BYNER:
Meantime, let's introduce the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard. Mr Howard, thank you for joining us and happy new year.
PRIME MINISTER:
Happy new year to you, Leon. Good to be with you and your listeners.
BYNER:
Everybody on the television news saw you last night farewelling and wishing God speed to our troops and people in our armed forces going to the Middle East, is the Government receiving vastly more information from its intelligence or the US or Britain about the necessity for war in Iraq than is able to be told publicly?
PRIME MINISTER:
We are receiving some intelligence that you can't talk about without compromising sources. But the argument for what we have done is out there in the public and the fundamental challenge the world faces is that in the new environment the real threat to peace and security is the danger that a growing number of rogue states, like Iraq, will get hold of and potentially use chemical and biological or even nuclear weapons. We know from the published documents of the British and American governments that Iraq does have biological and chemical weapons, does have a capacity, on its own resources, to develop nuclear weapons within not more than five years. And our argument very strongly is that unless the world deals with this issue now, if we allow Iraq to stare the world down not only will Iraq retain those weapons but add to them and potentially use them. And there is the greater danger that other rogue states, other countries will think to themselves, if Iraq can do that and get away with it, intimidate the rest of the world community out of doing something then we're going to do the same thing and that will just add to the unstable, strategic environment in which we all live. And then, of course, there is the ultimate nightmare - and it will increase the more the number of states have these sorts of weapons - that they will ultimately fall into the hands of terrorist groups and they will be used in an indiscriminate and horrifying and destructive fashion. Now, whereas years ago when you thought of peace and security being interrupted, it was interrupted by the armies of large countries rolling over the borders of others. We're not living in that kind of environment now. We're living in an environment where the real threats are really the combination, the proliferation of these sorts of weapons in the hands of irresponsible countries, undemocratic, dictatorial countries, countries that are completely contemptuous of human rights and also the potential link between that and world terrorist groups. So that is why we have to do something about this.
BYNER:
Prime Minister, if the threat is as vivid as you describe why would countries like France and Germany be [inaudible] almost any kind of military intervention, almost critical, if you like, of Britain, Australia and the United States?
PRIME MINISTER:
We haven't heard the last word from France, in particular, we haven't. I've followed very closely what the French have said. They haven't, as is reported, finally and firmly ruled out supporting UN action. I think what the French are doing is what they often do and that is making their presence felt. France is very sensitive about her position in the world, particularly in Europe. And there is the interplay of France, Germany and Britain at work within Europe and while it doesn't directly affect us, it is something to borne in mind. It's too early to know where people are ultimately going to come out before the Security Council. I do know this, that when the resolution under which the inspectors are now operating was carried, France voted for that resolution. And that resolution contemplated compliance by Iraq, that resolution gave Iraq a final opportunity to comply and it was a very strongly worded resolution. It did talk of material breach and it does involve the weapons inspectors going back to the Security Council on the 27th of this month - that's in a few days time - and giving a report. So it's too early to jump to conclusions. There's a lot of shadow boxing going on at the present time and it's too early to jump to conclusions about what France and Germany, particularly the French, are doing. But in the end we have to make up our own minds according to what we think is right and I believe that it is in Australia's interests to be part of the world community doing something about this problem. We could easily ignore it. We could cross our fingers and hope it would go away. It won't go away. If you just think now that if the world retreated, America pulled all her troops back and the UN said, well look, it's all a bit too hard, can you imagine the reaction in Iraq, can you imagine the reaction in the Middle East, can you imagine the reaction of other countries that think, well, if Iraq can get away with this we'll try and do the same thing. I think that would make the world a more dangerous place than what we're facing at the present time, far more dangerous.
BYNER:
Kim, good morning, you're talking to Prime Minister John Howard.
CALLER:
Good morning, Prime Minister and Leon. I only have one question to ask you, Prime Minister. Now, the best case scenario for this war is it's going to be over in two weeks, have you thought about the worst case scenario?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the best case scenario is that there isn't one and we're far more likely to bring about, difficult though it is to see at the moment, we're far more likely to bring about a peaceful resolution of this issue by the world showing Iraq a willingness to take the tough option if necessary. Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations said last weekend that the inspectors would not be in Iraq had it not been for the American military build-up. So if you...
CALLER:
[Inaudible] sending our boys overseas and we don't know what the future's going to be. [Inaudible] a foregone conclusion that we are going to war because it's been happening for so long.
PRIME MINISTER:
It is a difficult situation. It is more likely...
CALLER:
Scenario...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, could I just finish. It would be more likely to be resolved peacefully if the world shows Iraq a willingness to do something if Iraq does not comply with the Security Council requirements. Iraq for 12 years has thumbed its nose at the Security Council and unless the world is prepared to take the sort of risks that I've outlined then, unless it's prepared to do that we really have no alternative to communicate to Iraq that we're no longer prepared to allow that contemptuous non-compliance to go on.
BYNER:
Let's talk to Ian. Ian, good morning, you're talking to Prime Minister John Howard.
CALLER:
Oh, good morning, Prime Minister, good morning, Leon. The point I'd like to raise is the fact that we're...if we are, if we do and are successful in getting rid of Saddam Hussein who's to say not another one's going to pop up in his place? I mean, this man is a dictator, he obviously wasn't elected by a democratic means like we have here. So, I sort of seem to think that all his understudies and cronies are going to have the same sort of mindset as him anyway. If you get rid of him there's only another going to pop up in his place. I don't think you can get him eradicated are you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the main objective, Ian, is to get rid of the weapons he has. If in the process he goes then that will be a bonus and he probably will go. His understudies and cronies wouldn't replace him. There is plenty of evidence that the people of Iraq would love to get rid of him, plenty of evidence of that. I can't guarantee that it's going to be a model democracy but there are a lot of countries in the world that aren't model democracies but which don't have weapons of mass destruction and don't constitute a threat. I mean, I don't seek to impose the Australian system on every other country. It works here and we like it but I don't expect other countries to adopt it. But other countries decide what kind of regime they have but you can have an undemocratic regime that doesn't have chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons [inaudible] countries. So that is the main aim. As to what replaces him, well, I can't guarantee it, I won't try but you'll certainly have a regime that won't have those sorts of weapons because they would have been got rid of.
BYNER:
Prime Minister, approximately 60% of Australians, we are led to believe, do not support a war in Iraq unless there is a UN mandate. What are your comments on this?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I saw that poll and the question that was asked was which of the following best describes your attitude. Now, obviously if you say to people, what best describes your attitude - action with a UN mandate, action without it, most people will say, action with it. Most people would, I understand that. I don't think public opinion has finally settled on this issue. It will depend a lot on how the weapons inspectors report to the United Nations, what further information becomes available over the next few weeks. In the end it's doubtful in my mind that you will have a black and white position out of the Security Council. I don't think you're going to have a clear, unambiguous, explicit resolution. You might. Equally, I don't think you're going to have a clear, unambiguous rejection of some kind of military action. You could well end up with something in the middle and in that event we have to make a judgement. In the case of Kosovo when the NATO countries took action against Milosevic - remember when we provided safehaven to the refugees from Kosovo?
BYNER:
Yes.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, following on from that there was military action taken against the ethnic cleansing that was occurring at the hands of the Serbian forces against Slobodan Milosevic. Well, that military action was not authorised by the Security Council and the reason why it was not authorised was that the US and France and Germany and other countries knew that the Russians would veto any resolution before the Security Council because of Russia's close alliance, historically, with Serbia. So it's a bit grey when you get into the area of the United Nations. In some cases it's clear cut, in other cases you have to make a judgement according to the merits of the situation and until we know the full working out it's impossible to say exactly what our position is going to be. We have clearly indicated a willingness to be part of something if we believe the circumstances justify it but we have not taken any decision and we won't be taking any decision until we know the full working out of the UN and, obviously, the more the UN is involved the better. I mean, everybody wants as much UN involvement as possible, that's why that opinion poll said what it did. But in the end I've got to make a decision based on what I think is in the best interests of Australia. I have to listen to public opinion, I respect it, I always have and I always will. In the end, I have to make a judgement that best fits Australia's longer-term interests.
BYNER:
Is it a given, Prime Minister, that our outwardly enthusiastic support for the United States war-footing makes us more of a terrorist target than would otherwise be the case.
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't regard that for a moment as a given. The fanatical terrorist movement around the world is generically hostile to the west and they lash out at western manifestations, whether they're American or European or, for that matter, Australian or Asian. You've got to remember that the people who've died at the hands of terrorists have been many people from African and Asian countries. Germany, if you read the papers, is taking a somewhat different attitude on Iraq than Britain yet it hasn't spared German citizens from terrorist attacks. Osama bin Laden's only reference to Australia has been to criticise our liberation of East Timor. We had the support of 75% to 80% of the Australian community. In the end you still have to make judgements on what you think is right otherwise the terrorists win every time.
BYNER:
Prime Minister let's talk to Ken. Ken you're talking to John Howard.
CALLER:
G'day Johnnie, how you doing there Mr Howard?
PRIME MINISTER:
Pretty good Ken.
CALLER:
Yeah it's a lovely day out here.
PRIME MINISTER:
Pretty warm I gather in Adelaide.
CALLER:
Yeah and commiserations for all the people suffering with the fires and everything else.
PRIME MINISTER:
Very bad.
CALLER:
Yeah you know. I've got one point really. Now you say how about these countries just we don't get it right and that you know because they foster terrorism. Now the thing is why are they fostering terrorism? Is it because the country's been ripped off by the Americans in the long run? I mean like there was a country called Bangladesh years ago that they were sick and tired of getting the second, the third, the second-hand medicine from American companies, like the pharmaceutical companies so they built their own medicine places and that helped that country, Bangladesh, and they're a whole Muslim country [inaudible] and we haven't had any problem from them.
BYNER:
So Ken you're really asking the Prime Minister whether or not we are doing enough to address the causes of terrorism?
CALLER:
Yeah that's the question. I don't think we are because....and can I just add another one?
BYNER:
Yep.
CALLER:
If we don't get this one right we're going to have it right on our back doorstep. Timor. Now we have business people from this country, which is good. I'm not saying it's not good. But we had business people go over there and, what I read, exploit them people over in Timor you know by the simple fact is they open up a hotel and charging up to $100 a night and then you've got supermarkets charging for food and them people are scrounging around on the streets.
BYNER:
Any comment on that Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't accept that we have allowed Australian businessmen to exploit the East Timorese. I don't think that's fair. Australia more than any country in the world is responsible for the freedom and the independence of the East Timorese. It's one of the proudest things that Australia's done in recent years and it had very strong support from the Australian community. We have provided East Timor not only with military help to become independent but also a lot of ongoing aid and they're also getting a very generous share of the oil and gas revenues that are going to come out of the Timor Sea as a result of concessions that the Australian government has made in the negotiations. I think we've treated East Timor very generously.
The reasons for terrorism are complicated. They as best I can judge it and the experts tell me it's rooted more than anything else in a fanatical hatred of a small number of unrepresentative Muslim fundamentalists against Western society. It's not representative of total Muslim opinion in the world, anything but. I want to make it very clear that ordinary Muslim people both in Australia and around the world are as appalled by terrorism as you and I are. Dealing with that is not easy. It's the responsibility of the moderate forces of Islam within their own societies to deal with that problem. It's also the right of governments such as the Australian government to take very tough action against terrorism.
The point I was making about Iraq was that the more countries there are with dangerous weapons the more likelihood there is that those weapons will either be given to terrorists or fall in the hands of terrorists. That's the nub of it and it's a matter of inescapable logic that that becomes a greater danger the more countries there are that have got those weapons. And the world must do all it can to prevent the spread of these weapons and unless it does we are only running the risk of a more dangerous world environment.
BYNER:
Let's go to Reynella. John, you're talking with Prime Minister John Howard.
CALLER:
Good morning Leon, and Mr Howard. You're both looking well. Talking with a certain amount of experience Mr Howard, like I served in Korea, Malaya, Borneo and Vietnam, and I don't have a lot of faith in the United Nations. I don't think they've made too many good decisions as long as they've been there. But I do feel that we should at least wait until they give us the green light to go. I don't disagree that we should go. I believe that if that man wants to be a fool well we should go and wipe him off the face of the Earth. Also a lot of people are getting a bit hysterical because of movement of troops. But my answer to that is - location location. If something happened over there immediately it would take about three weeks to get troops there and the decision that's been made to get them there closer is all the more benefit to the people who will more likely be wiped out in the event of a war.
BYNER:
Yeah John, Michael O'Connor from the Defence Association was on television making that very point last night. Let's go to Port Elliott and talk to Peter. Peter, good morning. You're talking to Prime Minister John Howard.
CALLER:
Good morning Mr Howard and Leon. Compliments of the season to both of you.
BYNER:
Same to you.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
CALLER:
The question I ask, if I may call you John.....
PRIME MINISTER:
Please.
CALLER:
.....is what you're saying to these lovely people in this country that come from Iraq. I support what we're doing, Australia's doing, but what do we say to these people that have come to our country and made it their home you know?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well many of them have come to this country because they don't like Saddam Hussein.
CALLER:
True, yeah.
PRIME MINISTER:
So what do I say? Well I suppose....
CALLER:
I've got really good friends....
PRIME MINISTER:
I understand that and there's some wonderful Australians of Iraqi descent and they're very welcome as part of our community. I would hope they would share the views and the conclusions that other Australians have reached. I mean many of them will agree with me and many will disagree. It's part of the democratic spirit of this country. I would say to them that the arguments that I've advanced over the past few minutes apply to all Australians. They're not just arguments for Anglo-Celtic Australians. They're arguments for Australians of an Asian or Middle-Eastern descent. We are all Australians before anything else....
CALLER:
Some of them would have some [inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
And I know they will be very nervous.
CALLER:
I feel for them.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I do too. But nothing is uncomplicated.
CALLER:
Absolutely.
PRIME MINISTER:
And I hope they would understand that what we are endeavouring to do could result in the long run in a more benign and a free, better environment in Iraq for their family and friends.
CALLER:
Hear hear.
BYNER:
Peter thanks for your call. Prime Minister, how much of a stretch on our best resources is our commitment as it stands now given that we are in a very tender diplomatic area of the world with our very near neighbours for the very same reasons? [inaudible] on our resources.
PRIME MINISTER:
The circumstances are different. None of our near neighbours have chemical or biological weapons. I mean none of our near neighbours have behaved the way Iraq has. I mean you can't compare the behaviour of Iraq with countries like Indonesia and Malaysia and so forth. I mean we have some differences with Malaysia but Malaysia is a good citizen of the region as is Singapore and Indonesia. There's no immediate likelihood of heavy military involvement in our part of the world but in any event this is not going to impair our capacity if that were required. We after all did bring special forces back from Afghanistan. The forces that we're talking about in a hypothetical sense are - save and except the potential use of the Hornets -are broadly the same forces that we had in Afghanistan. We do have a commando and some helicopters in a supporting role for the SAS but they are there as a support for the SAS. They're not over and above the SAS and they won't have separate duties from the SAS if they were involved in duties. We don't have the refuellers, the 707 refuellers that we had in Afghanistan. We do have the P3 Orions. So as I say save and except for the Hornets, broadly the same. Now that didn't stretch it. I mean any operation that comes about puts some strain on the defence forces but it's not an unreasonable strain. There was talk earlier on of possible, there was some discussion about a light armoured battalion and we said no that's not within our capacity and it's not something we're going to commit.
BYNER:
Any likelihood of a war levy Prime Minister? I know it's been talked about.
PRIME MINISTER:
Not on the information before me, no.
BYNER:
My other point too is the fact that the Afghanistan War and the Iraqi conflict are both desert wars. What would you....
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it's somewhat topography.
BYNER:
Yeah but we overwhelmingly train our troops in jungle warfare rather than.....
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that's one of the reasons why they should be pre-positioned isn't it?
BYNER:
Yeah, well I'm just making the point....
PRIME MINISTER:
The point that was made a moment ago by that gentlemen who served in Korea and Malaya was a very valid point but in fairness to our troops if they are ultimately involved in combat the longer they have to get acclimatised the better. That's why this argument that they shouldn't be pre-positioned until we know the final outcome of the UN process is not only strategically flawed but it's unfair and wrong in relation to the men and women themselves.
BYNER:
Prime Minister in conclusion what do you say to the thousands of Australians who believe this isn't a just war and that we're sabre rattling?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we haven't got a war yet. We're not sabre rattling. We're part of an international community effort to deal with a problem which if left unresolved will produce a more unstable and dangerous world in the future. Now many of them won't agree with that and that's the nature of a democracy. I can but explain my reasons and my justification for what we have done. I believe that what we've done is right. I haven't just sat down and looked at the latest opinion poll. I've sat down and tried to work out what is the best thing in the long term interests in Australia and I believe what we're doing is right.
BYNER:
Prime Minister, thank you for spending the time to talk to South Australia this morning and I wish you well in the new year and I hope that next time it will be under more happy circumstances.
PRIME MINISTER:
So do I.
[Ends]