JONES:
Prime Minister, good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning Alan.
JONES:
You have spoken to George Bush. Do both of you know something about all of this that you can't tell us?
PRIME MINISTER:
Always in these things there are some pieces of intelligence that you can't talk about because it could compromise sources, but the essential arguments are on the table and what we've heard overnight from New York is a situation where, although Iraq may have cooperated in a process sense, in substance Iraq has not cooperated and therefore on my reading of it, is in further material breach [inaudible].
JONES:
[inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
Exactly. And of earlier resolutions. It is right that the onus is on Iraq to demonstrate that she has effectively disarmed.
JONES:
Simon Crean, the Leader of the Opposition, is saying that you have already committed Australian troops to war, that virtually you're lying to the Australian people.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that is silly language on such an untrue, on such a very serious issue. I have been very upfront about all of this. We said weeks ago that contingency planning was underway. I said that in a major speech back in November contingency military arrangements were in hand. I said several months ago that because of the close links between the Australian and American military, there had been contingency discussions between the two militaries. We have forward positioned people, we are positioning people, so that if we do decide to join some kind of military operation, then we're in a position to do it effectively.
JONES:
Is it valid to argue that to use your word positioning, that the positioning of these people may be one of the reasons why Saddam Hussein has even yielded to United Nations weapons inspectors?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh that is the view of the Secretary General. Kofi Annan said the weekend before last that in his opinion if the Americans had not applied military pressure through their build-up, the inspectors would not be in Iraq. Now you can't have a stronger statement of the diplomatic value of military deployment. The idea that somebody with Saddam's record would simply take notice of a piece of paper, would simply listen to a resolution, would simply reward the patience of the world by changing his ways, is so unreal.
JONES:
Has George Bush indicated to you whether or not the UN Security Council is likely to give explicit authorisation to strike against Iraq if they continue to refuse to comply?
PRIME MINISTER:
No he has not because, like me, I don't think he knows that yet. The idea that America knows fully in advance what the Security Council is going to do is misplaced.
JONES:
But there was no Security Council resolution on Kosovo, was there?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no Security... and the reason why was that the world knew that Russia would veto it. So what happened with Kosovo was that effectively the Security Council acquiesced. It did not object to action being taken by NATO. But you are right. Kosovo is the most recent example of where action is taken.
JONES:
Prime Minister, isn't the issue here that the international equation has changed? That if Saddam has chemical, biological or potential nuclear weapons, we also have in the year 2003 stateless terrorists, as we've seen on September 11 and in Bali, so unless this man is disarmed, these terrorists could be provided with all the stuff they need by Saddam Hussein. Isn't that the new factor in the international equation?
PRIME MINISTER:
It very much is. Years ago the threat to international security was armies rolling across borders. Then we had that long period of the balance of nuclear terror between America and the Soviet Union. But the new threat is the spread of chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons into the hands of rogue states, the possibility thereby being increased that those weapons will get into the hands of terrorists.
JONES:
Well now those weapons, they still may already be there because Saddam expelled the inspectors in 1998 and they had already unearthed 400 bombs, which we were told were suitable for germ warfare, and 500 artillery shells bearing nerve gas. Where are they?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we don't know. We believe, the Government believes, that Iraq does have chemical and biological weapons. That is the view of the British and American Governments. Their views have been set out in great detail in dossiers that both Governments have produced. There is plenty of evidence in those documents of the retention of chemical and biological weapons.
JONES:
And that's evidence from 1998. I mean...
PRIME MINISTER:
Exactly.
JONES:
That stuff could already be in the hands of terrorists.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'm not asserting it is. I don't know.
JONES:
I mean two weeks ago we were worried about a little bit of ricin. I mean, what horrors might be perpetrated with the Iraqi weapons which have gone missing since 1998?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well this is the dilemma the world faces. I know everybody would wish we could turn our back on it and it would solve itself. Nobody wants military conflict.
JONES:
Absolutely.
PRIME MINISTER:
But we do live in a world now where if we allow more and more countries to retain and develop chemical and biological weapons, and to develop a nuclear capacity, then we're increasing automatically the risk - not only of those countries carelessly using those weapons or aggressively using them - but also the real danger that some of those weapons will fall into the hands of terrorist groups and they will use them with terrible consequences.
JONES:
Tony Blair said last week it's a matter of time, if we don't act, before terrorism and weapons of mass destruction come together. Is that the message that you've got to sell to the Australian people?
PRIME MINISTER:
That's one of the messages I've got to sell. There are... you know, in the end we have to decide what we think is right in the long-term interests of this country. And I believe very strongly that it is in the long-term interests of Australia to join international efforts to prevent the spread of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons - not only because of the danger they pose in their own right because of that spread, but because of the real danger as they spread that those weapons will get into the hands of terrorists.
JONES:
Would North Korea believe the West was more serious about dealing with nuclear proliferation if we relaxed our approach towards Iraq?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, quite the reverse. And I have no doubt that one of the reasons why North Korea has behaved as she has over recent times, is that she had a look at the indecision of the world in dealing with Iraq.
JONES:
Newspapers in this country... the Telegraph newspaper and the Australian newspaper, and this always happens in difficult times of national security, editorialise strongly. They have both argued strongly in support of your position. The Australian newspaper on Friday, January 4 talked about you acting in a principled way and the decision is in our interests. But the Sydney Morning Herald said it was likely, and I quote, 'the Howard Government will be confronted with a choice between what it sees as loyalty to the US alliance and political popularity at home. It's unlikely to be offered both.' What happens Prime Minister, if the political popularity at home wanes? Do you still go ahead?
PRIME MINISTER:
Alan, on something like this particularly, you have to do what is right. I listen to public opinion. I'm very respectful of the opinion of the Australian people. In the end however, I have an obligation to do what I think is right, and I've thought this through very carefully. The importance of the American alliance to Australia should never be underestimated. That is an issue in relation to Iraq. It's not the dominant issue. It's not the only issue. But it's certainly an important issue. And we should remember the long-term value of that alliance to this country, we should remember our history and the past assistance the United States has given us. And we should also remember that we share with that country a lot of great values that are important to our society. But having said all of that, that is not the dominant reason why I have the view I have. I have the view I have because of what I said a moment ago, that we now live in a world where the spread of these weapons, coupled with the potential for them to fall into the hands of terrorist groups, is the greatest present danger we have and the world must in my opinion deal with that problem and it can't walk away from it.
JONES:
The RSL national president Major General Peter Phillips has said that the matter should have been resolved in the Parliament before troops were sent overseas. What is your answer to that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well what we're doing is completely in accordance with constitutional practice. It's the executive Government that makes a decision and that principle... and then you debate it in Parliament. But this issue will be debated in Parliament for hours and days I'm sure. There will be questioning and so forth when we go back next Tuesday, and I've said before that if we make a formal commitment, a commitment to join a military operation, we will of course have parliamentary debate on that. We've already had a lengthy parliamentary debate on the whole issue. So I'm doing exactly the same as Bob Hawke did as Prime Minister in 1991.
JONES:
Now I noticed the international crisis group, you'd be aware of this group - it's headed by the former Labor Foreign Minister Gareth Evans. I note reports of an informal survey they conducted of Iraqi opinion in September and October last year, where a significant number of Iraqis interviewed spoke with surprising candour and supported the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, even if such change required an American-led attack. This is a Gareth Evans organisation. These things don't get much publicity in our country, do they?
PRIME MINISTER:
No. I'm aware of that report but it didn't get a lot of publicity. There is no doubt that the population of Iraq would long for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. He is amongst the most brutal dictators the world has seen in long years. There is no argument at all about that. That of itself is not the reason why I take the stance that I do, but it is relevant in the inevitable debate that's going to go on over the next few weeks.
JONES:
On a domestic domain, if I could just change that before we go, Australia on fire. How do you answer the allegations that the Federal Government refused to back a $16 million request for new firefighting equipment last August, and has therefore contributed to the national bushfire crisis?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I answer that by saying that until I offered a year ago to fund the purchase, or the leasing rather, of some additional helitankers, some additional Elvises, until I offered to do that nobody had suggested that the Federal Government should have a significant role in bushfires.
JONES:
But your own Australasian Fire Authorities Council in support of the Department of Transport recommended firstly a $28 million budget and a $16 million budget.
PRIME MINISTER:
I mean obviously people will... if you seek a recommendation, they will make one and they will make one which is at the larger end of the scale. But can I just make the point that firefighting historically has been a state responsibility and we unprecedentedly offered to fund half the leasing costs of three helitankers, and again last Friday I agreed with the Premiers of New South Wales, Victoria and also South Australia and Western Australia, to provide more Federal funds. I mean we're the first...
JONES:
We've got to go, but perhaps this matter we can debate on another day.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'm very happy to do it.
JONES:
Good to talk to you and thank you for your time.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[ends]