CORDEAUX:
We go to Canberra and welcome the Prime Minister. Sir, how are you?
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm very well, Jeremy.
CORDEAUX:
Happy New Year. We haven't spoken before.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, we haven't. I hope it's a good one for all of us.
CORDEAUX:
Let's hope so. Let me ask you first, what did you think when you saw 400,000 fellow Australians on the streets demonstrating in a way that was, they say, against war but really it was in favour of Saddam Hussein?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I thought what a wonderful country this is that people can exercise the right of lawful and peaceful demonstration. I respect their views. I know that there are a lot of Australians who disagree with my stance on this issue. I do know also that demonstrations do give comfort to the Iraqi leadership, there's no doubt about that, but that is one of the ambiguities of democracy that we've always had and we always will have. But people have a right to demonstrate and I strongly support that right and I respect that right but they have to understand the consequences of what they do just as I am reminded by my critics that I must understand the consequences of what I do. I mean, we are all accountable for the actions we take and people who demonstrate and who give comfort to Saddam Hussein must understand that and must realise that it's a factor in making it that much more difficult to get united world opinion on this issue, which in the end is the best guarantee there is of finding a peaceful solution if there is a peaceful solution to be found. I mean, the one faint hope there is of a peaceful outcome is for the United Nations Security Council 15 nil to strongly condemn and warn Iraq and make it plain that if Iraq does not come to the party and voluntarily disarm then she will be disarmed by force. Now, that might, right on 5 seconds to midnight, that might get Iraq to comply and it might avoid military conflict. So the more the west is divided the more we reduce the prospects of a peaceful outcome, which I know a lot of those who demonstrate wouldn't agree with but it happens to be the case.
CORDEAUX:
Well, the thing that I find gobsmacking is that you're speaking plain English and I can understand exactly what you're saying, that if we are going to have peace it is going to be because we look like we are prepared to go to war, that's what's going to give us peace.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the only thing - and this is the view of Kofi Annan and Hans Blix - the only thing that has squeezed a few concessions out of Iraq to date has been the American military build-up. Both of them admit that if the Americans had not stationed troops in the Middle East, in the Gulf there would not even be weapons inspectors in Iraq at the present time. That is the only language Iraq, under this government, understands and when you muffle that message, when you behave ambiguously, when you indicate more criticism of President Bush than Saddam Hussein then you're sending the wrong message.
CORDEAUX:
What is the outcome, what do you think the outcome is going to be? Do you think Saddam will blink, as you say, five seconds to midnight?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think the prospects of that are fairly small but they will only exist, even to a small degree, if the whole world speaks clearly and unanimously and strongly and unitedly. If that happens there's just a possibility he might do that. I can't put it any more strongly than that, but there's no possibility of that occurring if the world continues to be disunited.
CORDEAUX:
Absolutely and these people marching for peace, they weren't marching for peace, they were marching for war. If they were marching for peace they would be standing shoulder to shoulder with people who really look like they mean what they say. But what sort of a resolution are you hoping to get from the Security Council?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I would like to see a simple and strong resolution and the exact words of it are obviously being discussed at the present time. When it will be tabled - I'm not certain when it will be tabled, obviously very shortly. The permanent members of the Security Council, obviously the British and the Americans will table it. My guess is that you can get a lot of shifts on the Security Council behind the scenes between now and when we finally know the outcome. Before the last resolution was passed there was a lot of debate, a lot of suggestion that we weren't going to get it. In the end it was carried 15 to nil, it was a very strong resolution. Now, I'm not saying that's going to be exactly the same on this occasion, it's more difficult now, but I haven't given up hope of getting a strong resolution but it will be difficult and in the days ahead there will be a lot of argument going on. But, in the end, what countries like France have got to confront is what they agreed to last November when they passed the previous resolution. You can't pass a resolution with language like that and then a few months later act contrary to it because if you do that the Security Council will lose an enormous amount of authority, and this is one of these acid tests for the United Nations. I can't think of an issue in recent years where there's been a greater focus on the responsibility of the Security Council to do what it's meant to do under its Charter. And this is a huge test for the Security Council, you know, this is as big as it gets as far as the Security Council is concerned and if it fails the test I can't see it being taken seriously on big international issues in the future. Well, why would anybody bother?
CORDEAUX:
And it will be a green light to every tin-pot, despot in the world.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, they will know that they can...and you know, come into our own region, what hope have we got of controlling North Korea if we don't discipline Iraq?
CORDEAUX:
None.
PRIME MINISTER:
None whatsoever. And North Korea is in our region. We are understandably concerned about it. It is a big issue. North Korea has got a nuclear capability and everybody will expect the United Nations and other countries, the countries that make it up to act together to do something about North Korea. If they fail the Iraqi test they won't even get on the ground with North Korea.
CORDEAUX:
I believe you've got plans on the table, if it comes to war - and the Iraqi people inevitably will suffer because of that conflict - but you've got various plans on the table, I gather, for Australia to contribute in a humanitarian sense.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, we've already announced, Alexander Downer announced yesterday that we will contribute $10 million to a United Nations contingency fund. Now, this will be needed whether there's military conflict or not. You've got to remember that the Iraqi people are suffering an enormous amount already. And people talk about the suffering that will follow military conflict, can I say on the scale of suffering I believe it will be greater if the United Nations walks away from its responsibilities. And there's probably been a million and a half people died either at his hands in Iraq or elsewhere over the last 20 years. If the world takes the risk of leaving him with these weapons and those weapons get into the hands of international terrorists, the cost of that will be enormous. But when people talk about the possible suffering - and there will be from a military operation - they've got to compare that with the enormous suffering that's already occurred and would be ended if there were a change of government in Iraq and the potential suffering of many, perhaps hundreds of thousands or millions from the sort of outcome that I've just mentioned.
CORDEAUX:
Prime Minister, would you take some calls?
PRIME MINISTER:
Certainly.
CORDEAUX:
Gail, here's the Prime Minister.
CALLER:
Good morning, Prime Minister. Hi, Jeremy.
CORDEAUX:
Hi.
CALLER:
Thank you for the courageous stand you have taken against Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction to protect us. Thousands of innocent lives have been lost in New York, Bali, Kenya and Russia as a result of terrorist attacks. America has asked the world to join her to prevent Saddam Hussein distributing his evil weapons. It is morally repugnant of us to always expect America's sons and daughters to risk their lives to keep the rest of us safe worldwide, and not do our share to help protect America and ourselves. There was not one poster condemning Saddam Hussein. We saw opposition parties march to feather their political nests, other countries blocking the UN to protect their...
CORDEAUX:
Gail, I think the Prime Minister gets the message you support him. But do you have a question, or is this just a phone call of support?
CALLER:
It's a phone call of support, and wondering what we're going to do to make the United Nations do something more than just send inspectors to protect us?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Gail, I appreciate your expression of support. We are trying in our way, and our Ambassador spoke to the UN yesterday, we are trying in our way to communicate the sort of sentiments that you have... well not entirely, but many of the sentiments that you have articulated.
CALLER:
Thank you.
CORDEAUX:
Thank you. Michael.
CALLER:
G'day. How are you?
CORDEAUX:
Go right ahead Michael.
CALLER:
Hello Mr Howard.
PRIME MINISTER:
G'day.
CALLER:
Congratulations on what you're doing. It's not easy and you've stayed pretty strong so far. My question was - how do you see the rest of the Middle East? Are they sitting on the fence or are they...
PRIME MINISTER:
The rest of the Middle East... most of the Arab countries would be delighted to see the Iraqi regime disappear. Obviously it's a very tense part of the world, but anybody who thinks that Iraq is popular in the rest of the Middle East doesn't understand it. Most Arab countries would be delighted to see the back of him.
CALLER:
Do you think the other countries will help Iraq but? Will they jump in and say well...
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no I don't. I don't believe any of them will provide military assistance. If there were force used, I don't believe any of them would use military forces to help Iraq, no.
CALLER:
No, I mean to help as in after whatever has got to be done to help rebuild the country.
PRIME MINISTER:
I believe they will make a contribution, yes I do. I think particularly a country like Saudi Arabia.
CORDEAUX:
Do you think there is a danger Prime Minister in that rogue elements in the Middle East - terrorist organisations, perhaps not States but organisations - might find, if indeed Saddam's plan is to stare down the United States, won't they find him an absolute inspiration?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh yes. People should understand that if the upshot of all of this is that the United Nations and the United States has been stared down by whatever combination the rest of the world has put together, that will be the biggest imaginable boost and fillip to the Iraqi regime and to all of those who seek to do damage to the United States and her allies, it will be an enormous boost. We're dealing with, you know, quite a moment in history. If the world walks away from this, the damage to the authority of the United Nations will be incalculable, the damage to the United States will be huge, and the willingness of the United States to play a major role in world affairs... I mean, what people ought to understand is that the United States is big and strong enough to, in a sense, to retreat in a way that few other nations can, but she has chosen not to, she has chosen to play a constructive role in the world and gets precious little thanks from many countries, particularly some of the countries in Europe, for doing it.
CORDEAUX:
Alan, here's the Prime Minister.
CALLER:
Thank you very much. I would say that war is evil and unfortunately to start a war, a pre-emptive strike, is against the Christian principles in general and it will kill a lot of people. Well it might be, that's the thing, so I am a protestor because war is evil and we can't overcome good with evil, it's as simple as that. And the other suggestion I might make is that we surely, in a technological age, there must be some way of detecting these weapons if we give them a bit more time, the inspectors a bit more time. That's my point.
PRIME MINISTER:
Alan, look I respect that view and I understand that you're one of the people who don't agree with me on this. On the moral question, I don't think it is all in the way that you put it. There is nothing in my reading of Christian ethics says there aren't circumstances in which the just war theory might apply, and I think there are circumstances.
CALLER:
I don't know of any.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I've heard some very eminent Christian theologians argue them, and I'm thinking particularly of the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney. I'm not saying he's agreeing with me on this but he asserts the existence of the just war theory, and I think there are plenty of people who will argue that. The question is whether that applies in these circumstances. That's the point. And what I'm saying is you can't say that there are never circumstances in which military action is justified. And surely military action was justified in World War II, surely military action was justified to defend this country against the imminent Japanese invasion, and surely the Americans are justified in using military force inter alia to protect Australia from invasion at the hands of the Japanese in World War II. The question of evil... there's a lot of evil going on in Iraq at the moment. You have to ask yourself whether the evil that we will prevent by ensuring that the weapons Iraq does have, and which 75 per cent of Australians including I guess most of the people who marched in the streets, believe Iraq has, ensuring that they are taken from Iraq and in the process the possibility of them getting in the hands of terrorists is denied. Now, you say it's a 'what if'. I think what you've seen in the world like the 11th of September and the 12th of October, we are living in a different world and we are dealing with a group of people who are willing to behave in a totally irresponsible fashion. Now, if those weapons ever got into the hands of people like that, you'll have a lot more evil than you will have from a military operation against Iraq.
CORDEAUX:
And history shows that if the world had done something in 1933 about Adolf Hitler instead of giving him the time that he needed to build up his armament, to build his submarines, I mean millions and millions of people would not have died in the second World War.
PRIME MINISTER:
It's always a natural human condition to recoil from the immediate cost of a difficult decision in the hope that that difficult decision will never have to be taken, but history tells us you always have to take it, and when you return to it, the cost is infinitely greater.
CORDEAUX:
Prime Minister, on to something a little bit brighter, a little bit more optimistic. We've had our rating, our financial rating, revalued I believe. We're back to a AAA?
PRIME MINISTER:
We are. We're back to the highest rating we had way back in 1986 in the times of the 'Banana Republic'. It's a AAA rating and it really is a fantastic endorsement of Australia's economic strength. There are a lot of reasons for it, but the main thing is that our Government debt to our annual wealth generation, that's our GDP, is phenomenally low. It's going to be three per cent by the end of this year. To give you an idea of how good that is, in the United States the figure is 46 per cent, the average of the OECD - that's the industrialised countries - is 47 per cent, and Japan is 76 per cent, and ours by the end of this year will be three per cent. Now I can't think of anything better we could do for future generations economically than to give them a debt free future.
CORDEAUX:
What does that mean to the average family though, the average...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well amongst other things, it means our interest rates are more likely to remain low for longer than if we had a higher debt. I mean low interest rates have meant a great deal to families. They've meant hundreds of dollars of months in lower mortgage payments, and if you have lower mortgage payments and you have low inflation, then you really do have more money in your pocket, because your wages can rise without there being inflationary consequences, and you've got other things to spend your money on than paying back your home loan. To the average family that low interest rate on home loans is tremendously important because it's something that is there all the time and if you've got more capacity to do something about it then you're in a much better position.
CORDEAUX:
Just as we weathered the Asian financial crisis, I guess to a degree it helps to bullet proof our economy.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well one of the reasons we weathered the Asian crisis is that we were a country that was seen to be getting on top of our budget problems. I think also our flexible exchange rate helped, that is our exchange rate adjusted and we were able to therefore export more to America and to Europe which proved to be very valuable. But to have such a low level of government debt means that not only is our economy judged by people such as rating agencies as important but far more importantly to your listeners is it all feeds into that lower interest rate climate and the likelihood that we can sustain that low interest rate climate for many years into the future.
CORDEAUX:
And you're not nervous about all of the expenses that may come our way because of global instability and our having to do our share of the shouldering financial burden?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we can manage it. One of the reasons we can manage is that we've run budget surpluses and kept our debt low in the past. I mean if we were now in a situation of a big budget deficit the strain of the some hundreds of millions of dollars that would be involved if there is a military operation would be much greater. The fact that we have some fat on our bones, no more than we need to at the moment, but some fat on our bones, means that we will be able to absorb that without it doing damage to our economy and dislocating our credit position. It's very important, we've given ourselves the capacity economically to make a contribution and I feel far happier about that situation than I would be if we were now in deficit.
CORDEAUX:
And you hinted as well as that, you've hinted at the possibility of tax cuts.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well what I said is if we had room we would, we'd give a greater preference to that over and above spending in other non-defence areas. But right at the moment I've obviously got to focus on this issue. But long range I don't want people to imagine that if we begin to build up surpluses again that we're going to find new things to spend it on, there's always a case for giving it back to the people who own it.
CORDEAUX:
Now you've said that there's, the most difficult time is in your prime ministership, this particular stressful time because of Iraq and what not. But it must be a stimulating, interesting time?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it's interesting and it's intellectually very challenging but I wouldn't want to play down in anyway the seriousness of it.
CORDEAUX:
Well the reason I say that is that you were hinting before at retiring mid-term and now I see signs of speculation that you're not, you're going to go straight through to the next election and most people are going to be very happy about that. It just strikes me that the job is keeping you interested if I can put it that way.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well what I've said in recent days on that is that clearly this is a very serious issue and I'm going to see this issue through. On that broader issue I don't really want to add anything to what I've previously said. Jeremy, I'm very focused on this issue, it is a very difficult challenging issue. I wish it were not something that this country had to challenge, anybody who thinks that I have any kind of appetite for seeing this country go into another military conflict is wrong...
CORDEAUX:
But changing captains at a crucial moment like that...
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm not, I mean clearly Jeremy I will see this particular Iraqi issue through for the Australian people, I've said that. But equally also I don't really want to open up any other front on that other issue, I think you understand my meaning.
CORDEAUX:
I do, I do, I do. The state is pretty much against the idea of a nuclear waste dump, the great fear in South Australia is a low level nuclear waste dump will open us up to a medium or perhaps high level nuclear waste dump. And we don't, having put this image of a clean, green state together, and proud of our food exports and particularly our wine exports, we don't want the odium of being the nuclear waste dump state and that's the sort of opposition you're going to get on this particular issue. Is there no compromise that can be made?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the difficulty of this issue is that the initial reaction of people is that they don't want it anywhere near them.
CORDEAUX:
Yeah, not in my backyard.
PRIME MINISTER:
That's very understandable but that is true of any part of Australia and you therefore have to make a judgement after having a proper survey as to where the best place is. And the judgment has been made on that and it's been done very fairly and impartially and in proper regards to the legitimate interests of Australians who live in South Australia and the area chosen and its relative remoteness and all of those sort of factors. You can't win on this one but you have to take a decision, the stuff won't just disappear into space, you do have to take a decision and we have gone through that process and reached the decision. It's not obviously been lightly arrived at and I guess the criticism that's been voiced in South Australia would be voiced by people in other parts of the country if the decision had been made to locate it in those parts of the country.
CORDEAUX:
So the decision has been made?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we have to put it somewhere, I mean we're obviously always willing to discuss and explain but this has been going on for quite some time and we have gone through a very exhaustive and rigorous and balanced process to reach the decision we have.
CORDEAUX:
The Defence Department say that it's not the ideal place for it, there's great concern about the transportation, the risks of transporting it across the country, some say it's better left where it is.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that's not the judgment that's been made by the process that's we've followed. I mean we're not shifting it for, it's not sort of a politically inspired decision, we tried to reach a fair, balanced decision taking all the factors into account.
CORDEAUX:
It's a terrible decision but whatever you do...
PRIME MINISTER:
Wherever you choose to locate it you will be attacked. So in the end you have to try and reach a decision which on the merits is the fairest one, it's carried out in a transparent way, the process. Explain that decision and stick to it.
CORDEAUX:
Prime Minister I know you're a very keen cricket fan, what do you make of this Shane Warne thing? This latest business with a diuretic?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well he's facing a tribunal and I don't think it's fair of somebody in my position to express a view either way except to express the hope that he's dealt with fairly and justly, you can only express that hope. It will be a great shame if we lose his services, on the other hand there are rules that must be upheld and I would support the rules being upheld, I just hope that he hasn't broken them.
CORDEAUX:
Indeed. Prime Minister thank you very much for your valuable time, I am very grateful. Thank you.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
[ends]