JOURNALIST:
Joining us on the line now from Sydney, the Prime Minister of Australia Mr John Howard. Prime Minister, good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning John.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, there seems little doubt in a lot of commentators minds, and I've got to say myself included, that what we saw from George Bush yesterday was in all but name a declaration of war.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it was certainly a very strong speech and he laid out in a great amount of detail how Iraq had broken all of the commitments it had previously given to the world community. He made a very strong case and the matter now properly goes back to the Security Council. The world can't walk away from this problem. We would like it resolved through the Security Council. We would like it resolved without the use of force. The matter is now squarely in the court of the Security Council and if the Security Council is to maintain its credibility, is to do its job, it must ensure that Iraq complies with the resolution that the Council passed last year. And we've already had from Dr Blix, who is an independent authority, we've heard from him how Iraq has cheated and deceived and failed to recognise the need to comply with that resolution. And what is really at stake here, and the reason why it's of great concern to Australia, is that we cannot live in a world where countries like Iraq continue to possess and potentially use chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons. I mean it's the spread of those weapons that is the most important issue in this. That matters to me more than anything else and that's why it's of concern to Australia. Can I pose the rhetorical question - what hope does the world have of controlling North Korea if it walks away from controlling Iraq? And North Korea is much closer to home to Australia than Iraq but the issue at stake is essentially the same.
JOURNALIST:
We'll come to the fact that a lot of Australians do believe that we should be looking after our own backyard more than getting involved in something which is essentially on the other side of the world. Come back to that in a minute, but...
PRIME MINISTER:
Can I just say in relation to that, when you're dealing with the spread of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, the world is our backyard.
JOURNALIST:
Right, now are you entirely satisfied in your own mind that the United States has sufficient evidence to warrant military action should it come to that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well let me put it this way. I am satisfied on the publicly available material already that Iraq has weapons of the type I have described - chemical and biological. They don't have nuclear weapons at present but they have a desire to develop them and most people acknowledge that even without outside help, they could develop them within five years. But if you look at the published dossiers of both the British and American Governments from last year - and this is material on the public record - that material demonstrates very strongly, in my opinion, even before Dr Blix's report, that Iraq does have these weapons. And if you look at Dr Blix's report, it was much stronger, far more critical of Iraq than many people expected. So I in my own mind do believe that Iraq has these weapons and the scary thing is that Iraq has shown in the past a willingness to use them. So not only is that a concern in its own right, but if Iraq is allowed to keep these weapons, then other countries will say - why can't we? And when you then come to deal with North Korea, what hope do you have of a demonstration effect, in the manner in which Iraq has been dealt with, of restraining North Korea?
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, Ross Davie. How are you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Very well.
JOURNALIST:
You've said Mr Howard that you're satisfied that enough evidence is being put on the table. Mr Simon Crean is not as satisfied and neither is Kevin Rudd, and in fact neither is one of the weapons inspectors Mr ElBaradei. How important is this link that we are now hearing spoken about, particularly by Mr Blair, with al-Qaeda? Do you think that could be the turning point that will get the rest of the world onside?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't know that. That's a matter for the Security Council. The point I was making in answer to John's question was that I believe on the published material, that there was strong evidence Iraq had these weapons. Can I just go back to something you said said about Mr Crean. Mr Crean himself said the other day that he believed that Iraq was in material breach of the United Nations resolution and had been in breach for a long time. Now that's relevant, isn't it, to the question of what Iraq has or doesn't have? So it's interesting that even my opposite number, if I can put it that way, on this issue is saying that he believes that Iraq is in material breach. Just going back to the material on the public record, if you look at those dossiers - you've got very strong evidence there. But this additional material, that will be important. I'm not saying it will be absolutely conclusive. I just don't know. I haven't seen the material. One has a general impression of the flavour of it, but there is enough on the record already for the world to say to the Security Council - will you make sure that Iraq does what you asked it to do in resolution 1441? That was a very strong resolution and Iraq is clearly not complying with it. And if the Security Council walks away from that, then it's going to do itself enormous damage. That's not to say that you can't have a little more time for the inspectors. I wouldn't say a lot more time, but the inspection process goes on as we talk. But there will come a point if Iraq continues to refuse cooperation in substance, there will come a point where the weapons inspectors are entitled to say, and Dr Blix got very close to saying - ElBaradei was different, he was dealing with the nuclear side of it - but the chemical biological side of it, which is being handled by Dr Blix, he was extremely critical. I mean it was a very damning report, much stronger than most people expected.
JOURNALIST:
Yes, I agree with you there. Mr Howard, would it be fair to say that you face probably the single biggest decision of your political career and if so how important is a bipartisan, a uniformity of approach to you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that's always valuable, it's always better on these things to have a bipartisan position. But I have to take the decision that I believe is in the best interests of Australia and depending on, may I say, what interview it is there's sometimes not a lot of difference between what I'm saying and Mr Crean is saying. I know he feel as Opposition Leader he's got to disagree with me on occasions, well quite regularly in fact. But he has said interestingly enough he agrees with me that Iraq is in material breach, it was a very interesting statement he made, he's not going around saying that Iraq is not in material breach, he says Iraq is in material breach but he wants the matter resolved through the Security Council. Well my preference overwhelmingly is for the matter to go through the Security Council, of course. Can I say to the people who are so critical of America that it was America that was took the matter back to the Security Council. If President Bush had not gone to the General Assembly on the 12th of September the matter would never have gone back to the Security Council. The weapons inspectors were effectively kicked out of Iraq in 1998 and there the matter lay as far as the Security Council was concerned for a long time until it was reactivated essentially by the United States. So I have to say in defence of the criticism, in the face of the criticism of the Americans and the United Nations they are the ones that went back to it.
The other thing that has to be said about the Security Council and the United Nations is there are often shades of grey in relation to the Security Council. Back in 1999 when NATO took action over Kosovo which involved military operations against Serbia and against Slobodan Milosevic, that action was not sanctioned by the Security Council and the reason it was not sanctioned was the NATO countries apprehended that it was vetoed by the Russians. So that action effectively took place with the acquiescence of the Security Council but without the explicit legal sanction of the Security Council. So it may well be that out of all of this you get, as I've said before, a shade of grey. You get some kind of judgment by the Security Council that will require Australia then to make a judgement about her involvement and that's why in answer to the questions consistently put to me, you know, will we certainly, definitely be involved? I have to say until I know the final outworking of the Security Council that's impossible to make that decision.
JOURNALIST:
Certainly as an outside observer though Prime Minister there really does seem to be a sense of the inevitable creeping in here.
PRIME MINISTER:
There is no doubt that there is pressure building, there is no doubt about that and we have made a decision and I know a lot of people are critical of it, a lot of people worry about it, I understand that because it's a very serious thing. We have made a decision to pre-position some forces so that if we ultimately decide to be part of the military operation we can be and we can be with the minimum of risk and danger to our forces. That's why we've pre-positioned the forces, I've made that very clear and I don't retreat from that in any way and can I make the point that the Secretary General of the UN has said that if it hadn't been for the American military build-up the weapons inspectors would not be in Iraq, he's acknowledged that. I think that's very important for the people who are critical once again of the Americans and of us, they ought to understand that where we are at the moment largely is a result of a lot of pressure that's been applied by the United States. I mean a lot of people want the benefit of that diplomatically but they don't want to acknowledge the contribution.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard is there a real danger that if some of the European countries remain to be unconvinced by this extra information that's to come forward, and it does end up being of a coalition of the United States, Britain and us, that this war could drag out way way longer than expected?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't really think that the question of whether the war is going to, if it happens, is going to last a long time or a short time is necessarily going to be determined by whether or not European countries, continental European countries, are involved. I mean the nature of the military strength of the United States and quite a significant potential contribution from the UK and obviously nobody underestimates if we are involved as part of some kind of operation, and we haven't decided yet, but nobody should underestimate the quality of any Australian contribution. But we will decide in the end whether or not we make a contribution when we know the final outworking of the UN process. And we just don't know that yet and it's just not possible for people to make a judgment on that. But the question of whether it's long or short I don't think is going to be determined by the level of European contribution with great respect and I don't mean that disrespectfully of countries in Europe.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, we know your time is limited but just one final question and that is yesterday George Bush made it quite clear that regardless of what the UN was saying he would lead a coalition to go into Iraq and disarm Saddam Hussein. If the UN doesn't come to the party are we still with him?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well John the final decision to be taken by the Australian Government about being committed to military action can only be made when we know the full outworking of the UN process. Obviously we've indicated a willingness to be part of an operation if we think the legal and other circumstances are appropriate. We're not going to do something that's contrary to international law but we also recognise as a nation that's watched these things and participated in some of them in the past that there can be various shades of grey out of the United Nations. I mean once again if I can refer to something Mr Crean has said, he said that there could be circumstances in which the Labor Party would support an operation, even if it didn't have Security Council sanction. He said if for example it were vetoed by one country, so that's an indication even from him that there are shades of grey and until you know exactly what the outcome is I cannot give that final answer. Now we have clearly indicated by the forward positioning of troops that we are willing if we believe the circumstances are completely appropriate, we are willing to be part of it and we obviously want the matter resolved without military force and we very much want the matter resolved through the processes of the United Nations.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard we thank you.
JOURNALIST:
Thank you very much for your time this morning sir, we'll talk to you again soon.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[ends]