects: September 11.
E&OE...........
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister John Howard, good morning and welcome.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning.
JOURNALIST:
John, this week is a vital week not only because of this anniversary but within a matter of a day now the President will address the United Nations. Do you see that as vital, if the UN consent to any action on Iraq completely vital in your mind?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we believe that the UN should be involved and I';m quite sure that the President, when he talks to the General Assembly in the next 24 hours, will seek to involve the UN. He will remind the United Nations of its obligations and of Iraq's non-compliance and I think that's a very important part of the whole handling of this issue.
JOURNALIST:
Will Australia's position be dependent on the outcome of that UN vote?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, our position is that the United Nations should be involved to the maximum extent feasible. That was a view that I put to the American Administration about a week ago. We instructed our Ambassador to convey that view to the Administration and it was something that was reinforced in the discussion I had with President Bush last Saturday morning. So that is our view. The United Nations passed resolutions a long time ago and Iraq has been in open breach of those resolutions for the last four years. Nobody wants war, can I tell you that. We don't want a military conflict. This idea that everybody's hell-bent on having a fight just for the sake of having a fight couldn't be more misplaced. I detest military conflict and so does President Bush. We would all like to see the matter resolved in a non-military fashion.
JOURNALIST:
It's clear that President Bush wants to remove Saddam Hussein, that is his agenda. Has he made the case to you effectively where this fits into the war against terrorism?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think the major goal is to remove the threat that Iraq poses. Many people think that is synonymous with a regime change. Certainly if you had a different regime you would have a different approach. But the link with September 11 is that those terrible events reminded us of the capacity not only of States but also of groups to strike successfully and in a devastating way against modern civilisations. And if we know of other threats that might be used in a like fashion, how do we explain to future victims that we didn't take any action. I think the link with September 11 is the potential threat which those events of a year ago demonstrated.
JOURNALIST:
And these would be threats not made to European nations or the States or Australia, these would be threats on Middle Eastern countries.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, not necessarily limited to that. The methods used by the terrorists on the 11th of September were not expensive, highly sophisticated methods, were they?
JOURNALIST:
No, not at all.
PRIME MINISTER:
And nobody can imagine that that type of thing couldn't conceivably occur again against a country far distant from the Middle East.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, we've got SAS troops there at the moment. I mean, if America…
PRIME MINISTER:
We have SAS troops in Afghanistan.
JOURNALIST:
Yeah, right. If a war breaks out what level of commitment do you imagine that the Americans will call on us to provide?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh look, I';m not going to hypothesise about that because then the argument and the debate moves on to the assumption that a war is going to break out, to use your terms. I hope it doesn't. Clearly we, as a government, have given some thought to what any potential involvement might be but only in a very hypothetical sense. We have not been asked. We have not made any advance commitment. We hope the issue can be resolved through non-military means. The focus at the moment should be on Iraq's failure to comply with United Nations resolutions and next week when Parliament resumes the Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, will be making a detailed statement to Parliament about Iraq's successive failures over the years to comply with the resolutions of the United Nations.
JOURNALIST:
Recently having spoken to President Bush do you think that he's got any timetable for all of this? Are we talking about next week or are we talking about four weeks, are we talking about [inaudible]…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think his immediate timetable is the next 24 hours to address the United Nations. And when I spoke to him last Saturday morning I don't think he'd resolved in his own mind the full detail of what he was going to put to the United Nations. I';m quite sure he has now and I';m quite certain it will give a very clear idea of American thinking, it will give a very clear idea of how America believes the United Nations should be involved. I mean, can I just repeat again that there were resolutions in clear, unmistakable terms passed a long time ago. Iraq is in breach of those and we'll be, amongst other things, detailing those breaches in Parliament next week and that issue can be debated if people choose. But the purpose of tomorrow's address to the United Nations will be to put, as it were, the weight of responsibility on the United Nations to meet its charter obligations. I mean, people are saying that the United States should be doing this or that. I think they should be saying that the United Nations should be doing this or that.
JOURNALIST:
In a sense, are we talking about a vital time for the United Nations itself?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think we are talking about a very important time for the United Nations and can I remind you that we have been a member of the United Nations since it was formed, a full fee paying member of the United Nations since it was formed.
JOURNALIST:
Indeed, Australia was a key player in…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we were. The President of the United Nations' General Assembly was the then Australian External Affairs Minister, Dr Evatt. Now, we've been critical of the United Nations over a long period of time on some issues. That doesn't mean to say we're not a good member. You don't have to agree with every single thing the United Nations does or says in order to be a good member of it. But what we are trying to emphasise and what I';m sure the President will be emphasising when he speaks is that the United Nations has obligations to deal with the non-compliance and if the United Nations walks away from those obligations people can hardly turn around and say, well, you can't do anything without the authority of the United Nations.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, thanks very much for joining us today. We thought we might just squeeze in one more topic and it's a matter on which we know the Treasurer has very strong views - he's an Essendon barracker.
PRIME MINISTER:
On the Essendon Football Club.
JOURNALIST:
Yeah.
PRIME MINISTER:
He has very, very strong views on the Essendon Football Club, I know that.
JOURNALIST:
Well, we want to know if there's a split at the top or are you going for the Power on Friday night?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think it would keep the competition very interesting if Power were to win. But I don't think Peter will want me to say that. Look, I…
JOURNALIST:
I can see the headlines tomorrow, 'Prime Minister….
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, new Howard-Costello split.
JOURNALIST:
Costello and Prime Minister at logger heads. And have you got a tip, an early tip for the premiers this year?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I'll chance my arm and say Brisbane but I have to confess that my thoughts will be turning very much to Newcastle on the weekend because my team, St George, is sort of having a rematch with Newcastle and they were a late entrant for…a late maker, let me put it that way, it was quite late and it will be a pretty important game and they need to win to survive.
JOURNALIST:
It will be a joyful rest before a big week. Thanks very much, Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[Ends]