Good afternoon. Happy New Year to you all. Good to be back albeit briefly on this occasion.
As you know the National Security Committee of Cabinet met this morning principally to talk about the latest situation regarding the weapons inspections in Iraq. We also discussed the situation in North Korea, and later this afternoon the Foreign Minister will announce an important Australian initiative in relation to North Korea.
Australia remains very supportive of the United Nations weapons inspection process in Iraq. We argued as far back as early September directly to the United States Administration at the President's level that this matter should be dealt with through the councils of the United Nations and we remain very supportive of what the United Nations is doing. It is worth remembering that the United Nations would not now be reinvolved in this issue had it not been for what the United States did and in particular the views put to the General Assembly of the United Nations by President Bush on the 12th of September.
The weapons inspections should be given a proper opportunity to work and a proper opportunity to succeed. For this to happen you not only need the support and the confidence of the international community but you also need the full willing cooperation of Iraq. And the onus remains on Iraq to address the concerns of the international community regarding its weapons program.
In his report yesterday to the UN Security Council Mr Blix has made the point that Iraq's current level of cooperation and the gaps in its weapons of mass destruction declaration have not been adequate to remove existing doubts and I join others in urging Iraq to be more cooperative,of urging Iraq to demonstrate to the rest of the world a total cooperation....total willingness to cooperate rather with the work of the weapons inspectors. Hans Blix has also said that Iraq had to provide active cooperation, not passive cooperation, to remove these doubts. For example Iraq's declaration has failed to address outstanding issues including with regard to chemical and biological weapons. The UNSCOM reports in the late 1990s for example pointed to unaccounted for stocks of prohibited chemical and biological agents. Iraq has thus far provided no evidence of what has happened to these agents and until it does it's not possible for the inspectors, let alone the world community, to make any confident findings about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction status. It remains to the Australian Government and I know to the world community generally a matter of disappointment to say the least that Iraq has not shown a greater willingness to comply with the wishes of the Security Council.
The next important date in the weapons inspection process is the 27th of January when in terms of the Security Council resolution the weapons inspectors will be required to make a detailed report. That will obviously be an important date and an important report but I don't think we should make the mistake of assuming that we will know on the 27th of January or indeed on the 28th precisely how this issue is to work itself out. It could well be that the process will go on for some weeks or even months before we know precisely what is going to be the outcome. It remains the hope of the Australian government that this matter can be resolved without resort to military force. We do not want war in Iraq, we do not seek war against Iraq, but we remain determined to join others in the international community to ensure that this matter is dealt with properly, not papered over, not ignored, not treated in a pretend way only to re-emerge as a challenge and a difficulty in the years ahead.
There has of course been some question about an Australian involvement in the event that military action is taken against Iraq. As I've said on numerous occasions in the past and I repeat it here today the Australian government has not taken a decision to be involved in military action, indeed no decision has yet been taken by the United States or other countries to be so involved. But if Australia were to join some international military operation against Iraq, and we certainly hope that is not necessary, then the sort of contribution that Australia would make in that event would be broadly comparable to the contribution that we made in Afghanistan quite recently. There would be in those terms special forces with appropriate support units; there would be naval vessels, there are already two in the Gulf and that number might be augmented by one; there would be some FA-18 fighters but not more than a squadron of 14; we've already announced the commitment of the Orions to the war against terror and that would continue.
There would not as some reports have suggested be a light infantry battalion or indeed any other ground forces, and there would not be any refuelers. I've even seen and read suggestions comparing what might be the level of contribution here if it were to come about to the level of contribution involvement in Vietnam. That comparison is historically and in every sense erroneous and inappropriate.
I did indicate last November that we had put contingency arrangements or the ADF had put contingency arrangements in place. That's only sensible and prudent. It doesn't mean that we have made a decision that the peace process has failed and there's only a military outcome feasible or possible. It is quite erroneous for people to allege that just because you take sensible contingency precautions and arrangements you lack a belief and a confidence that the peace process can work. I hope it does, but if it doesn't then if we do make a commitment we have to have prepared for that commitment and our men and women are entitled to the opportunity of that preparation in the interests of their own safety and their capacity to execute their obligations in a very professional way. And in that context it could be over the weeks ahead there will be some forward deployment of assets and personnel. If that occurs then appropriate announcements will be made at the time. And I want to emphasise that we remain very very committed to the weapons inspection process. We hope it works, the world hopes it works, it will work if Iraq understands the weight of world opinion. I believe, the Government believes, our close allies believe that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction and that's the reason why we remain very committed to this process and why we simply can't walk away and pretend that it's not a challenge. I hope the UN process works. We support it, we'll continue to support it, and I hope that the leadership of the Iraqi regime sees the good sense of resolving it in the way that I've described.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, [inaudible] Iraq does possess weapons of mass destruction, does that mean you agree with the view of US Secretary of State, Powell, that it's not necessary for the weapons inspectors to find the so-called smoking gun?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, I'm not going to define my attitude to this issue through a yes or no answer in relation to what somebody else's said even Colin Powell - a person for whom I have considerable regard. There is a process under way, that process has so far revealed an unwillingness on the part of Iraq to cooperate enthusiastically and energetically with what the Security Council is seeking to achieve. It will be for the Security Council in the end to decide whether or not the terms of resolution 1441 have been complied with - only the Security Council can resolve that. That resolution requires a return to the Security Council, it requires regular reporting, I want that reporting to occur. So far I'm not encouraged by the attitude that Iraq is taking because she seems unable to, or unwilling to accept that having acknowledged in the past possession of mass destruction and having being in repeated breach of Security Council resolutions there's an obligation on Iraq to demonstrate how the weapons of mass destruction she once possessed have been removed and the circumstances in which they were removed. And that is one of the gaps in the response of Iraq to the Security Council resolution.
JOURNALIST:
...you said in December, Prime Minister, that you thought war with Iraq was more likely than not. What's your assessment now?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well my assessment now is how I expressed it a few minutes ago.
JOURNALIST:
[Inaudible] UN weapons inspectors time to do their job?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, look, I think it's too early for me to make a judgement about that. I mean I... if you believe in the UN process, let the UN process work. And the UN process requires a report on the 27th and then in the light of what is in that report, different member states of the United Nations and particularly the members of the Security Council will have views to express.
JOURNALIST:
You've given quite a strong endorsement today of the UN process. In your terms, in your words should I say, you're prepared to see this process take weeks or even months...
PRIME MINISTER:
No, what I said was it could take.
JOURNALIST:
It could take weeks or even months...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, there is an important difference.
JOURNALIST:
Sure, it could take weeks or months...
PRIME MINISTER:
I mean, what I said was that the UN process should be given every opportunity to work. In the meantime, quite prudently, those who are so disposed should take preparatory action against the possibility that some kind of military action will be needed.
JOURNALIST:
Sorry Tom, could I just complete...
PRIME MINISTER:
Let Mr Walker finish. I... let us start the year in a very civil fashion, not only between us, but you know.
JOURNALIST:
The second part of the question is - does this strong endorsement of the UN processes that you've given us today indicate some concern that those processes may be overridden by the United States?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, no. Look, just remind you, Tony, that on Saturday the, I think it would have been perhaps the eighth or ninth of September last year, that I spoke to President Bush in Brisbane, just before addressing the Liberal Party State Convention and before he'd address the United Nations General Assembly and before, I believe, a final decision had been taken by the American Administration about the approach to be taken on the issue, I put the view very strongly to him then that a UN process should be used. Now that remains our view. But for that UN process to have substance and meaning there's got to be a response and a compliance by Iraq. And so far, I don't think Iraq has responded with sufficient enthusiasm, transparency, openness and honesty. And I've tried to describe as best I can some of the deficiencies in the Iraqi response and if that response continues, then that obviously has very serious consequences for a peaceful resolution of this issue. But I want the UN process to be given every opportunity of working, but it is not my endorsement that that process is not latter day. It's been there for a long time and it's not motivated by any particular view I might have of the attitude of the American Administration. I think you'd have to give George Bush more credit than he's been given my many of his critics for a willingness to the use the processes of the United Nations. And the United Nations would not be in the game now, let's face it, had it not been for George Bush going to the General Assembly on the 12th of September and making that speech.
JOURNALIST:
Given your enthusiasm, Mr Howard, for the UN... sorry given your enthusiasm for the UN process and your respect for the Security Council deliberations on it, does that mean that Australia will only engage in any conflict in Iraq if the UN Security Council deems it as being a material breach?
PRIME MINISTER:
There's nothing to be achieved by my dealing with that sort of hypothetical question.
JOURNALIST:
Given the warnings that North Korea's been issuing recently, can you let us know how seriously you rate that threat? Or is it on some level about extracting greater aid from the international community.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I take the threat quite seriously and I think it's a reminder to the world of the danger posed by rouge states that have weapons of mass destruction and that really does in a way bring you back to Iraq. They are different issues but the principles involved are very similar. It's part of the new threat of the world in which we live now and you can't ignore these issues. And I hold the view - I may be wrong - but I hold the view that one of the reasons why North Korea has behaved in the manner that she has is a perception on her part that there is a divided view in the world community about Iraq. And if that view had been less divided over the past couple of years, perhaps North Korea would have not behaved in such a truculent fashion.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, you talk a lot about the need for prudent military contingency planning and that doesn't mean that we'll be involved in a conflict. What's the advice from the military top brass today on how ready our military capabilities are, and how much time would they need?
PRIME MINISTER:
Say that again.
JOURNALIST:
How ready are our troops and capabilities now and how much time do they need before they would go?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there have been some contingency arrangements in place now for some weeks. I indicated that last November and that process goes on. And as I have said today, that could involve some forward deployment of some of those people and assets over the weeks ahead and if and when that takes place then announcements will be made so that the Australian public is fully informed. But I think they are well prepared and it's only sensible that you do that. The worst thing a Government can do, even while it is trying very hard to get a non-military solution, is not to allow the military to prepare properly so that if military conflict becomes unavoidable, the people being asked to carry the burden of it are disadvantaged. And therefore I find it quite extraordinary that anybody should argue that in some way contingency preparations diminish our commitment to the peace process. The two are not incompatible. The two are entirely consistent and it's all that a responsible Government can hope to do. And that is why we've done it.
JOURNALIST:
When was the last time you spoke to the President?
PRIME MINISTER:
President Bush? I haven't spoken to President Bush... I think the last time I spoke to him was, what in late October, early November.
JOURNALIST:
Have there been any requests military to military for Australian troops to be put on standby?
PRIME MINISTER:
I beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST:
Has there been any request military to military?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there are discussions going on all the time, as I have told you, between our military. I spoke to President Bush about a week... or a few days after the congressional elections, was the last time I spoke to him. But the situation regarding... military contact continues, they're very close, we have a very close military contact, there have been a lot of contingency discussions between the Australian and the American military. They go on all the time and I've never made any secret of that, and there are a lot of contingency preparations but we haven't taken any decision as a Government. Nor have the Americans. I believe that the Americans would like a non-military solution. I don't believe that they're hell bent on having a military conflict. I don't accept any of the arguments that are used about there being some selfish national motives as far as the Americans are concerned. No civilised country wants a military conflict if it can be avoided and there is nothing to be gained from the United States in the long run in needlessly bringing on military conflict over Iraq, and I don't believe the President wants it, and I'm sure he won't do it.
JOURNALIST:
Are you worried that those forward deployments might make it look as if you mind is made up that there is going to be a war?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I don't think so. I think they're just commonsense things.
JOURNALIST:
Have you finished your holidays Prime Minister, now that...
PRIME MINISTER:
No. I am returning to leave this afternoon. I mean much and all as I enjoy your company and I love being on the job, I'm going back to leave. But I am very close to the phone and I keep in touch with my contacts. You are never on holidays.
JOURNALIST:
The Iraqi issue...
PRIME MINISTER:
I have been talking to people. But Mr Anderson does a magnificent job as acting Prime Minister.
JOURNALIST:
That preparatory deployment - could that happen before the UN report on the 27th?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well nothing has happened at present. And what I'm saying is that as and when things occur, announcements will be made.
JOURNALIST:
In terms of the sort of deployment that you were outlining and you said that there had been some misinformation about what was being sent and what wasn't, some of that is already there. How soon would...
PRIME MINISTER:
What's already there?
JOURNALIST:
You were saying that there are some vessels that are already in the region that would be...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there have been some ships in the region since 1991.
JOURNALIST:
So is anything else going to be deployed then prior...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I indicated in my earlier remarks the sort of broad order of magnitude of the contribution that we would make if we were in military conflict, and I said that as part of prudent preparation so that our forces are not disadvantaged, it often becomes necessary to forward deploy. And what I'm saying is that as and when any such deployments occur, then an indication will be given about it at the time that it occurs.
JOURNALIST:
What catalysts will you need for that forward deployment?
PRIME MINISTER:
You don't need a catalyst for a forward deployment any more than you need a catalyst for saying to a unit that might be engaged in six months time in something - you'd better make sure you have the right kit for it. I mean the catalyst is there. I mean I said months, or not months ago - a couple of months ago - that contingency arrangements had already been put in place by the ADF. And what I've described this afternoon is I suppose an advanced version of that. But they're still only contingency arrangements. You can have people deployed and still not go ahead with action.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister in your broad sketch of likely forces, you've outlined a full squadron of FA18s. Is that because defence chiefs have sort of decided that Australia's contribution would be best to be in sort of an air campaign, as apart from on the ground?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the decision has been taken, or the view has been formed by the Government, that that would be an appropriate part of any contribution.
JOURNALIST:
Can you provide assurances Prime Minister that hypothetically if Australia does deploy troops [inaudible] putting the Australian regional interests at greater risk?
PRIME MINISTER:
You mean our regional defence interests? I certainly can provide that assurance.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, do you have any estimates of how much a deployment would cost to the region?
PRIME MINISTER:
It's a little early for me to go hard and fast on a figure because you've got to... to start with you've got to know that... when you say deployment, you mean a military contribution. Now that's a hypothesis upon a hypothesis and it's a bit early. I mean obviously it will not be cheap but at this stage I'm not going to commit myself to a figure. Obviously work is being done on that, once again on a fairly contingent basis.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, would you recall Parliament to consider any forward deployment before it took place?
PRIME MINISTER:
A forward deployment? I don't think a forward deployment requires the recall of Parliament. I think what would require the recall of Parliament would be if we took a decision to be involved in military conflict and that would certainly produce a recall of Parliament if Parliament is not already in session.
JOURNALIST:
Is it conceivable that forward deployment could happen before Parliament resumes in February?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Parliament sits on the 4th of February. I think I used the expression, over coming weeks.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, can I just clarify that what we're talking about is the possibility, for instance, of special forces going to the Middle East in case they are needed - is that what this...
PRIME MINISTER:
That's one possibility, yes.
JOURNALIST:
[Inaudible] recognition of their work if they do go there, has the Government determined that it would pay these forces extra money as happened in East Timor?
PRIME MINISTER:
Can I just say that the record of this Government in relation to people in theatres of military action in the last six-and-a-half years has been very generous and it will continue to be our policy to treat them very generously. I can't obviously get into figures because we are still in a fairly hypothetical situation.
JOURNALIST:
[Inaudible] did not believe that the United States was hell-bent on a war with Iraq. How do you reconcile those comments with the fact that up to 100,000 American troops have reportedly been mobilised or are mobilising in the Gulf?
PRIME MINISTER:
Just because you take preparation for a possible military action doesn't indicate you want that military action to occur.
JOURNALIST:
So the mobilisation of 100,000 troops you don't believe constitutes an aggressive act by the United States?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I think it is a thoroughly understandable thing for the United States to be doing and I think it's one of the things that has contributed to a greater willingness on the part of Iraq and a greater willingness on the part of the international community to focus on this issue. But it's not a sustainable proposition to say that just because you take prudent military precautions you want military conflict. There are plenty of examples in history of countries taking prudent military precautions which have prevented military conflict. Sadly there are probably more examples of countries that if they had taken prudent military precautions might have avoided military conflict but, of course, they didn't, they foolishly imagined that by running away from problems you make them disappear.
JOURNALIST:
Has the Government received a signal that the Administration is close to asking for an Australian commitment to forward deployment?
PRIME MINISTER:
Nothing has changed on that issue for weeks.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, on a lighter note, Patrick Rafter announced his retirement from tennis today, are you sad?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, I am sad. I'm not surprised. I think it was pretty clear last year after the Davis Cup tie it was pretty clear that he may well have played his last tennis. But I want to say to you, Pat, you've been a wonderful ornament of Australian tennis, a great sportsman, a role model in his demeanour to young sportsmen and women all around the country and all around the world and I wish he and his family, Lara and their child and Pat's very large and lovable family all the best for years into the future.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, just one more on the war - can you tell us how many people would be involved in the hypothetical deployment that you've set out?
PRIME MINISTER:
I would have to get very precise advice on that but I think you're looking at something in the broad order of those involved in Afghanistan. There might be 100 or so either way, I'm not certain. I'd have to get exact figures on that but that's the broad picture. Thank you.
[Ends]