JONES:
Prime Minister good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning Alan.
JONES:
Peter Hartcher has been writing for the Australian Financial Review and he seems to have some sort of insight into all of this and especially the United Nations. He wrote yesterday only a total capitulation by Saddam Hussein can now halt the advance of US war machine. Is war inevitable?
PRIME MINISTER:
I hope not, certainly it looks more likely that the military outcome will be the only way of ensuring compliance. But I still hope that that can be avoided and it can be avoided if the Iraqis genuinely begin cooperating with the weapons inspectors. They are going back to Iraq now, they're on their way there. And if there were a genuine change of heart then I would argue that the weapons inspectors be given all the time they need. But the evidence is totally in the opposite direction. You had Dr Blix saying that they weren't co-operating and he's a former Swedish foreign minister, he's the independent umpire if I can put it that way, he's on neither side of this debate, he's been given a job by the Security Council and he gave a damning report. And yesterday's presentation from Colin Powell was very strong and when you bear in mind the difficulties of intelligence gathering I thought it was a remarkably powerful and detailed case and it went to the very issue that is at the heart of the Security Council's dilemma and that is Iraq has for 12 years deceived the Security Council, ignored world opinion and this is a challenge for the Security Council. If the Security Council is to save its reputation it has got to make sure that its word, which is a collective expression of world opinion, is enforced.
JONES:
Is it valid to argue that knowing Saddam, as obviously the international community and its leaders do, that the acceleration towards war may be the only thing that forces Saddam to capitulation and thereby we may be able to avoid war?
PRIME MINISTER:
History would suggest that that will have more impact on him than sweet reason. He does not respond to sweet reason. If we walk away or display weakness, if the world does that, then he will treat that with the contempt that he's shown in the past. All his records suggest that he only responds to military pressure. He's done it before, not very often, and I'm not saying it's going to happen on this occasion, I hope it does, I believe the military build up is the best prospect of getting him to capitulate, if there is a prospect of that, that is the best way to achieve it. Kofi Annan said that, he said that the weapons inspectors would not now be back in Iraq had it not been for the American military build up. Now that's not President Bush or the British Prime Minister, it's Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations and he is a very realistic person. I think a very able Secretary General and a person with whom we dealt with very extensively over East Timor. He calls it as he sees it and I thought that was a fair judgement.
JONES:
Let me just ask you some questions from the perspective of the opponents of what's happening so that my listeners can get some understanding of your reaction to it. The Democrats Leader Andrew Bartlett has said that you should make it clear that Australia will not be involved in a war that includes the use of nuclear weapons.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the Deputy Defence Secretary has already, of the United States, has already indicated that this is not an operation that would involve the use of nuclear weapons. And I have said that if I thought there were a possibility of nuclear weapons being used then I wouldn't want Australian participation.
JONES:
In March the British Labor Government's Defence Minister Geoffrey Hoon said, and I quote, Iraq can be absolutely confident in the right conditions we would be willing to use our nuclear weapons.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't think Geoffrey, I haven't seen that comment of Geoffrey Hoon, but I don't think you could get quite as much authority in this as the Deputy Defence Secretary of the United States. And none of the contingency discussions which I've said have gone on between the American military and the Australian military have suggested for a moment the use of nuclear weapons.
JONES:
So getting rid of Saddam Hussein does not legitimise the use of the very weapons that we're trying to rid him of?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well what I'm saying is that all of the advice and indications I have are that there is absolutely no need or likelihood of nuclear weapons being used. And for obvious reasons we would not want them used.
JONES:
Writing in the Spectator this week Rod Little said this, there's something terribly primitive about bombing the hell out of a country simply to get rid of one man. He said so we plan to send in expensive bombers and those weapons are fairly widespread destruction, and missiles, perhaps thousands upon thousands of ground troops too, in order to be rid of him and install someone marginally less despotic. It seems an awful lot of effort just for Saddam. There is something terrible primitive isn't it about bombing the hell out of innocent people in order to get rid of one man?
PRIME MINISTER:
Alan this is the awful dilemma we all face, but what is the alternative if Iraq continues not to comply. Now if we go back to the basics the reason I believe this issue is of direct concern to Australia is that we cannot run the risk of the twin evils of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons in the hands of rogue states like Iraq and more, you can't run the risk of that combining with international terrorism and the more countries that have these weapons, the more rogue states that have them the greater becomes the possibility that they will give them to terrorist organisations. And marry two things and you have a terrible potential outcome for the world...
JONES:
I think everyone agrees with that, what they're saying is how can you get rid of this man? This fellow also said in the Spectator, quote, we have technology so good now that it could from a distance of 8,000 miles pick out of a crowded shopping street (inaudible) and reduce him to a swift discussion of traumatised and very hot molecules. In other words the technology exists to remove one man without removing innocent people. Is that an option that's not available?
PRIME MINISTER:
I did read that article, I think the experience in Afghanistan has demonstrated that even with enormous sophistication it can't necessarily be certain of wiping out of one targeted person. I don't think it is quite as simple as that.
JONES:
So we lived in a world didn't we until September a couple of years ago where deterrence was the big thing. That if you looked to be stronger than the other bloke that would deter that other bloke from taking... have we reached the stage where deterrence now no longer applies to terrorists?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the threat of terrorism is quite different from the old conventional threat of the armies of a country rolling across the borders of another country, that was warfare as we understood it for most of the 20th century. Then we had the threat of nuclear war, but we still had conventional war. But international terrorism has bought a completely new dimension because it is borderless, it is very hard to identify, it is worldwide. I mean this takes it back to the point about Australia, people say to me look Iraq's over there in the Middle East, we're down here, so it's nothing to do with us. Well it has got a lot to do with us because terrorism can come not only to our doorstep but can come to us and the world is your backyard when you're dealing with the threat of international terrorists.
JONES:
And the issue is this bloke's got not compunction in providing with the wherewithal to the international terrorists.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well of course not, I'm not asserting that we have direct proof now that he has done so but I am pointing out that he's got a track record unlike other countries of using these weapons not only against his own people but against others. He has a track record of attacking other nations. The potential and the capacity and the likelihood of it occurring is therefore magnified by his past behaviour.
JONES:
What do you say to those who say not only would a war against Iraq kill innocent Iraqis, it would produce many more refugees and it could cause so much damage that the West would continue to be a target for retaliation for many years?
PRIME MINISTER:
I'd say a couple of things to that, the West has been targeted long before this latest stand off with Iraq. Let me remind you that the one act of Australia's which has been the subject of critical comment by Bin Laden was what we did in relation to East Timor. Something that was supported by the overwhelming majority of the Australian people. International terrorism of the type that we experienced on the 11th of September and in Bali is a product of a blind hatred of our way of life more than anything else. So it's been there for quite a long time and it's something that is not rationally based, it is based on a hatred of a particular way of life. Now as far as the refugees are concerned clearly if military conflict becomes unavoidable there is the possibility of refugees, there is also in reverse though, the possibility that if as a consequence of that military action the current regime disappears, that circumstances in Iraq could well be a lot better, I'm certain they will be a lot better and that in a relatively short period of time the situation could stabilise in the way that it did in Afghanistan. I mean remember that after the Taliban was driven out of Afghanistan something like a million and a half refugees returned to that country from Pakistan.
JONES:
I suppose one of the problems about prosecuting this man is that in the wake of America and Bali there's a growing revulsion towards the killing of people and I suppose in an environment where there have been terrible deaths of innocent people in terrorist attacks that leads to the growing public concern about what might happen in Iraq.
PRIME MINISTER:
Alan, I understand that. I mean all of our instincts and our nature and our upbringing is to recoil against anything that might involve military action. I wish this thing would disappear tomorrow, I'd love to be seriously debating here about something else. I would if that were possible. I mean this is a very difficult challenging heavy issue for all of us, and particularly for those of who've got to make a final decision in relation to it. But the history of the world is replete with examples of the community of nations steeping back from dealing with a difficult issue though fear of the immediate consequences only in the fullness of time to have to confront that issue eventually at an infinitely greater cost.
JONES:
Where do you think finally, just tell my listeners, where do you think this going to take us? You're heading off tomorrow, where do you think in your judgement knowing more about it then we do where this is going to end?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Alan it's important that I express, and I believe this very genuinely, the hope that through the world community speaking with one voice Iraq finally comes clean and cooperates with the weapons inspectors. My commitment now is to try and get the strongest possible resolution from the Security Council which makes it very plain that the entire world community is saying to Iraq if you don't come clean and cooperate you will face the possibility of military assault. Now if that happens, if the world is willing to say that collectively and unambiguously and strongly there is a hope, there is a hope, I can't put it more strongly than that. That is what I'm going to try to do.
JONES:
Australians wish you well and thank you for your leadership.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[ends]