E&OE……………………………………………………………………………………
MCGRATH:
Prime Minister welcome to AM.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning.
MCGRATH:
You’ve heard those two reports this morning, from the US a media blitz from the administration saying that America will go it alone if the UN doesn’t sanction military action. Did George Bush give you any inkling of that during your phone conversation on Saturday?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that’s an interpretation that you and others have put on the media blitz. I think what the administration has plainly been doing over the weekend was putting a common argument and that argument is that amongst other things the United Nations has got to face its responsibilities. The country that should be in the dock, if I can put it that way on this issue, is Iraq, not the United States or Australia or Britain. We would not have a problem if Iraq had complied with the United Nations Security Council Resolutions. People keep talking about evidence. To me the strongest piece of evidence is Iraq’s refusal to comply with the United Nations Security Council Resolutions and what I’ve said from the very beginning, I’ve been saying it now for some weeks, is that if Iraq were to allow the inspectors in, if they were to allow unconditional and enforceable inspections and dismantling and destruction then the dynamics of this whole thing could be transformed overnight. And I think the world has to focus a lot more on that issue and what the President did say to me on Saturday morning was that he would be making a major speech to the general assembly on Thursday and he’d be laying out American approaches.
MCGRATH:
Now when he lays out that approach and calls for the UN to back military action, if the UN doesn’t do that what’s Australia’s stance going to be Prime Minister and what did you say to President Bush about that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think the detail of what he’s going to say is not yet known. I don’t think he was completely resolved in his own mind when I spoke to him as to the detail. He sees a greater role for the United Nations and so do we and this is a view that I had asked our ambassador to put to the administration several days earlier. And I repeated that view when I spoke to him on Saturday morning. He will clearly call for the assumption of greater responsibility by the United Nations. As to the precise form of that I don’t know at this stage, I don’t think he knew on Saturday morning when he was speaking to me, these things evolve. But clearly he sees a greater role for the United Nations, I do, the British do, many others do. But in the end that’s the key, see it goes back to my original point that Iraq’s failure to comply is also a failure of the United Nations to ensure compliance.
MCGRATH:
We’re looking down the track though, if some members of the UN Security Council, if France and Russia don’t support military action what happens then? I mean that’s a scenario that could be unfolding.
PRIME MINISTER:
I think we deal with that issue if and when it arises. This is a very difficult sensitive issue, I’m using cautious language because we’re dealing with a very difficult issue that involves a delicate balance of judgements. I think I will simply say to you Catherine if and when that arises I’d be very happy to respond regarding Australia’s position.
MCGRATH:
Now we heard from the US Vice President Dick Cheney in that first report this morning and he confirmed a report in the New York Times that Saddam Hussein has been attempting to get equipment to enrich uranium. Now the question has to be asked I guess why is this information coming out in the New York Times, why isn’t, if the US has the information as Dick Cheney just confirmed, why isn’t that being made public because wouldn’t that make the argument far more clear?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well look I can’t answer that, that’s material that's come out in the United States. But I do know this, that if accurate confirms the intelligence that we have been given to the effect that Iraq has not abandoned her aspiration for nuclear capacity. There’s no doubt on the evidence on the intelligence material available to us that not only does Iraq possess chemical and biological weapons but Iraq also has not abandoned her nuclear aspirations. And the question of how far she is from achieving that aspiration I can’t tell you and perhaps nobody can but nothing can alter the fact that she is seeking it. Now this is another reason, if I can go back to the core argument, if Iraq were to allow all of those inspectors in, if there to be an unfettered, unconditional enforcement of the United Nations Resolutions in a way that the world knew would work then this situation would be transformed.
MCGRATH:
Now Prime Minister we heard also from Iraq this morning, from Bagdad, where in a market your name was being used and a market seller was warning that Australians would be sent back in coffins. How do you respond to that sort of call?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I’m not going to respond directly. Look I know that at a time like this remarks like that are made and I don’t think it serves the interests of the Australian people for me to get into some kind of slanging match on language such as that.
MCGRATH:
Many questions arise from this whole issue of Iraq and one of them is how would any military operation be organised and orchestrated? They’ve been concerns from the joint chiefs of staff in the US and Australia’s own military about how such a war would be prosecuted, for example who would be the foot soldiers. Now can you tell the public now what’s your view on that, what could possibly happen?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the first thing I’ve got to say is we haven’t made any decision to be involved in military action, the Americans haven't and the President confirmed that to me on Saturday morning. We clearly haven’t. The advantage we do have is that because we are a close ally and friend of the United States, we’ve had people inside the American military set up from the time the war against terror began and as a result we are abreast of internal American military thinking if I can put it that way.
MCGRATH:
But isn’t this one of the key arguments for those who are against military action, that it can’t be prosecuted effectively? How do you answer that criticism?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think the people who are opposed to military action fall into a number of categories, but for me to begin speculating about, and that’s all it would be hypothetically, about the character of the military action would be to invite the view, which would be wrong, that a decision has already been taken by the Americans and that we have given some kind of advance commitment. That is not the case. What I can say though in general terms is that if Australia is ever asked to be involved in any kind of military action, be it in the context of what we are now discussing or anywhere else, we would only ever decide to be involved if it were in our national interest to do so. And we would obviously only be involved to the extent of our military capacity. We’re not going to overstretch ourselves in anything that we do. We have responsibilities in our own region and we have ongoing responsibilities of the ordinary defence kind. And clearly the Australian public can be assured that any decisions taken in any context would only involve the commitment of forces that we could properly commit in circumstances where their safety and their circumstances of operation were as guaranteed as humanly possible in circumstances of that kind.
McGRATH:
Well the question on any military action also brings this issue. If Iraq were to be bombed, what happens next? What would happen in Iraq with a situation with Saddam Hussein removed?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well once again Catherine you’re inviting me to assume that something that hasn’t yet occurred and may not occur…
MCGRATH:
They’re key questions Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think the key question is why won’t Iraq comply with the UN Security Council resolutions? The key question in all of this if I may say so with respect, is the behaviour of Iraq, not the hypothetical or theoretical behaviour of the United States or Australia. And I would have thought the world will be better served if there is a focus on that question and I think the United Nations will do the world and itself a great service if it meets its responsibilities.
MCGRATH:
Can I ask you then as the anniversary of September the 11th approaches, do you think Osama bin Laden is dead?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don’t know. I just don’t know. And it matters in one sense, but in another sense not so much. Certainly the Taliban have been substantially if not totally destroyed – not totally, but substantially destroyed in Afghanistan. And I think that operation has been pretty successful. But there’s no cause for any kind of complacency and I think as the anniversary approaches people will be reminded that the central lesson out of the 11th of September is that the world was changed in that nobody is invulnerable. Even the mightiest country mankind has seen witnessed its citadels of economic and military power audaciously and successfully attacked by a group of terrorists. And I think the possibility of that happening again hangs very heavily on the American mind and understandably so.
MCGRATH:
Prime Minister, going back to Osama Bin Laden, isn’t that a key question whether he’s alive or dead? And secondly is it true, because I’ve heard reports from inside quite close to Government in the ONA, that there has been an ONA report delivered to you that suggests very strongly that Osama Bin Laden is dead?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don’t know whether he’s dead or alive. I don’t. And that’s the latest understanding I have. I think if the world or any particular people had conclusive proof that he was dead it would have been produced. But I repeat what I said – although it is important, it is more the reach and the influence of what he stands for, or stood for if he is now dead, that matters. Rather than the survival of the individual, I think that it’s important but it’s not the be all and end all of what we’re talking about.
MCGRATH:
Can I lead you onto a key question now that involves both Osama Bin Laden, September the 11th and a possible attack on Iraq. It is true isn’t it that there is no link between September the 11th and Iraq? They’re two completely separate issues. Can you outline to the Australian people exactly how that attack can be justified as a linkage to September the 11th? I think there isn’t one.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think the true answer is that we can’t be certain either way. I’m not asserting conclusively that there is, but I don’t think you can assert conclusively without argument that there isn't. But that is not the central argument. The central argument in relation to Iraq is that she has failed to comply with repeated UN requests to remove the weapons of mass destruction.
MCGRATH:
Is it important…
PRIME MINISTER:
Can I just… you asked me to explain to the Australian people and I’m trying to do that. She has not complied and you have to bear in mind that what September 11 has told the American people and also told the rest of the world is that countries are now far more vulnerable than we ever thought they were in the past. I mean whatever we might have thought, not many people would have really believed that September 11 would have happened before it occurred. They really wouldn’t have. And that sense of vulnerability and that feeling that if you know there is a potential threat, that those who carry that threat refuse to comply repeatedly with requests through the United Nations to allow inspectors in and to facilitate the dismantling and the destruction of what constitutes the threat, and you sit by year after year and do nothing about it, and the world community does nothing about it, I think that is something that makes a reasonable person listening to this broadcast sit up and think well maybe we ought to do something about it. At the very least we ought to require Iraq to comply with the requests made of it by the United Nations Security Council.
MCGRATH:
Prime Minister just finally, the Attorney General Daryl Williams said yesterday that Australia was possibly a target. As September the 11th approaches, is that a bit alarmist?
PRIME MINISTER:
No. He’s just being realistic. I believe that we’re all more likely targets now than we were. If you can do it to America, you can do it to other countries. This is the problem. Now the incentive to do it to America is greater because of America’s power. I mean it’s one of the prices you pay as an American because you belong to the most powerful country in the world. People think that’s all upside. There are also downsides to it. But you know, nobody is invulnerable. We are less likely to be the subject of a terrorist attack than the United States but we’re doing everything we can to prevent it. But I hope it doesn’t occur and I’m optimistic, but you can’t be complacent.
MCGRATH:
Prime Minister, thank you very much for speaking to AM this morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[ends]