Subject:
Iraq, unemployment, David Hicks, death penalty, Qantas
E&OE...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well ladies and gentlemen the Government supports the new approach outlined by President Bush in relation to Iraq. I watched his speech. I thought it was a very clear and calm and, above all, realistic speech. He didn't underestimate the challenge. He acknowledged that some mistakes had been made but he made it very clear what was at stake. And we all should understand what is at stake: an American or western defeat in Iraq will be an unbelievable boost to terrorism and if America is defeated in Iraq, it is hard to see how the longer term fight against terrorism can be won. If the West retreats in Iraq, if America retreats in Iraq then that has enormous consequences for the stability of the Middle East and it will also be an enormous boost to terrorism in our part of the world. I welcomed the greater burden to be carried by the Iraqis that came through in the President's speech. Quite plainly the Iraqi Government must show national leadership and not just sectarian leadership in that country and the proposal for a more integrated approach to dealing with the violence in the Baghdad area, which is overwhelmingly responsible for the carnage in Iraq, struck me as the only realistic approach amongst the options that were available. So far as Australia is concerned, there is no direct implication in the President's statement for the Australian forces in Iraq. We have an appropriately sized force, one that can be maintained, which is doing very useful work. What we are doing in Iraq is entirely consistent with what the President has outlined. We are providing a back-up or overwatch role in the southern part of Iraq, and although it is dangerous work, it is not as dangerous an area as that immediately surrounding Baghdad. It continues to be our task and our responsibility in that part of Iraq to provide the back up and also to provide the training. In the long run, training the Iraqi Army, the Iraqi security forces, giving them greater confidence and capacity is enormously important because in the end the goal has to be a withdrawal of foreign forces, including our own, and the assumption of full security responsibility by the Iraqis. We are some time away from that, let's be realistic. The alternatives the President faced were either to announce what he announced or effectively indicate that the West could not win in Iraq and start making arrangements, however it might be camouflaged, for a withdrawal. I believe in the circumstances the President chose the only realistic option. It will be difficult and it's not an easy task that he has to discharge; it's a very heavy burden he carries, but I believe in the circumstances it was a realistic and sensible approach and one that the Australian Government will support.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, George Bush has accepted this afternoon his share of the blame in Iraq. Do you accept some...
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh look I accept responsibility for everything that goes wrong on my watch, of course I do. But I, in saying that, I make it very plain that we were right to go into Iraq and we would be wrong to get out as Mr Rudd now advocates because the alternative to my position is effectively for us to, however you disguise it, tell the Americans well we're going to leave and if it's good enough for us to go, it's good enough for the Americans to go.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, President Bush said that mistakes had been made. Have you made any mistakes...
PRIME MINISTER:
I have made lots of mistakes in my life.
JOURNALIST:
In regards to Iraq?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I certainly didn't make a mistake in supporting the coalition effort. I think he's talking about the inadequate number of troops at various stages of the operation in Baghdad and we were never directly involved in that. But look, I am not going to mince words, I'm not going to pretend that everything about this operation has been perfect, but fundamentally what we are faced with now is a decision do we go or do we stay? If we go the terrorists win, if we stay there is a reasonable prospect that they can be defeated. Now that's what's at stake. Let's not muck around and pretend that there is anything else involved other than that. And however you camouflage it, whatever soothing words you might use about talking to the Americans and discussing a redeployment of Australian forces, we must either now as an ally of America, which is our most important ally and friend, we must either be part of the coalition operation or in effect say we're getting out. Now this Government is going to maintain its commitment to the coalition operation. We think our commitment is important, we think it's affordable and eminently maintainable.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister are you ruling out sending more Australian troops in the near future?
PRIME MINISTER:
I never rule out sending more forces, however I don't see any need at the present time and I have not been asked to send more forces and I think it unlikely. But for the record, I am not going to rule it out because I can't be absolutely certain about what might happen in the future.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, George Bush talked about a handover to Iraqi troops within a year. Does that signal that perhaps Australian troops might be home by around Christmas time?
PRIME MINISTER:
I am not going to get into any kind of predictions about when troops are coming home. I know you people have got to ask those questions and it's easy to fall into the trap of making some time commitment. I am not going to do that. It's harder, in a sense, to refrain from doing it than to do it, but I am not going to make that mistake. We have a task, it's a clearly defined task, and we're doing it well. I don't see at the moment any need for additional Australian forces but we have to see how the situation unfolds.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible)
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no they can't. That's why I made the point that the Iraqi Government has got to show greater national leadership. The Iraqi Government has got to be a government for all Iraqis and not just a government that is a government for the Shia in Iraq. There are important lessons to be learnt from the past few months in relation to that. And I was particularly pleased at the emphasis that President Bush placed on the commitments he had received from the Iraqi Government about that. We discussed that issue yesterday when he rang me and we're both very much of the view that the Iraqi Government has to do more to achieve national reconciliation inside the country and you are quite right to say that troops alone will not solve the issue. You need both. You need a political coming together and you also need the continued help of coalition forces while the Iraqis improve their capacity to maintain security. If you take one of them away, you won't succeed. You will succeed with both, but not one with one alone.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard why do you think (inaudible)?
PRIME MINISTER:
Because the strategy he's outlined makes sense, that you clear out an area and then you have to maintain a presence in that area because if you then move on to another area, then the bad people come back. And it makes sense. I was very interested to see Rudy Giuliani give an interview on television not long after the President's speech and he likened it in some way to some of the tactics that his police have used.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, is this the last (inaudible)?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look I don't get involved in those kind of descriptions. I think the speech the President made was a very calm speech, very realistic. It didn't overstate things, it didn't understate the challenge. He didn't pretend that what he was announcing was a silver bullet, he acknowledged his mistakes, but he was resolute in saying that if America is defeated in Iraq, that would be a huge victory for the terrorists and that's really what's at stake. You can't sort of have a middle position on this. You can't be sort of against what the President is trying to do and yet be in favour of defeating the terrorists in Iraq.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard how (inaudible)?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think they are very important indeed and there is no doubt that Iran and Syria have not been helpful. There's also no doubt that countries like Jordan and Saudi Arabia would be subjected to enormous instability if the terrorists were to win in Iraq. That would undermine what stability there is in the Middle East. It would put back the Palestinian peace cause many years. All of those things would be very badly, if not fatally undermined by a terrorist victory in Iraq. You have to understand that if America, the most powerful country in the world, our strongest ally, is defeated in Iraq or retreats in circumstances of defeat in Iraq, that would be the greatest propaganda victory the terrorists could ever win. And it passes comprehension on my part that people should seriously advocate a course of action that would produce that outcome.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister what will the benchmarks be for success? How will we know when the job is done?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the best answer I can give to that is that when we are, meaning the coalition, is satisfied that the ongoing security responsibility can be adequately discharged by the Iraqis without significant coalition involvement, you are starting to reach that situation. I can't be more; nobody can be more precise than that. It is unrealistic to try and specify and quantify it any further than that.
JOURNALIST:
Sheik al Hilali has today made some comments on Egyptian television, among them that Muslims (inaudible) in Australia because they didn't come as convicts. Do you have a response to that?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think I'd better check that. I think I'd better check it. I think it will bring a wry smile, if it's true, it will bring a wry smile to the face of many Australians who sort of don't actually feel the least bit offended that many of our ancestors came here as convicts; almost as a badge of honour for a lot of Australians.
JOURNALIST:
Last time he made inappropriate comments you said it was up to the Muslim people to decide...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well look, I'd like to check it out, but let me just rest on that response at the present time.
JOURNALIST:
Looking at the economy Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
JOURNALIST:
There are strong jobs numbers today. Does that concern you about sort of wage pressure and (inaudible) further pressure going into an election year on interest rates?
PRIME MINISTER:
No it doesn't because we have a far less regulated labour market now and therefore you don't have this automatic flow through of wage increases, one in one part of the economy into other parts of the economy. It doesn't automatically flow through in the way it used to under a centralised system. I think the jobs figures today are wonderful. Isn't this what it's all about? I mean I have spent 10 years as Prime Minister, or a bit more than 10 years as Prime Minister of Australia trying to achieve a situation where every Australian who wants a job can get one. We are getting to that situation, not everybody, but we are getting to that situation and there is no greater indicator, there is no greater mark of economic success than low unemployment. We now have the best labour market in this country in my lifetime. The best. It's even better than the 1950s and 60s because we were a lot more protected as an economy then. And the prospects of young people getting jobs now are better than they have been I reckon in the lifetime of anybody standing here, certainly all of the young faces that I am looking at now, much, much better. Now in all of those circumstances, this is something to be pleased about. This is what it is all about. If it's not about providing jobs for Australians and thereby security and stability for Australian families, what is economic policy all about? This is far more important than anything else and it's a wonderful mark of the success of economic policy over the last decade. It seems to me the only thing that might threaten it, you know, on the horizon is a re-regulation of the Australian labour market. And there is only one side of politics that is promising that, the Australian Labor Party.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, is there any chance of the Government changing its stance on David Hicks?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well our position on David Hicks, David, is that we want him tried as soon as possible. We are unhappy that he's been held for so long without trial. About two of the five years, just under two of the five years, has been due to the legal manoeuvres by others in a similar situation, but it's a principle of our legal system that somebody who is in detention should not be kept in detention indefinitely without trial. That is a fundamental. Now I know in an ordinary situation, a prisoner of war is held until the war is over. I don't think that myself is entirely analogous to this situation and I have made it clear and the Attorney-General has made it clear that he cannot be held indefinitely in detention. We have been told that he will be charged very soon. We expect that to happen and we will be extremely disappointed to say the least if it doesn't happen.
JOURNALIST:
Are you actively putting pressure on the US to give you a date?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I discussed this matter with the President at some length yesterday when he spoke to me and he's been left in no doubt as to the strength of feeling of the Australian Government and the things that I have just said to you, I said to him yesterday.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible)
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, let's just take it one step at a time. He has been in detention for five years, there are serious allegations against him, they are allegations; I won't put them any stronger than that. You heard something of them this morning from the chief American prosecutor. Our simple position to the Americans now is charge him and bring him before the Military Commission as soon as possible. And I have been told that people will be charged within the next few weeks and I have been told that Hicks will be amongst the first to be charged. We will continue to push the Americans on that front.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard (inaudible) the Military Commission (inaudible)?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't think you should accept everything that; look I don't want to get into a debate about this with the defence counsel. It's not appropriate. I have been fairly careful in what I have said. Let me say this; we are satisfied in relation to the American...we are very satisfied in relation to the conditions attaching to the Military Commission. The problem about Hicks coming back to Australia always has been that he can't be charged under Australian law because the offence he is alleged to have committed was not a criminal offence under our law at the time. The other thing you have got to keep remembering is that Australian law does not follow Australians when they go overseas. It seems to be some mistaken view still in many sections of the Australian media that if you're an Australian and you're picked up overseas the Australian Government can automatically snap its fingers and say send him or her home. It doesn't work that way and we wouldn't accept it working that way with Americans or Englishmen or Japanese and we can't expect it to operate in that way with Americans, with Australians I'm sorry.
JOURNALIST:
What's your opinion on the (inaudible)?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, well you can ask me my view, I am not going to express an opinion on that.
JOURNALIST:
You have no point of view on whether they should be executed (inaudible)?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well look, I don't believe in the death penalty in Australia, but I recognise that other countries practice the death penalty and I don't intend to, how shall I put it, exhaust whatever powers of advocacy I have in relation to people that have been charged with atrocities in Iraq. I will exercise whatever powers of advocacy I have on behalf of Australians, as I did very strenuously for the man who was executed in Singapore at the end of last year or the end of the year before last. I put a lot of effort into that and I was very disappointed that those efforts failed. And at the appropriate time, if any other Australians face execution in other parts of the world I will do the same thing. But in relation to the nationals of other countries, having stated my general objection to the death penalty, I fail to see that it's a sufficiently high priority for the Prime Minister of Australia to put it ahead of other things.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, can you give us (inaudible) Qantas takeover?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't think I've got anything to add to what Mr Vaile said. What he said the other day was speaking for the Government and I don't have anything to add. And I think I'll let him deal with that question tomorrow when he resumes his duties as Acting Prime Minister.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible)
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, pursue that with Mr Vaile. Thank you.
[ends]