MCGRATH:
Prime Minister, good morning. First of all on the issue of Colin Powell, should he provide some conclusive evidence that provides once and for all a final answer on Iraq for the Security Council? And if the US has so much evidence, why wasn't it given to the Blix report?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, if I could just take those questions in order. What has to happen is that he should present what evidence he has and the Security Council has to take that and a lot of other things into account in making up its mind what to do. It's a question of the Security Council enforcing its previously expressed will. A few moments ago I heard Chris Paton state a principle which I totally agreed with. He said that if this thing is mishandled it could have long term consequences for the safety of the world and it could have long term consequences for international cooperation. I couldn't agree with him more. Perhaps his conclusion to the application of that principle would be different from mine, but I believe that if the Security Council walks away from its responsibilities it will weaken its authority, perhaps fatally. It will make it far more difficult to tackle the problem of North Korea in the weeks and months ahead and that problem must be tackled once again through the United Nations Security Council. And if the world allows Iraq to retain biological chemical weapons and potentially develop nuclear weapons that will be dangerous, not only because of Iraq's possession of those weapons but because other countries will copy Iraq and say - well, the world won't stop us, why can't we have them as well, why can't we threaten our neighbours with them? I mean, that in the end, is the national interest that Australia has in seeing that something is done about the possession of these weapons. I am genuinely concerned about a world in which an increasing number of rogue states acquire possession of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. The dangers of them being used increases, they proliferate and the likelihood of them falling into the hands of terrorists multiplies as they proliferate. Now, that is the challenge the world has, that is the concern I have as Australian Prime Minister and I can't put it any differently from that and that is why I feel so very strongly that this issue has to be dealt with.
MCGRATH:
So when the evidence from Colin Powell goes to the Security Council, should Australians be able to see then that there is new evidence? Can you promise there'll be more...
PRIME MINISTER:
I could certainly expect, unless there's some incredibly complicated reason why, I would expect the evidence to be publicly available.
MCGRATH:
Because people expect that, don't they? They want more evidence.
PRIME MINISTER:
Catherine, I would love to see people quote the dramatic Stevenson photographs of the intercontinental ballistic missiles thrown on the tables of the Security Council in 1962. Of course, we would like to see that. I've got to make the point though, the sort of things we're looking for here are not as readily capable of being photographed as were huge intercontinental ballistic missiles, they're pretty hard to miss and they're not dual use either, as some of their precursors in relation to chemical weapons are. So, whilst it's a valid, historical invocation, it is not necessarily a fair comparison.
MCGRATH:
Prime Minister, Australia is possibly on the brink of war, the world is possibly on the brink of war. There are serious questions being raised by experts around the world, experts who have far more knowledge than I and I'd like to put some of their questions to you so that you can answer them because they are provocative questions. You know, Havier Solana said this morning the case has not been made.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, people will have different views at various stages of the debate. We haven't had the final debate yet, we haven't had a full analysis of the Blix report, we haven't had the extra Powell information. But in the end, we have to make a judgement on the available material and the point I'm making is that the Security Council can't expect to retain its authority indefinitely if it doesn't enforce its own will. And when we came out of World War II we resolved as a new break and as a way of getting away from the past we resolved to establish the United Nations and to establish Security Council. The Security Council was given a specific mandate under the United Nations charter. Now that Security Council has passed by 15 to nil a resolution and what I'm asking, and what I believe many people are asking is that the Security Council of the United Nations do its job. And I have to make the point that if the Americans had not applied pressure, if President Bush had not gone to the General Assembly on the 12th of September, this matter would not now be in front of the Security Council. It will always be to the credit of the United States in terms of its relations with the Security Council that is was the United States more than any other country that got this issue back before the Security Council.
MCGRATH:
Can I move onto issues of military action if it occurs.
PRIME MINISTER:
Sure.
MCGRATH:
What would be the mission statement? Is it regime change in Iraq or would it be getting rid of weapons of mass destruction?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, our goal is to see Iraq disarmed and if we were to finally decide to join military action that would be the objective.
MCGRATH:
Not regime change?
PRIME MINISTER:
That has not been one of our policy objectives. That could be a consequence because of the circumstances in which military action might take place. But our goal is the removal of the weapons of mass destruction.
MCGRATH:
But the US objective does seem to be regime change.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you're asking me what Australia's objective would be. I'm telling you what Australia's is. America's entitled to have a variety of objectives. It has always been our view that the goal here is the removal of the weapons of mass destruction. I mean I would be delighted if the Saddam Hussein regime disappeared. Everybody would be. Nobody's putting their hand up for the current regime in Iraq. But if you're asking me what we believe is in Australia's national interest, what I'm saying is it is in Australia's national interest as part of a world community that could be vulnerable to the spread of chemical and biological and nuclear weapons, to see that rogue states that have those weapons lose them, and that by that action we make it harder for other rogue states in the future to get them.
MCGRATH:
Prime Minister, can I return to some of these key issues and what experts have said?
PRIME MINISTER:
Sure.
MCGRATH:
Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of State of the US said last year when he was asked whether or not military action would be worth several thousand American dead, he said no it wouldn't be. Can I ask you this morning is the importance of military action worth a large Australian death toll?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't want one Australian death in any conflict or in any circumstance.
MCGRATH:
But is war so serious that we could wear that cost?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look Catherine I'm not going to say other than repeat what I've just said - nobody wants war and everything I am doing is designed to prevent it. I want this issue peacefully resolved. I just remind you of history that sometimes in the past nations have walked away from difficult situations out of a concern about the cost only to find that the ultimate cost of that walking away is infinitely greater in human life and human suffering. That gets me back to my central point. I am concerned about the spread of chemical and biological and nuclear weapons, and it is to stop the spread, to contain the spread, to deny those who shouldn't have them of those weapons that this issue is all about and why I see it as being in Australia's national interest to disarm Iraq.
MCGRATH:
Prime Minister, Hugh White, the chief of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, says in this morning's newspaper will it be a quick war or a long war? He says if we knew, it would be easier to decide. Can you tell us?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think he sort of states the obvious. I mean I can't state with absolute precision how long something that hasn't yet started is likely to be except all the indications are based on certainly what happened in '91 that the duration if it were to come about would not be great. But Catherine the focus should not be on how long the war might be. The focus should be on the Security Council doing its job and disarming Iraq. I mean if we believe in an international legal order, if we believe in an international community where nations are brought to account before the bar of world opinion for their behaviour then we must believe in the Security Council demanding of Iraq unanimously to comply with the Security Council's.......
MCGRATH:
Can I raise this point? Now you've made that point. Can I ask you this?
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm sorry Catherine. The reason I make it is that it is central to this issue. I don't make it lightly. I make it because this is what this debate is about. It is about whether the United Nations Security Council is going to do its job.
MCGRATH:
With respect you have made that point to the Australian people. What I would like to ask too is, because people want an answer to this question, people who believe this is central, what sort of war would it be, what sort of war is Australia signing up to? Can you explain to us now what will Australian SAS soldiers do?
PRIME MINISTER:
Catherine we haven't signed up as yet to any military conflict. We have put ourselves in a position....
MCGRATH:
We can't realistically back out though....
PRIME MINISTER:
Catherine do you want.....please. You asked me a question. Can I answer it before you ask the next one? What we have done is to put ourselves in a position to be involved and I make no apology for having done that. The extent of our involvement as far as forces are concerned is what I outlined on the 10th of January and that is SAS, the naval elements and up to a squadron of Hornet aircraft, the P3 Orions. Now if we are to finally commit, that would be the extent of the involvement. I've made that very clear now for some time. As to the precise circumstances in which military operation might be conducted, I can say no more than what I've said and go back to my central point, and that is that all of this can be avoided. I believe that if the international community through the Security Council shows enough united resolve and difficult though it may be to envisage, Iraq capitulating, it's far more likely to be the case that Iraq will capitulate if every member of the Security Council speaking with one voice demands of it full compliance with that resolution. That is more likely than anything else to deliver a peaceful outcome.
MCGRATH:
Prime Minister, thank you for speaking to AM this morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[ends]