O'BRIEN:
John Howard, you've just dispatched the first part of a major military deployment to the Middle East. I assume you can understand why many Australians might be uneasy about that?
PRIME MINISTER:
It's a very serious step and what I hope to do tonight and over the weeks ahead is to explain as best I can our goal, and our goal is to make certain that the weapons that Iraq now has, chemical and biological and a capacity to develop nuclear weapons, are taken from Iraq. I don't believe the world can turn its back on that. If Iraq gets away with this, if Iraq stares us all down, she will certainly not abandon her weapons then. She'll build on them and potentially use them and worse still other countries, other rogue states, will be emboldened to do exactly the same thing. Now that is the essence of what we're on about - is to stop that happening, because that is the new danger the contemporary world faces. The old situation that you only had conflict where large countries rolled armies over borders, that's not necessarily the full story now. You're dealing with these rogue states that have weapons - chemical, biological and potentially nuclear - and the world has to deal with that issue, and that is why the Americans went back to the United Nations in September and why we support the resolution that was carried by the United Nations.
O'BRIEN:
Can you imagine Australian troops coming back before that goal is achieved to yours and America's satisfaction? That is, Saddam Hussein disarmed?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the question of whether our troops are involved in conflict will depend upon how things work out, particularly before the United Nations. The pre-positioning of the troops is an element in the diplomatic push. Kofi Annan last weekend said that he didn't believe that the weapons inspectors would have been in Iraq had it not been for the American military build-up.
O'BRIEN:
But the American military build-up has gone substantially further, really significantly further, since the weapons inspectors went in. Your forces are now committed. Given that you have now put such a substantial Australian deployment to the region, isn't it time to tell Australians how far you're prepared to go with that force?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Kerry, clearly this depends a lot on what comes out of the United Nations, and that in itself is not a black and white issue. People are under... some people are under the mistaken impression that you can only have one of two clear outcomes from the Security Council. Either 'yes' explicitly endorsing military action or 'no' explicitly rejecting it. There are in fact many shades of grey in between.
O'BRIEN:
It's more likely that there will be a shade of grey, isn't there?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it's at least very possible.
O'BRIEN:
And in a shade of grey situation, Australian troops could still be committed to war?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we have to make a judgment and people say to me, well what exactly is going to happen? I have to say to them in reply that until we know exactly what comes out of the United Nations process that is not possible to answer, and that is presumably one of the reasons why even Mr Crean has left open the possibility of the Labor Party supporting an Australian military involvement where a UN veto has been the only thing that stands between explicit UN endorsement and failure.
O'BRIEN:
But at the moment...
PRIME MINISTER:
He's acknowledging a shade of grey so, and I'm not criticising...
O'BRIEN:
But at the moment it's very strongly the view of three of the five permanent members of the Security Council - France, Russia and China - that they do not believe at this moment that there is enough justification for a war in the Gulf. Now that's not just a veto, that is three out of five Security Council permanent members.
PRIME MINISTER:
I think we have a long way to go yet before we know ultimately how everybody is going to dispose themselves on the Security Council. And we should await the report on the 27th of January.
O'BRIEN:
But you can't rule out the prospect of Australian lives being committed to a Gulf conflict without clear UN endorsement.
PRIME MINISTER:
What I have to say Kerry is that until we know exactly what comes out of the United Nations process, it is not possible for the Australian Government to make a final decision on that issue. Now...
O'BRIEN:
But you clearly can't rule it out?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well look, I will express that in the language I think appropriate. I don't - as you can understand on something as important as this - I don't choose to have the Government's position defined by answer to somebody else's question. I'm expressing it in a very positive, unambiguous way. When we know the final working out, then we can make the judgment. In the meantime, it can't be gainsayed that the military build-up is exerting pressure on Iraq. I repeat again, when you have the Secretary General of the United Nations saying that had it not been for the American military build-up inspectors would not even be there, that is a pretty...
O'BRIEN:
But not to this extent. This is a heavy build-up.
PRIME MINISTER:
You're not arguing principle then, you're arguing degree.
O'BRIEN:
I'm saying that this is now a heavy build-up, which is the step before war.
PRIME MINISTER:
You are dealing with somebody who has been in serial defiance of the United Nations for a period of 12 years and you're dealing with somebody who will string out the weapons inspection process indefinitely, if he's allowed to do so.
O'BRIEN:
In a very short time, you'll have Australian military personnel training and integrating with the American and British military. If, say three or four weeks from now George Bush does decide to go in, do you have the strength to say no, on reflection, if you don't believe there is enough international support for that? Do you have the strength to say no to George Bush?
PRIME MINISTER:
Kerry, I have the strength to do what is right for Australia.
O'BRIEN:
Does that include saying no to George Bush?
PRIME MINISTER:
Whatever is necessary to do the right thing for Australia, I will do. But I'm not going to have the Australian Government's attitude defined in answer to somebody else's question. I don't say that disrespectfully. I just say it very factually because we are dealing with a very important issue.
O'BRIEN:
But do you agree...
PRIME MINISTER:
I spoke to President Bush yesterday morning and during that discussion - we had a 35 minute discussion about Iraq and about North Korea - I don't believe the Americans have finally resolved in their own mind how they're going to handle this. I don't.
O'BRIEN:
But George Bush has said in the most unequivocal language - Saddam Hussein is going to be disarmed, one way or another.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well he's certainly not somebody who, in my view, is desperate to have a war, as many of his critics suggest. I believe that he is going to allow the United Nations process to work, but not to be strung out indefinitely. And I put the view to him that there ought to be more time for the inspectors after the 27th of January.
O'BRIEN:
Roughly how much more time?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't think you can... I mean it's not possible to say, you know, 13 days or three months. I think you want...
O'BRIEN:
Some ball park?
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm not going to get into a ball park figure. That will depend very much on what is in Blix's report and I don't know what is in Blix's report. And until you get Blix's report, I don't think you can start making judgments about that.
O'BRIEN:
Well he certainly has said thus far that he sees no material breach and, in fact...
PRIME MINISTER:
I thought he said he'd seen no smoking gun.
O'BRIEN:
There was a point where he said - no material breach.
PRIME MINISTER:
I think I can recall some very critical comments from Blix, but we'll know... I mean, we're dealing in the realm of speculation. We'll know shortly...
O'BRIEN:
But in fact both chief weapons inspectors, both chemical and nuclear, have said - no smoking gun. Do you agree until they say 'there is the smoking gun', that there is no justification for taking such harsh action as war?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look we can't... let's wait and see exactly what they say. Let's not talk, let's not jargon...
O'BRIEN:
But you acknowledge they're the umpires, don't you?
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm not acknowledging anything other than the fact that on the 27th of January he's going to make a report. I'd like to see what is in that report and until such time as we know what comes out of the United Nations process, then it's not possible to make a final judgment. But in the end, what the world community has to face is will it allow Iraq to stare it down, retain chemical and biological weapons, a capacity to develop nuclear weapons. And if it does stare the world down, it will add to those weapons and we face the real danger that other countries, having seen Iraq get away with it, will say 'well whacko, we can do the same thing', because we are living in a new environment and that new environment involves the nightmare scenario of rogue states getting possession of chemical and biological weapons and ultimately nuclear weapons.
O'BRIEN:
But if Mr Blix says, 'I require more time, I want the United Nations to give me more time, I want the United States to give me more time', do you agree that it is difficult for the United States, and most particularly since that's why you're here, for Australia, to agree to a military conflict while ever Mr Blix is saying I want more time'?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Kerry, until I know the nature of the request, the circumstances in which it is lodged, what the alternatives are, it's very difficult to do that. The best I can do is to state the principle - I think there should be some more time after the 27th of January. I don't believe it should be unlimited because if it's unlimited and open-ended and goes on for months, then you will have a situation where Iraq will take advantage of that. Now, these are issues that have to be debated and argued and resolved before the Security Council over the weeks ahead.
O'BRIEN:
Would you understand some people reading into what you've just said that really what you're saying is we have to wait to see how George Bush reacts?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, they would be wrong in saying that's what it means, but they would equally have to understand that in the end this matter is before the United Nations because of George Bush's initiative. People who attack Bush over this and say he's behaved in a unilateral fashion forget that for four years the United Nations did nothing about Iraq and it was Bush's action in going to the General Assembly on the 12th of September last year that reactivated the involvement of the United Nations in Iraq. So America's critics - and there are many of them, I know - should bear that in mind.
O'BRIEN:
You've previously promised a full parliamentary debate if you commit Australian troops to war, which more than implies that you'll make the commitment first and then have the debate. Isn't that debating about opening the stable door after you've already let the horse out?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'm going to do what Bob Hawke did in 1991.
O'BRIEN:
Since when did you use Bob Hawke as a barometer of what to do?
PRIME MINISTER:
Because he was observing correct constitutional practice. In our system of government, it's for the executive government to make a decision on the commitment of military forces.
O'BRIEN:
Regardless of public opinion?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, public opinion is something I always respect Kerry.
O'BRIEN:
Do you respect it now?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes of course I do.
O'BRIEN:
Well it seems the public opinion is, to the best it can be measured, public opinion seems to be saying to you that Australians are deeply ambivalent about committing Australians to a war in Iraq without full United Nations Security Council sanction.
PRIME MINISTER:
Respecting public opinion doesn't mean that in the end your decisions are conditioned by what the latest opinion poll says. In the end, I have to take decisions that I believe in my heart are in the best interests of Australia.
O'BRIEN:
But a debate after the event is nothing more than tokenism, isn't it?
PRIME MINISTER:
No it's not tokenism, and in any event aren't we having a debate now? We've been having a debate...
O'BRIEN:
Well, I'm asking you questions but you're only taking it so far.
PRIME MINISTER:
But Kerry we have been debating this issue. We've had two quite lengthy debates in Parliament on this issue. We will have an opportunity of debating it as soon as Parliament resumes.
O'BRIEN:
But you're refusing to say how far you'll go.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Kerry, it's not possible to say how far we can go until we...
O'BRIEN:
Well, the United States is...
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I'm sorry. Let me finish.
O'BRIEN:
The United States is saying how far they'll go.
PRIME MINISTER:
There are a variety of interpretations you can put on the United States' position, but let me just go back to your question. Until I know, and the Government knows, what has come out of the United Nations Security Council position... I mean you could have a situation where you have a resolution carried 13-2, and one of the two is a permanent member and that permanent member says, 'I'm going to veto the resolution'. Now in those circumstances, we would have to make a decision, the Americans would have to make a decision, and potentially others. And I know there are other countries that would in those circumstances regard such a veto as capricious and would regard a vote of 13-2 in favour of action as being Security Council endorsement and they wouldn't allow that capricious veto to hold them back. Now until you know which of those sorts of outcomes has eventuated, you can't make a final decision. Now clearly by sending people over there, we are putting ourselves in a position which is particularly advantageous to the men and women involved to participate.
O'BRIEN:
But somewhat worrying when you hear Tony Blair saying he won't rule out nuclear...
PRIME MINISTER:
We certainly rule that out. I didn't hear him say that but can I tell you I'm surprised to hear that, but anyway...
O'BRIEN:
Basically, whatever it takes is what he was reported as saying, by any means necessary.
PRIME MINISTER:
Did he actually say 'nuclear'?
O'BRIEN:
The question was put to him, as it was reported in the Guardian newspaper, the question was put to him: can you rule out...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, you go and interview Tony Blair.
O'BRIEN:
I suppose the question is: are you in any position to rule out nuclear weapons if that ultimate call is going to be made by the United States?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well if I thought there were going to be nuclear weapons used, I would not allow Australian forces to be involved, full stop.
O'BRIEN:
John Howard, thanks very much for talking with us.
PRIME MINISTER:
Pleasure.
[ends]