LAWS:
On the line is our Prime Minister, John Howard. Prime Minister good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning John.
LAWS:
You made it very clear when you made the decision to send more troops to Iraq that it probably wasn't going to be the most popular decision you'd made in your lifetime - it's not is it?
PRIME MINISTER:
No it's not, not everybody will agree with it but it is the right decision and that is why we have taken it and governments have the responsibility from time to time to take decisions which they believe are right, that they know are unpopular with some people. And it's my obligation and my responsibility to explain to the Australian public why we have taken the decision, why we believe particularly in the wake of the very inspiring and successful outcome of the Iraqi election, and why because of the close regional partnership we have with Japan this decision is the right one to take.
LAWS:
Do you accept the fact that you've broken a core election promise?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I certainly acknowledge John that I stated before the election, because it was the position before the election, that we didn't plan any major increase in our commitment. I said that on a number of occasions and that was a fair statement of the position. What has changed? A number of things have changed. It became clear of course in the middle of November that there was no possibility that the Dutch would reverse its position to bring their people home in March of this year. Since the election, our election that is, we've had the election in Iraq and I think that has transformed the world debate. I mean it went better than I expected and it went better than many people expected and it has communicated the real possibility of the gradual spread of democracy in the Middle East. On top of that there has been a definite shift in military opinion in both the United States and the UK and elsewhere in the coalition that there should be a greater emphasis placed on training of Iraqis. I mean I keep hearing, quite rightly, that we have to look to a point when the foreign forces get out; they cannot get out unless they leave behind a well trained Iraqi Army and a well trained Iraqi police force...
LAWS:
How long is that going to take?
PRIME MINISTER:
John, I can't and won't tie myself down to a particular time on that, I simply do not know. The other element that's changed since the election of course is the Japanese consideration. Now I know this is controversial. I am conscious as anybody that there are still long and understandably bitter memories of what the Japanese did to Australian troops during World War II...
LAWS:
Yes, but we're supposed to get over that.
PRIME MINISTER:
Exactly, but I respect that, I owe it to that generation of Australians to always remember it and always respect it, but I owe it to contemporary Australia and to all generations of Australians to take into account the important relationship we have with Japan and the regional aspect that Japan's involvement brings to this whole issue. We are part of this region, we have involvements with countries in many parts of the world and I've never been somebody preoccupied with the Asian Pacific region, but Japan is a valuable partner, an extremely valuable partner of Australia and I have certainly taken that into account.
LAWS:
Yeah. I still can't quite work it out, I'd like to know, you said that circumstances had changed, but what particular circumstances?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well firstly I did not believe that the Iraqi election would be as successful as it was. There was even doubt in October of last year in the minds of many people that the election would go ahead on the 30th of January. There were many people who were saying, including most of my critics on this issue, that the election should not even be held. And right up until the election was held there was real nervousness as to what the turnout would be. And what happened on that day was one of those seminal moments, you had in the face of the most appalling harassment and difficulty, you had 59 per cent of the Iraqi population turning out, men and women, turning out to vote and to taste democracy. Now that to me sent a very powerful message; that there were a lot of people in Iraq who are determined to seize their future. And I think given our involvement, rightly or wrongly (rightly in my view, wrongly in the view of many Australians - I acknowledge that; our earlier involvement in Iraq), we could not ignore the fact that that had greatly transformed the situation. But you have the additional elements that I've mentioned, the Japanese component, and the Japanese have limitations by law and custom arising out of World War II as to what their forces can do. We had a not dissimilar arrangement in East Timor where Australian forces provided security for an area that had located within it Japanese and other forces. So this is not the first time, albeit it on this occasion it's more direct and it is exclusive to the Japanese, but in East Timor there was not a dissimilar arrangement and there was a less structured association in Cambodia, we provided some communications and commands but we didn't provide the security. So it is not the first time that there has been some involvement of Australian and Japanese and the point is that the Japanese are doing humanitarian work, they're doing road construction, they're helping with water treatment, and it's a very important humanitarian role and if there were not security for them, and there needs to be a third party providing that security because of the limitations that are placed upon what they can do under the law of their own country for the reasons I've explained earlier...
LAWS:
And why don't the Japanese pay?
PRIME MINISTER:
Pay what?
LAWS:
For the cost of our troops going to assist them?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I have always taken the view that Australian forces go overseas in the name of this country and I think it is not appropriate that they be paid by anybody other than this country. They are our responsibility, it is our responsibility, and if they are in the eyes of the Australian people wrongly deployed then the Australian people will punish the Government that makes that wrong deployment. But I think the idea that the military forces of this country should be effectively paid by any other country is just not acceptable, that's my view now not everybody will agree with that.
LAWS:
No, I agree with it, but a lot of people are asking the question.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I do understand that John, I do. And I don't pretend that this is a popular decision, but as I said before there are many decisions you must take in government that you believe are right that are not popular, and I seek, as I'm doing now, to explain the basis of the Government's decision.
LAWS:
What do you mean when you say Iraq is at tilting point? I don't understand.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well what I mean by that is that it's at a moment in its history that if given the right support and the right encouragement I believe it can go down the path of democracy. On the other hand if it's not given that support and if the coalition for example were to crumble then I think it would go in completely the opposite direction.
LAWS:
If we're now increasing the level of protection, and that's what it is, the level of protection, doesn't that indicate to us we are actually further away from peace in Iraq that we've ever been?
PRIME MINISTER:
No what we are doing is that we are replacing protection previously provided by other forces and those other forces were there for two years. We are not increasing the net level of protection in the area. We are replacing protection previously provided by the Dutch. I mean they did, in fairness, have their forces there for a period of two years. They had some 1400 - we are sending fewer - but our task is not as great as the Dutch. The Dutch had a responsibility for the security of the entire province. We have responsibility for security of the area in which the Japanese will operate and also to train Iraqis. The remaining responsibility for security of the province will be undertaken by the British, who have a total incidentally of about 9,000 troops in Iraq, so they are making a very significant contribution.
LAWS:
We seem to be prepared to send more troops in and yet Poland, Bulgaria, the Ukraine, others are getting out as quickly as they can.
PRIME MINISTER:
Some are getting out. It's also fair to point out that (I haven't seen the numbers yet), the NATO countries, all twenty six, have agreed overnight to contribute to the training of Iraqis. I don't know more details of that, so while there are examples of countries going out, there is also through that NATO decision, an example of the NATO countries making a contribution to the training - so it has to be seen in that as flows going in both directions.
LAWS:
Okay, now we've increased the number, nearly doubled it.
PRIME MINISTER:
Doubled though on the ground in Iraq. In the entire theatre, it's gone from about 950, and when this deployment occurs to about 1400.
LAWS:
Okay well this all came about because circumstances have changed. You've said prior to the election there wouldn't be a dramatic increase.
PRIME MINISTER:
That's right and that was the government's policy then, based on the government's view.
LAWS:
But why didn't you say unless there's a change of circumstances?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well John, it's fair enough to criticise. I didn't contemplate this before the election. We certainly didn't have in front of us, or indeed I had no knowledge that these circumstances were going to unfold. But John all of that is fair to say that it will be said, if not by you, but by others it will be twisted to suggest that I have deliberately deceived. I haven't done anything of the kind. You can only speak of circumstances as you perceive them and I do think that the circumstances I'd outlined a few minutes ago - particularly the way in which the election has altered peoples view and it's given a new incentive for us and other countries to help the Iraqis seize the moment.
LAWS:
In future when you make similar sorts of statements will you put 'unless circumstances change' on the end?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't want to sound cute in response to that by saying well it will depend on the circumstances. I mean I can only say to you that what was said before the election (I probably would have said it in interviews with you) was a statement of the government's intentions based on its assessment. Now those circumstances have changed and I have tried to explain and I will go on explaining when I am asked, of what those changed circumstances are. But no government can be frozen in time by the circumstances of a previous statement if those circumstances have changed. I mean you cannot govern a country on that basis.
LAWS:
Well of course you can't, but there's no guarantee that the circumstances won't change again.
PRIME MINISTER:
No there is no guarantee. That is right that circumstances won't change again. I am not aware of how those circumstances might change but if you say to me, could the circumstances change, then of course I'd have to acknowledge that that is possible.
LAWS:
So even though we are now sending 450, we could send more?
PRIME MINISTER:
John...we could, but I think it is very unlikely, but look I think it is very unlikely but I am not going to go further than that. But I think it would be wrong of anybody to construe from that that we are likely to do so, I think it is very unlikely.
LAWS:
Okay. Prime Minister, I appreciate your time. You're in the West aren't you?
PRIME MINISTER:
I am in Perth yes. I've just been out for a walk along the lovely Swan River.
LAWS:
And isn't it a lovely river?
PRIME MINISTER:
It's a fantastic city, Perth.
LAWS:
Yes, great city. Okay, Prime Minister thank you very much for your time.
PRIME MINISTER;
Okay.
[ends]