MITCHELL:
Mr Howard, good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning, Neil, and Happy New Year.
MITCHELL:
Thank you, same to you. It's that way, I wonder about the New Year but, look, there's no doubt there's significant division in this country over your handling of the crisis. People need to be convinced. Is there still something you know that we don't know, are you not making everything public?
PRIME MINISTER:
Obviously there are intelligence briefings that you get that you can't go into the particularity of because it risks compromising sources but the overwhelming reason why we're doing what we're doing is that we now live in a world where the biggest threat to security is the growth of the number of rogue states that have chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. It would be very easy to say, it's all too hard to deal with Iraq, let's hope that because nothing's happened over the last few years, nothing will happen in the future and we forget about it.
MITCHELL:
So there's a line in the sand because...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don't want to use hackney phrases. I want to use my own language. And whereas the great threats to security some years ago were large countries rolling armies over borders the big threats now are international terrorism and the potential that rogue states, like Iraq, if not forced to disarm will not only add to their arsenal of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons but other countries will look at the situation and say, well, the world was not willing to do anything about Iraq, they reared themselves up and then they retreated. They gave in, they were stared down by Iraq. Well, if Iraq can do that, why can't we?
MITCHELL:
What are the other countries of concern, though?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, for example, I don't disconnect Iraq and North Korea. I don't mean that the two of them are necessarily cooperating, I'm not saying that, but isn't it at least a respectable argument to say that one of the reasons that North Korea has behaved as she has is watching the ambivalent response of the world to date to the way in which Iraq has behaved.
MITCHELL:
Others, Iraq?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Iraq is one but there could be ones now that we don't know of that could develop this capacity and it's all very well for people to say that, you know, America has nuclear weapons, Britain, yes, but under the international treaties they are authorised to retain them and it is in the long-term interests of the world to minimise, as far as we humanly can, the number of countries, particularly countries with an appalling political human rights record like Iraq, a country that has used chemical weapons against its own population, has used them against the Iranian Army in the Iraq-Iranian war, has invaded other countries, has encouraged and financed international terrorist behaviour. And when you're dealing with a country that has that track record you know that, as we do, that they've got chemical and biological weapons and that's borne out by the British and American dossiers that have been on the public record now for months, we know that they have a capacity within their own resources, if they're unchecked, to develop nuclear weaponry within five years at the outside.
MITCHELL:
I take your point [inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
If we don't face those things...I know it is inconvenient and there's nothing...
MITCHELL:
Well, it's not inconvenient, it's frightening.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it is. And I know it's inconvenient, it's difficult, the situation we now face and I, like all other Australians, I don't want military conflict. I mean, it's the last thing I wanted to start with this year was something where you had to face the reality of dealing with an issue like this. But we have to, as a world community, we have to face it. And the Australian community exercising its own judgement has to debate these issues and I will go any distance and I will listen to anybody in the course of explaining what I'm doing. I accept the enormous responsibility of it. I know that a lot of people don't agree with me, I respect their opinions, I'll listen to them and I'll try and put my view.
MITCHELL:
How would you shift their opinions? I presume if we do go into a conflict, even sending the troops to the Gulf, we want them there with public support, we don't want a country divided.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, we don't but, above all, we want to do the right thing for Australia's long-term interests and I just don't read the opinion polls on something like this. I respect public opinion very much. It's part of my job to understand the public's concerns. I know if you look at the polls in a nominal sense at the moment they're certainly pointing in a particular direction but I don't think public opinion on this issue is settled. I think we still have a long way to go and people are wanting to hear from the Government as to why. They're wanting to hear from me, I understand that and I'll do my very best to talk to them and to explain it. But, in the end, I have to make a judgement as to what I think is the right thing for Australia and I have to take into account the things I've mentioned. I have to take into account the importance of our alliance with the United States. It's not the only issue. It's not a question of Australia automatically doing everything America wants. We make a judgement based on our own assessment.
MITCHELL:
If necessary will you make a decision which goes against public opinion?
PRIME MINISTER:
I will take what I think is the right decision in Australia's long-term interest. I will brave public opinion, I will listen to the public, in the end, however, this, as on other issues such as introduction of a new tax system, there are a number of other things I won't just be swayed by the latest opinion poll. You can't make national decisions based on that but, equally, you have no right as a Prime Minister to be contemptuous at public opinion and I've never been that. I'll always respect the opinion of Australians because they're very commonsense people and because they're commonsense people they will listen to an argument on this issue. I think there are a lot of people who are not feeling very strongly either way at the moment. They're wanting to hear more, they're wanting to know what ultimately happens before the United Nations and wanting to hear more from the Americans, the information they have and I think all of that will be coming into the fore over the days and weeks ahead.
MITCHELL:
It does seem the United Nations is the key to it and the public support seems to be predicated on support for action with United Nations approval. Is there a possibility of the Australian Government supporting action without United Nations approval?
PRIME MINISTER:
You can't give a clear cut answer to that until you know the final outcome of the UN process and the reason for that is that the final outcome is very likely to be either black or white. People assume that at the end of the day the UN will either 15-0 explicitly, without argument, authorise the use of force or alternatively heavily say under no circumstances should force at any time be used. Now, I'm afraid that it's not going to quite end up that way. You're going to have something in between. You may remember the NATO intervention in Kosovo at the time when the NATO countries decided to attack Serbia because of the ethnic cleansing that was occurring in Kosovo. That was not authorised by the United Nations.
MITCHELL:
Well, true, but it is a legitimate question [inaudible] the Australian people. In the event of the United Nations not supporting action, would Australia still possibly support it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it would depend on what happened before the United Nations. It would depend...and it may well be that the United Nations adopts a resolution that has the effect of acquiescence in military action without expressing endorsing it. I mean, there are a range of options that could come out of the United Nations debate.
MITCHELL:
Is it not a reality now that we have the pre-deployment? And I think we're only one of three nations to be pre-deploying in the area, that it would be extremely difficult to withdraw those troops if a conflict was to break out regardless of whether it had the UN approval or not. I mean, we can't have the troops there and say, oh no, the war's started, we're coming back.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, they're under separate national command. They're not under and American command.
MITCHELL:
I understand that but it would look very bad, cowardly.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Neil, obviously we have, by our deployment, we have indicated a willingness to be involved if we judged circumstances to justify that involvement and we've gone that far but it has to depend ultimately upon the working out of the process, the material that becomes available. I don't know yet what the weapons inspectors are going to say to the Security Council on the 27th. You get very contradictory reporting as the days go by. One day I will see Blix and he sounds very accommodating to the Iraqis, the next day he sounds very impatient.
MITCHELL:
Do you still believe they haven't had enough time?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think they should be given some more time.
MITCHELL:
How much?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it's hard to quantify that in days. I don't think the 27th of January should be D-Day. I'm sure it won't be. But I don't think they should be given unlimited time because in a sense, that's the game Iraq has played over the last 12 years and they would just string it along and string it along. I think they should be given some more time and that is a view that I have put to President Bush when I spoke to him yesterday morning. I don't know what view the British Prime Minister is going to put to him. I haven't spoken to Tony Blair for a while on this issue but our position is that we believe there should be some more time, but we don't think it should be open-ended because that would just be taken advantage of by Iraq.
MITCHELL:
We'll take some quick calls. We may have many people wanting to speak about this. Tony, go ahead.
CALLER:
Good morning. Good morning Mr Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning Tony.
CALLER:
Several comments, and bear with me please. Firstly I would make the point that at the moment community support is very strongly against and this is primarily due to the lack of information coming forward. Now if you could explain your reasons helpfully and I fully understand the reasons for national security, but explanations makes it easier for decisions. We're not getting explanations. On top of which we're three of 191 nations at the moment that are really endorsing a campaign by the US.
MITCHELL:
Specifically Tony, I mean the Prime Minister has explained this morning, what is it you want to know?
CALLER:
Well there has to be, in my humble opinion, justification as to why we go there. Now it's no good saying the weapons inspectors say there is a problem. We need to have that problem fully explained and I mean fully explained. We are no longer in a situation where we follow rulers of countries blindly. Explanation makes it a lot easier to understand the decision to go to war on this, is going to war. I was asked to be involved in the Vietnam period and that was a big mistake.
MITCHELL:
Okay, well let's not get back into Vietnam. The explanation argument - Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I accept Tony's argument. There is an obligation on me to explain why, and this interview and many others I will be giving is part of that process.
MITCHELL:
Prime Minister, does this potentially increase the terrorism risk in Australia?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't believe so but you really have no way of measuring that. If you look at the language of Osama bin Laden, the issue he singled out as the blackest mark against Australia was our intervention in East Timor - which had overwhelming public support from the very beginning. In the end you have to weigh all of those things into account. You've got to put them in the mix in making a decision. And I haven't seen any evidence around the world over the last couple of years that those countries that have given the impression of a different position from Australia on these sorts of issues, have seen their citizens escape the wrath of terrorists. I think of the German citizens who died in that synagogue in Tunisia and French citizens who have been killed and yet if you read the papers over the last few days, you see both the Germans and the French giving a different impression. Although I don't think they've made up their minds. I think it's quite wrong of some of the news reports to be saying that the French have ruled things out. The French have been very careful. People often rule out involvement in some kind of military operation if the circumstances they believe are justified.
MITCHELL:
Certainly it seems to be damaging Australian relations in the area. China, Indonesia and Malaysia have all been critical now in the past [inaudible]. Is it damaging relations in the region?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look there will be a variety of views, but once again in the end you can't be hostage to any one set of relationships. You have to decide what is in the best interests of Australia. And I just go back to my fundamental argument - if the world allows itself to be intimidated out of action by a rogue state like Iraq and she retains chemical and biological and potentially nuclear weapons, not only will they be added to and perhaps used, but other countries with equally bad track records will be encouraged to copy Iraq and they will be comforted by the fact that the world was unwilling to do anything about it.
MITCHELL:
And what sort of world do we have then?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think a far more frightening world than we have now. We have to understand that we're living in a different age. Warfare is no longer defined by some of the canons of the 30s or 40s or even the 60s and 70s, and that is why - and I know you didn't encourage it - that is why this comparison to Vietnam is historically flawed and irrelevant. We're not dealing with that kind of situation. There were no UN resolutions that had been defied by one side or the other in Vietnam. It was a different situation.
MITCHELL:
There is one lesson I hope we've learnt from Vietnam however, and Simon Crean touched on it yesterday in his speech, and that is that I hope the anti-war movement does not turn against the troops as happened after Vietnam. And that's a wound only now healing. I assume you would agree with that.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I have gone out of my way in relation to all of Australia's military deployment since I have been Prime Minister, to ensure that they are given a proper send off and a proper welcome home.
MITCHELL:
But an unpopular war shouldn't blame the troops.
PRIME MINISTER:
Absolutely. I mean under no circumstances. I thought what was done to our Vietnam Veterans by those who opposed our involvement, what was done to the veterans as distinct from the political debate which is utterly to be expected in a great democracy, I thought it was appalling, I thought it was vindictive and quite beyond the pale and I felt desperately sorry for them and they still do carry the scars. And I remember at the time of our East Timor deployment a large number of our Vietnam Veterans getting in touch with me and saying please when they come home can they be given a decent welcome home, can they be allowed to march down the street and let people give them a cheer and so forth. That is my very strong view.
MITCHELL:
Well did you think Simon Crean's comments yesterday were inappropriate or were they brave?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that is for other people to make a judgement. One of the things I've done as Prime Minister and the courtesy wasn't extended to me when I was Opposition Leader that when we do have troop deployment I invite the Opposition Leader to come and to speak whatever the view may be. I certainly wasn't extended that courtesy when we were in Opposition but I think it's better to give the other side a go and whatever they decide to say is a matter for them. I mean Mr Crean chose to say what he did for his reasons and he should answer for that and he should be accountable for that. I'm not going to offer a view.
[ad break]
MITCHELL:
We'll take another quick call. Mary go ahead.
CALLER:
Yes I have separate questions for you. One, Mr Howard I heard you say categorically that you would not make any arrangements to send soldiers before you have a debate in the Parliament. That did not occur. Question two, what guarantee do we have that this maniac hasn't got a plan whereby if he's going to be bombed he will take half the world with him, I'll die and I'll take all of them with me? Is that worth avoiding?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'll take the second one first. The best intelligence we have he doesn't at present have the capacity to use your language to take half the world with him. But the fact that you would invoke that language in a sense proves...supports my argument that the world has to deal with this.
CALLER:
[inaudible] megalomaniacs like that. People have plans in place.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well if I could just finish, I respect your view and I'll try and answer it, but carefully. If you carry that sort of argument to a logical conclusion you never do anything about anything, any threat from anybody and we have learnt in the last century, particularly in the 1930s that appeasement in the long run, and I'm not suggesting the circumstances now are on all fores with the 1930s,they're clearly not but in the long run if you feed the appetite and the potential threat of a dictator you are not rewarded with kindness. You are rewarded with more brutal behaviour and they interpret your reaction for what it is - a sign of weakness - and they are emboldened to do even more outrageous things. What I said about Parliament was that I would follow the same procedure that Mr Hawke followed in 1991 at the time of the first Gulf War deployment.
MITCHELL:
Well will you recall Parliament Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Parliament will be meeting on the 4th of February.
MITCHELL:
So it won't be any earlier?
PRIME MINISTER:
There's no need for it to meet earlier and even the Labor Party I understand has rejected the suggestion of the Greens that the Senate be recalled next week. We've already had several debates on Iraq and there'll be plenty of opportunity on the day we come back for questioning and debate on the issue of Iraq and I have said before that we'll take a decision, if there is to be commitment to a military conflict, we will take a decision as an executive government in accordance with the constitutional processes of this country and there will be a debate about the issue. But the decision in the end under our constitution is taken by the executive government and that was a principle that was annunciated by Bob Hawke without dissent on behalf of the then Labor government in 1991.
MITCHELL:
Okay Bill, very quickly please Bill.
CALLER:
Prime Minister what are Australian soldiers dieing defending as people die in wars?
MITCHELL:
What do you mean Bill?
CALLER:
Well in World War II Australian soldiers died defending this country. What are they dying defending in Iraq?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well nobody has died yet defending anything in Iraq at the moment and we pray God that no military conflict becomes necessary.
MITCHELL:
What can Saddam Hussein do to avoid a military conflict?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well he would come clean as some of the Arab states had suggested and acknowledge that he does have chemical and biological weapons as the British and American intelligence has demonstrated, he were to do that and open fulfil inspection and make a full inventory of those things so then I think that would represent a very powerful case.
MITCHELL:
Which of course is what he says he's doing already.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well he's clearly not. I mean even the most benign interpretation of what Hans Blix has said from Iraq's point of view demonstrates that that is not the case.
MITCHELL:
Prime Minister thank you for your time. Do you personally, professionally, morally.....it's going to be a pretty tough year isn't it?
PRIME MINISTER:
It's going to be very tough. I don't....one doesn't enjoy a situation like this but I have to do what I believe is in the long term interests of Australia. I'll listen to the public. In the end I'm charged with the responsibility of taking a decision and I'll do my level best. I believe what I'm doing is right and I'll always be ready and available and willing to explain and to answer questions.
MITCHELL:
Thank you very much for your time, we'll speak to you again soon.
[ends]