Speech
Parliament House
4 February, 2003
Statement to Parliament on Iraq
Mr Speaker,
International efforts to deal with the threat posed by Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction are at a critical juncture.
Today I want to elaborate on the Prime Minister's statement - why we must be part of the international effort to deal with this problem, and why the international community must not fail.
Why Australians should be concerned
Mr Speaker,
There is no greater threat to our common future than the spread of nuclear weapons and their budget counterparts, chemical and biological weapons.
Australia's concern for weapons of mass destruction is not new.
Australia has invested much in pursuing non-proliferation - over many years, and involving many governments.
The Howard Government has played its part.
In 1996 we acted as midwife to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
We played a critical role in the success of the 2000 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference.
We worked tirelessly to promote a verification mechanism for the Biological Weapons Convention.
And we are playing a major role in efforts to start negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty.
Our record builds on that of previous governments …
… in establishing the Australia Group to stop the export of chemical and biological precursors …
…in bringing the NPT and the Chemical Weapons Convention into being …
and in addressing the proliferation of missiles and missile technologies.
Mr Speaker,
The same is true for Iraq.
Australia's activism against Saddam's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction has been just as longstanding.
In the mid 1980s Australia led the formation of the Australia Group after Iraq used chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war, killing many thousands of Iranians in the most horrific way.
But the concern and involvement of successive Australian Governments did not stop there.
Australian forces participated in the liberation of Kuwait.
Since 1991 the Navy has helped enforce UN sanctions to stop the flow of goods that could be used to revive Saddam's WMD programs.
One hundred and ten Australians served with UNSCOM, UNMOVIC's predecessor, from 1991 to 1998 - the fourth largest national contributor.
Today a number of Australians have continued this proud tradition, serving with both UNMOVIC and the IAEA as weapons inspectors.
In 1998 we sent military forces to the Gulf to do precisely what we are trying to do now - convince Saddam to cooperate with the Security Council.
None of these efforts were undertaken on a whim. All enjoyed bipartisan support - by us in opposition, and by colleagues opposite when they were in government.
Why? Because successive governments have concluded that stopping Iraq, and other countries, from acquiring weapons of mass destruction is key to ensuring our security.
If we allow countries in other parts of the world to develop weapons of mass destruction, then these weapons will turn up in our own neighbourhood.
If Iraq is allowed to develop weapons of mass destruction, what message does it send to countries like North Korea?
This is why it's wrong to argue that we are focusing on Iraq at the expense of other issues, including North Korea.
We are in fact focusing on both -- they are manifestations of the same problem that, at this stage, require different approaches.
Mr Speaker,
Do we really need to remind ourselves of the effects of these awful weapons?
Do we really need to look again at pictures of children that died in their mothers' arms in the Iraqi town of Halabja, when Saddam massacred 5,000 ethnic Kurds using chemical weapons?
Do we really need to be reminded that just a few drops of VX on the skin can cause rapid death?
And do we really need to consider what might happen if these weapons fell into the hands of terrorists?
We know from two unnecessary wars Saddam started - against Iran and against Kuwait - that he is malevolent. And we know he remains a strong backer of terrorist organisations.
Can we really sit back and accept the risk that this threat poses?
Mr Speaker,
There are other compelling reasons behind why we feel so strongly about this issue.
Our alliance with the United States is one of them.
But the idea that our position on Iraq reflects some kind of blind loyalty to the United States is wrong.
Equally I do not assert that all those who oppose the position the Americans have taken on Iraq are driven by a blind hatred of the United States.
This Government will always act in accordance with Australia's national interest.
Let us be clear.
Australia and the United States share alliance commitments and obligations, and we benefit greatly from the influence we have in Washington, which enables us to help shape international approaches.
Moreover, we also share common values and interests - and we value US global leadership in defending and promoting them.
Let me quote British Prime Minister Tony Blair - a Labor leader with conviction and strength - on the relationship the UK Government has with the US:
"I will defend that relationship absolutely and solidly because I think it is important for us and the wider world. I do not think it right that the US is made to face these issues alone. They are important issues and the world community has a responsibility to meet them."
What we must do
Mr Speaker,
The question today is less whether Saddam is guilty of trying to hide his weapons of mass destruction - we know he is. Or why this matters to Australia - we know it does.
The real question today is what we - the international community - are going to do about it.
Critics portray the situation as being a choice between giving the inspectors more time - of "giving peace a chance" - or going to war against Iraq.
But this is a false distinction.
More time on its own does not give peace a chance. But it will give Saddam a chance -- a chance to renege again on his obligations to the Security Council, and a chance to keep hiding his WMD capabilities, until he again can threaten us.
We do not want war. Quite the contrary. I am all for giving Saddam more time, if this leads to his disarmament.
But it will not do so while Saddam continues his current pattern of deception and contempt for the UN.
The UN inspectors' job is to verify that what Saddam is telling them about his WMD programs is true - not to find a needle in a a haystack.
They have not been able to do so - and will never be able to do so - unless and until Saddam cooperates.
Because war is so abhorrent - military force must only be used when all other options have been exhausted - we should give him some more time.
But not time for inspectors to wander fruitlessly in the desert. Time, instead, for Saddam to demonstrate - and not just say - that he will cooperate; fully, forthrightly and actively.
Mr Speaker,
The world is asking some very reasonable and pertinent questions of Saddam.
Just what have you done with at least 8,500 litres of biological warfare agent that your officials told inspectors you had?
What have you done with 650 kg of biological growth media - enough to produce 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax?
Why are you lying about your production of VX, one of the most lethal chemical agents known?
What have you done with 6,500 chemical weapon munitions that your documents say you had, but which you have never declared?
And why are you making missiles that exceed the range allowed for under UN resolutions?
Australia's role
Mr Speaker
In Resolution 1441 the international community explicitly gave Saddam yet another - and final - chance.
We have supported, all along, a leading role for the United Nations in addressing this threat.
We have encouraged the US Administration to pursue the issue through the UN.
To those who accuse us of backing US unilateralism, I would say that in Europe last week I worked to extend the coalition of concerned countries.
I met the French and German foreign ministers, the EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy Javier Solana, and EU Commissioner for External Relations Chris Patten.
I also met the Secretary-General of the Arab League, Amr Mousa.
This comes in addition to recent consultations with key partners in our region.
I can say to you that we are not alone, either in our concern or in our preparedness, ultimately, to act if necessary
Our military pre-deployment in the Gulf is to demonstrate to Saddam that the international community - not just one or two countries - is serious about his compliance with UN resolutions.
This decision has been criticised strongly by the leader of the Opposition. But let me again quote a strong Labor leader in explaining his Government's pre-deployment of over 30,000 troops:
"…alongside the diplomacy, there must be genuine preparedness and planning to take action if diplomacy fails."
The Security Council should remain at the heart of any steps the international community takes on Iraq, including military action, which we would prefer be authorised by a second UN resolution.
We therefore welcome the US call for a meeting of the Security Council on 5 February, to consider further evidence of Iraq's failure to meet its UN obligations.
There is now considerable onus on the members of the Security Council.
If they do not - or cannot - act to ensure compliance with Resolution 1441, they will damage not only the trust the international community places in them, but also the very institution they serve.
The unanimous passage of Resolution 1441 led us all to expect that the Security Council would work to resolve this issue, once and for all. They must not allow us to be disappointed.
Mr Speaker,
After the second World War we said we would never again allow monsters such as Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo to commit acts of barbarism at home, and aggression abroad.
We said we knew the wisdom of the saying that those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.
Yet we have not done well, particularly since the end of the Cold War.
We allowed the slaughter of one million people in Rwanda - the international community did not intervene until it was too late.
We allowed slaughter in Bosnia and again, the international community did not intervene until it was too late.
We allowed President Milosovic to murder Kosovars until the US-led coalition of the willing put a stop to it.
We have acted in Kosovo, in East Timor and in Afghanistan to redress the balance. Although imperfect, these actions represent critical steps in protecting the victims of barbarity.
And yet still many - particularly on the political left - shrug and say that the murder, torture, and rape of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis - by their own rulers - should go unchecked.
And they would trust Saddam not to repeat his use of chemical weapons on his own people and neighbours.
Mr Speaker,
I cannot in conscience ignore the record of Saddam Hussein is a ruthless tyrant who tries still - in the face of concerted international pressure - to retain and develop the most evil of weapons.
As the Foreign Minister of our great country, I will not be remembered for turning my back on such evil and allowing the spectre of Saddam to haunt future generations.
…ends…