O'BRIEN:
Prime Minister the allied coalition against Iraq in '91, the '91 Gulf War numbered 34 countries. The coalition of the willing this time has shrunk to three, where's the moral authority of credibility for the coalition this time?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Kerry, two points on that, firstly more than [audio break] contributing in different ways and, look I'm sorry are you hearing me?
O'BRIEN:
Yes I am, I'm sorry, I lost you for a second but I got you back.
PRIME MINISTER:
Don't confuse me Kerry. Now, more than 20 countries are making a contribution, to my knowledge there are three making a direct military contribution, there could be more, I don't know that. I also know that a number of the neighbouring Arab countries are making basing contributions, which given the climate of the Middle East and the sensitivity of that is a very major contribution. But in the end you have to make a judgement on all of these things, not according so much to numbers but rather to the strength and relevance of the arguments that are there and it is ultimately a question of right and wrong, more than law. Law's important but I don't argue that it's just a legal issue. My argument is that it is in the medium and long term interests of Australia to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction, particularly in the climate of international terrorism, which of course did not exist in 1991.
O'BRIEN:
But it certainly existing when that also very substantial coalition of countries was built to back America's attack on al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. That coalition now has substantially splintered, certainly with regard to taking that fight on to Iraq. What does that say for the legitimacy of yours and America's war?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the legitimacy of what we are doing, the broad legitimacy rests of the strength of the argument...
O'BRIEN:
But a lot of, a huge number of people in countries haven't been swayed by that argument.
PRIME MINISTER:
You asked me a question, I mean in the end it's for the Australian people to make up their mind, in the end it's for your viewers to make up their mind. But if our argument is that if you allow a country like Iraq to keep her chemical and biological weapons others will seek to do likewise, we will weaken our capacity to discipline North Korea and as weapons of mass destruction get into more hands the likelihood of them falling into the hands of terrorists will multiply. Now that is the core argument. I know you've heard it before but that doesn't mean to say I shouldn't keep repeating it. That is the core argument and that is the issue that more than anything else has persuaded me, has persuaded my Cabinet and my Party Room to take the attitude that we have.
O'BRIEN:
Of course the legal foundations nonetheless are important, as I'm sure you'd acknowledge, because if you're going to risk so many young Australian lives you would want to be rock solid legal ground would you not?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Kerry like all Australians, I know whatever their views, we hope that the causalities in this are kept to a minimum, we can never of course know that but we all hope and pray that that is the outcome. As far as the law is concerned our firm advice is that the existing Security Council resolutions are effectively reactivated. Can I throw something else in? In 1998 when Mr Beazley was the leader of the Opposition the Labor Party supported the Government sending 150 SAS to the Gulf to support Operation Desert Fox as a result of a request from President Clinton. They were sent there in the full knowledge that they could be involved in active operations. There was no argument then about the legal basis of them being sent, there was no questioning of that decision by the Labor Party then...
O'BRIEN:
But there was questioning...
PRIME MINISTER:
... there was a belief that there was a sound legal basis for that decision and that decision pre-dated of course the passage of resolution 1441. I illustrate that, remind you of that, to make the point that it was assumed until quite recently that those resolutions going back to the early 1990's, absence compliance by Iraq with her obligations, legally authorised enforcement action.
O'BRIEN:
Well respect Mr Howard even in '98 there was a substantial body of legal opinion expressed that it was not legal to go in '98. But you are claiming legality for Australia's war on Iraq, the Secretary General of the United Nations says such a war in these circumstances would not conform with the UN's charter. Why is your knowledge of the charter superior to the Secretary General of the UN's?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I can only point to the legal advice that was tabled today. I'm not asserting it as John Howard - international legal guru, I'm drawing attention to a legal opinion that we tabled. I'm also quoting the Labour Attorney General of the United Kingdom, Lord Goldsmith. I'm also referring to the legal opinion of many others. Now you know what lawyers are like, they do tend on occasions to argue but any suggestion that we have lightly embarked upon this with a flimsy legal unpinning when you've got the legal advice of the three governments you've mentioned all saying the same thing, I don't think it's a very fair criticism.
O'BRIEN:
Well you mentioned the UK Attorney General, eminent professors of international law from Oxford and Cambridge Universities...
PRIME MINISTER:
I'm getting echo in your voice now Kerry, I'm sorry.
O'BRIEN:
Well we'll try and proceed as best we can and hopefully they'll get rid of it as we talk.
PRIME MINISTER:
Much better now.
O'BRIEN:
Eminent professors of International law from Oxford and Cambridge, as I say, say also in the clearest terms, quote, "neither Security Council resolution 1441 nor any prior resolution authorises the proposed use of force against Iraq in the present circumstances." Again, why would your Attorney General's Department's advice be superior to these eminent professors of law?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well normally Kerry when governments act, and they seek a legal opinion, they seek advice from their own lawyers, that is normal. Now you say why would I do it, I do it because it's the normal thing for a government to do. And the person from the Attorney General's Department who gave this advice and who signed it is regarded as the Government's top international lawyer. Now with all due respected to the learned professors from Oxford and Cambridge, and I'm sure they are very learned, I don't think you can discount somebody who's daily job is to advise not on the theory but of the practice of international law, the Australian Government.
O'BRIEN:
You say that resolution 1441 gives you legal authority to...
PRIME MINISTER:
No I don't, what I say is that the legal opinion we have...
O'BRIEN:
Alright.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no...
O'BRIEN:
Well part of the basis for your...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well don't misquote me that's all.
O'BRIEN:
Well I'll put it this way, a part of the basis for your decision to go in and the legality of that decision is based on the premise that resolution 1441 gives you legal authority to attack Iraq. Britain and American co-sponsored resolution 1441 and America said at the time that it voted for that resolution, quote, "this resolution contains no hidden triggers and no automatisity with respect to the use of force." The British said exactly the same thing, both promised to come back to the UN for further discussion before any action. Where's the legitimacy of 1441, there has been no further endorsement.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Kerry you have misquoted me. We are relying on advice, the essential gist of which is that the failure of Iraq to fully disarm reactives the authority to use force contained in the earlier resolutions of 678 and 687.
O'BRIEN:
But it also, in the advice, it also, it quotes at length from 1441 as well.
PRIME MINISTER:
I haven't carried the document with me, of course it refers to 1441, but the way you put that question was with respect, misleading. It suggested that that was the whole basis of the argument.
O'BRIEN:
But it's a very substantial part of the advice.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you actually flashed a bit across the screen, or maybe it was Fran's piece that flashed a bit across the screen and I don't have the text with me, so you have that advantage, ... but the re-activation of 678 and 687 is really the essence of the argument because of Iraq's failure to fully disarm.
O'BRIEN:
There are eminent professors from Cambridge and Oxford specifically saying that those resolutions applied originally specifically to the invasion of Kuwait and that they also are not relevant to giving legitimacy to this war now.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I haven't read those opinions, but I do know this, that the basis of the cease fire way back in 1991 included a commitment that Iraq would fully get rid of her weapons of mass destruction and our argument is that because Iraq has not done that then the authority to take forcible action is re-activated because of that failure because the deal, if I can put it that way, on which the cease fire was arranged has been dishonoured by the Iraqis. I mean, that is a matter, I think, of common sense.
O'BRIEN:
In terms of world perspective on how this debate has unfolded, there are many who see it as President Bush having said, in effect, now, we can't win the Security Council vote on our second resolution to go to war, so we won't have one. Now, again, what kind of moral or legal argument is that? What credibility does that present?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Kerry, let's deal with the morality first of all. The whole idea of going back to the Security Council was the hope, this was certainly my view, and I was one of those who encouraged President Bush to go back to the Security Council, was the hope that if you got all the members of the Security Council saying in effect to Iraq, disarm now or we are coming after you, you might in fact have got a positive response. But because the Security Council was unable to bring itself to that level of unanimity, that hasn't happened. Never did I regard going back to the Security Council as being a necessary legal exercise. I made that clear in my statement to the parliament on the 4th of February and when I said we didn't need the 18th resolution of the Security Council on this subject in order to get more legal cover, rather to increase the level of international pressure on Iraq.
O'BRIEN:
But the bottom line is that you had, or America had, the unanimous support of the Security Council for resolution 1441 just a few months ago just in November, it's now lost the majority of the Security Council. Is this all the rest of the Security Council's fault?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, this is not because, may I say, that America has changed, or Britain has changed. I think that question ought to be addressed to perhaps the President of France or some other countries that have changed. I mean, it has to be said that the alternative proposition to what is being advanced by the Americans and the British and by us is that you should maintain an army of between 250,000 and 300,000 indefinitely in the Gulf region. I mean that is the practical consequence of the alternative being argued by the French and supported inferentially by the opposition here in Australia, keep the inspectors going but the only reason the inspectors are there is because of the pressure of the presence of the American and British forces. By implication if those forces were withdrawn, the inspectors would be kicked out of Iraq and everyone knows that if you were to persevere with the inspectors they would be there for months. Now, that is plainly unrealistic.
O'BRIEN:
Very briefly Mr Howard, wherever Osama bin Laden is right now, does it worry you that he might be sitting there saying "I've won", that as a result of this war, as obscene as it might sound, George W Bush risks becoming Osama bin Laden's recruiting agent?
PRIME MINISTER:
Kerry, ss far as Osama bin Laden is concerned, he once said that Australia should be a terrorist target because of our action to liberate the people of East Timor. I believe that if the world walks away from the problem and the challenge of Iraq, if the world in effect says it's all too hard, which is basically what the alternative to what we are doing puts forward, then that would be the greatest possible victory that Osama bin Laden of any of the terrorist organisations could have.
O'BRIEN:
John Howard, thanks for talking with us.
[ends]