Speeches
at The Sydney Institute
6pm Monday 17 February 2003
The Spread of Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Weapons: Tackling the Greatest Threat to Global Security - The Sum of All Our Fears
Introduction
Ladies and gentlemen
It is a pleasure to be back here at the Sydney Institute.
We all know the contribution the Institute has made as a forum for debating public policy, including foreign affairs.
We know, too, of the role of Gerard Henderson, backed up in no small way by Anne Henderson, in establishing and developing the Institute to the forum it is today.
So it is an honour to have been invited here this evening.
_______________________
Ladies and gentlemen
Today, terrorism and the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons pose the greatest threat of all to our security.
Nuclear, chemical and biological weapons are now in the hands of maverick states - states that have little regard for the clear international consensus against such weapons established since World War II.
If we don't act, we face a 21st century afflicted by dangerous and unaccountable dictators armed with nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
And those same weapons now risk spreading further, beyond rogue states, to terrorist groups.
Unlike states, terrorist groups do not want nuclear, chemical or biological weapons for prestige, power, or for deterring others.
Terrorist groups want nuclear, chemical and biological weapons so that they can use them.
They want to tear down the structures of civil society - government, industry, community - in liberal democracies such as ours.
And they care not a whit for innocent lives: they are happy to kill and maim as many civilians as they can in pursuit of their extreme agendas.
After the terror of September 11 in New York and October 12 in Bali we can clearly see that the only encumbrance on the atrocities of these terrorists will be the weapons available to them.
I remember as a young boy the anxiety - even in a primary school on the other side of the world - created by the Cuban missile crisis in 1962.
There was a genuine fear of a nuclear exchange between the United States and the Soviet Union.
Today, the thought that rogue states might use nuclear, chemical and biological weapons has become a new public fear.
And because nuclear, chemical or biological weapons might fall into the hands of terrorists, we have even more reason to be fearful.
____________________
Ladies and gentlemen
Australia's position on the threat posed by Iraq's weapons programs is a logical progression of our consistent and long standing activism against proliferation.
Australia has invested much to address proliferation - over many years.
In 1996 we acted as midwife to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty - one of my first and proudest achievements as Minister for Foreign Affairs.
We played an important role in the success of the 2000 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference.
Our strong response to Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests in 1998 included the imposition of economic and other sanctions.
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.
All of you will remember the history of French nuclear testing in the South Pacific.
When French President Chirac came to power in 1995, one of his first acts was to lift the moratorium on nuclear testing.
We launched vigorous campaign to oppose President Chirac's decision.
Our record builds on that of previous governments, and on the efforts of my predecessors …
… 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.
The lesson of Iraq, and the risk of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons falling into the hands of terrorists, is that we must be much more aggressive in dealing with proliferation.
In short, we have to put the cork back in the bottle. How do we do this?
First, we have to face up to those maverick states that continue to cheat. We must be prepared to enforce the will of the international community.
Iraq now presents a crucial test of our resolve. (I'll return to the Iraqi challenge in a moment.)
Second, we have to support and strengthen established multilateral arms control and non-proliferation arrangements.
These include the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and the Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions.
Third, we need to strengthen export control regimes governing trade in materials and technology that might contribute to nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
Fourth, we have to extend our information sharing and intelligence cooperation with allies and partners. This is well underway.
Finally, we need to address proliferation issues much more actively and directly with those countries that we are concerned about. North Korea is a good example of our recent efforts.
Iraq
Ladies and gentlemen
Iraq's pursuit of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons has been a key Australian concern for almost 20 years.
In the mid 1980s Australia played an essential role in founding the Australia Group after Iraq used chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war, killing many thousands of Iranians in the most horrific way.
96 Australian peacekeepers took part in the UN peacekeeping mission from 1988 to 1990, to maintain the truce along the Iran-Iraq border after the end of that senseless war that saw a million people killed.
Then, after Iraq invaded Kuwait at the end of 1990, Australian forces participated in the liberation of Kuwait, in what we called the Gulf War.
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 - programs that the Security Council resolved to have destroyed as part of the peace settlement.
One hundred and ten Australians served with UNSCOM, UNMOVIC's predecessor, from 1991 to 1998 - making Australia the fourth largest national contributor to international efforts aimed at verifying that disarmament.
Today, after the demise of UNSCOM, 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 - pressure Saddam to cooperate with the Security Council.
None of these efforts were undertaken on a whim, and all enjoyed bipartisan support.
Why? Because successive governments have concluded that stopping Iraq, and other countries, from acquiring nuclear, chemical and biological weapons is key to ensuring our security.
Ladies and gentlemen
This past weekend many Australians - in legitimate, peaceful protest - have voiced their concern about a war with Iraq.
We respect their opinions - indeed, the Government shares the desire of Australians for a peaceful end to the situation in Iraq.
It remains our aim to work with our friends and allies, through the UN Security Council, for such an outcome.
But we have a responsibility to deal with the facts, and the facts speak for themselves.
Iraq, through its efforts to amass nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, threatens its neighbours and the Middle East region.
And by thumbing its nose at the repeated efforts of the international community, through the United Nations Security Council, Iraq is undermining global security.
Saddam Hussein has said himself that he is simply playing for time, so that public opinion might itself undermine the resolve of the US and UK governments.
I think he will find that the resolve of the United States and United Kingdom, along with the vast majority of the international community, is that we can't continue the status quo.
The ambitious international effort to contain Iraq since 1991 has failed.
Containment of Iraq was an effort not just to deter Saddam Hussein from acquiring, possessing or using nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, but also to deny him such weapons.
Such an effort required two things: first, that the international community, through the United Nations, act collectively, and second, that Iraq cooperate, in ensuring international security.
As we have seen, the first of these requirements has been met with only limited success.
And the second of these requirements - Iraq's compliance - clearly has not been met.
Iraq has refused to back up claims that it has destroyed its stocks of chemical and biological weapons since the Gulf War.
When UNSCOM left Iraq at the end of 1998, inspectors were unable to account for a substantial arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, including:
o 360 tonnes of bulk chemical warfare agent
o 1.5 tonnes of VX nerve agent
o up to 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals
o enough growth media to produce 25,500 litres of anthrax spores
o and over 30,000 special munitions.
Indeed, we know from UNSCOM's experiences that Saddam hid these stocks and programs from inspections.
That was over four years ago.
Today, UNMOVIC has identified further Iraqi chemical and biological weapons unaccounted for, including:
- 6,500 chemical bombs, with about 1,000 tonnes of chemical agents
- a number of 122mm chemical rocket warheads
- laboratory quantities of thio-di-glycol, a precursor for mustard gas
- indications that VX agent has been weaponised
- two types of missiles - the Al Samoud and the Al Fatah - that exceed the permitted range of 150km.
We know Iraq has produced mustard, sarin, VX and tabun chemical agents, and the means for delivering them.
We know Iraq has produced anthrax, botulinum toxin, aflatoxins and ricin biological agents, and the means for delivering them.
In short, Iraq has a record of amassing chemical and biological weapons - and we know Saddam has also sought to develop nuclear weapons.
Indeed, Iraq has used its chemical weapons - against Iran, and against its own Kurdish citizens in the 1980s.
The casualties from at least 10 occasions when Saddam's forces used chemical weapons are estimated to be at least 25,000.
As UNMOVIC Chairman Dr Blix told the Security Council on 27 January, "Iraq does not appear to have come to genuine acceptance, not even today" of the need to disarm.
US Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the UN Security Council on 5 February provided further, deeply troubling and compelling evidence that Iraq is not cooperating with UN inspections.
And the latest reports from Dr Blix and IAEA Director-General Dr El Baradei last Friday again demonstrate that Iraq, even at this late hour, remains in significant breach of the requirements of the UN Security Council.
As Dr Blix has stated, weapons inspections can only achieve their objective of Iraqi disarmament if "immediate, active and unconditional cooperation with UNMOVIC and the IAEA were to be forthcoming."
Dr Blix has made it perfectly clear: - the key to successful inspections is not more time or more inspectors. Indeed, the international community has already set up a robust inspections regime, as embodied in Resolution 1441.
The task for now is not to enhance that regime, but to ensure that Iraq cooperates with that regime. This clearly requires an immediate change of attitude on the part of Iraq. We must heed Blix's message, and we must do so quickly.
Resolution 1441 did not demand partial compliance or limited compliance. It demanded full compliance. This is what the Security Council must focus on.
Yes the Security Council could give Iraq more time. Yes we could wait until March; we could wait until April; we could wait until Christmas. But what if - as is likely given Iraq's track record - Iraq still has not complied? The Security Council is left with the same fundamental problem. What to do about Iraqi non-cooperation.
In the Government's view the Security Council should not be waiting forever. Either Iraq has complied or hasn't. This is what the Security Council must confront soon. And one of its options will be to consider a further resolution that deals decisively with Iraq's failure to comply with Resolution 1441.
Australia's Permanent Representative to the United Nations will make that point to the Security Council in an open debate on this issue tomorrow.
Any delays and divisions in the Security Council will only play into Iraq's hands and must therefore be avoided at all costs.
If the Security Council is unable to assert its own authority, then that will be detrimental to the prospects for Iraqi disarmament.
Moreover, it also will have a long lasting and negative impact on the standing of the Security Council itself.
We are at the point where the cat and mouse games of the past decade must end.
Only a complete turnaround in Saddam's attitude, leading to the full disarmament of Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, will prevent action forcibly to disarm Iraq.
_________________________
Terrorism
Ladies and gentlemen
We are dangerously close to nuclear, chemical and biological weapons falling into the hands of so-called non-state actors - in other words, terrorists.
This is especially the case for the so-called poor man's nuclear bomb - chemical and biological weapons.
We have to consider the probability of regimes such as Saddam Hussein's passing the expertise, technology and materials for nuclear, chemical and biological weapons to terrorist groups.
Iraq's links with terrorists are clear.
Iraq has a long history of state-sponsored terrorism. It supports terrorist organisations such as the Mujahedin-e Khalq and Palestinian Liberation Front.
Iraq even provides cash incentives for suicide/homicide bombings in Israel.
Al-Qaida operatives are - or have been - in Baghdad, putting Iraq in breach of UN Security Council Resolutions prohibiting safehavens for terrorists.
Last week Osama bin Laden called on his followers in Iraq to defeat the enemy, applying his self-evident principle that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
We know that terrorist groups are seeking nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
Documents and laboratories seized in Afghanistan show that al-Qaida has considered developing chemical and biological weapons.
Osama bin Laden has declared openly that he would use such weapons if he had them.
Already we are seeing evidence of the trend to weapons that could maim and kill thousands, rather than tens or hundreds, of innocent civilians.
Al-Qaida tried to gain access to crop dusters and hazardous chemicals in the United States in 2001. And last month police linked the discovery of the deadly ricin toxin to suspected terrorists in the United Kingdom.
While there is no evidence to suggest that terrorist groups have acquired nuclear weapons, recent reports suggest that groups linked to al-Qaida may have constructed a radiation dispersal device - or so-called "dirty bomb".
Terrorists are not bound by the constraints - deterrence, denial and containment - to which even maverick states can be subject.
The only constraints on terrorists are the resources at their disposal to kill, maim and terrify innocent civilian populations.
The only thing that stopped the terrorists in Bali from killing more people was the amount of explosives and the size of the van they used.
It would be foolish, therefore, to deny the potential link between the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons - a major threat in itself - and terrorism.
The combination of these two developments would constitute the ultimate horror.
_________________________
Ladies and gentlemen
It is easy to say that we should disarm Iraq peacefully. But it hasn't happened, despite our best efforts, for 12 years.
War, of course, remains an option of last resort. We are still working with our allies to avoid such a course.
And should the use of force be required, our strong preference remains that the UN Security Council pass a further resolution.
In that scenario, of course, it may be the case that Iraq grasps its last chance for peace and accepts the will of the international community.
The central point, however, is that the international community must act. Saddam Hussein must be disarmed.
What of the alternative? What would be the consequences of a failure to act - of doing nothing and hoping that the problem will somehow go away? This is a point the weekend demonstrators need to address.
Well, first, failure to take action would be a humiliation of the United Nations. It would undermine the concept of collective security, and years of efforts through the UN Security Council to disarm Iraq.
Ironically, it would also make a mockery of the support for the United Nations, in particular those who regard it as the only legitimate vehicle for achieving and maintaining peace and stability.
Second, failure to take action would be a massive set-back for the United States and its allies, and our consistent and determined efforts to disarm Iraq and stop the proliferation rot.
What kind of message would a failure to take action with respect to Iraq send to North Korea? The answer, of course, is a message that proliferation won't be stopped.
And what authority would the Security Council have as it tries to rein-in North Korea's nuclear aspirations? The answer is, none.
Third, failure to take action would enhance Saddam's power and prestige, and boost Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons aspirations.
Iraq could become the dominant power in the Middle East, and the region would become even less stable than it is today.
And Iraq's people, especially the Shia and Kurdish minorities, would suffer more than ever before under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein.
Fourth, a failure to take action would raise the very real prospect that, one day soon, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons systems will find their way into the hands of terrorists.
That would be a devastating blow - the sum of all our fears.
Conclusion
Ladies and gentlemen
I reflected earlier on my childhood memories of the Cuban missile crisis. Those reflections were triggered by the current crisis.
One of my departmental staff told me a story the other day about his little boy, a seven year old.
The boy asked about weapons of mass destruction. He said they had been talked about in the playground at school.
The boy went on to ask what would have happened if the terrorists in Bali had used such weapons, instead of a car bomb.
It is disturbing enough that our young children should have such a sophisticated understanding of threats to our security.
It is worse still that they should have such thoughts occupy their minds and imaginations, even in a playground at school.
We owe it to them that such thoughts can be banished, and that they can be left to indulge their innocence and youth.
We must stop the spread of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons to countries such as Iraq.
These are countries that that flout international norms to develop such weapons, and then threaten their neighbours and blackmail the international community in owning them.
Only then can we consider that the threat of terrorists armed with nuclear, chemical and biological weapons - the ultimate nightmare - has also been diminished.
Only then, too, can we consider that the threat of proliferation is diminished in the minds of everyone, and that no one should have to experience the fear of random, massive and senseless attacks.
Thank you.