Q5: What is our future?- Question from John Valder:

Have Australia’s long term interests been served by our involvement in the war against Iraq? What is our future as a nation if we continue our current allegiance to the US agenda at the expense of broader international relationships?

Tony Abbott; Donna Mulhearn; Peter Macdonald; John Valder; Tony Abbott 2

Tanya Plibersek: Well, the first thing I'd like to say is that, we should work with the United States whenever our interests align, and there’s no - I mean people like me who oppose the war often get called anti-US, and there’s no truth in that, I’m not anti the United States, and I recognise that there are many things about it that are terrific, and Tony has pointed out some of them: that you have the right to speak out publicly and so on. You might not have the right to a roof over your head, but that’s another matter. Wherever our interests align we should work together. What we shouldn’t be doing is going out of our way to get ourselves involved in conflicts that we shouldn’t support because they are just wrong: morally wrong, legally wrong, intellectually wrong.

We shouldn’t – we’ve got the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement coming up now, which the government won’t tell us even what’s on the table for negotiating away. Well, I’ve got, you know, I’m a supporter of freer trade, I think it’s a good thing for many developing countries to have access to new markets, but, I tell you what, I don’t think that means opening the doors and letting, you know, having a fire sale. Everything’s up for grabs: our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme’s up for grabs, our local content on television and in the film industry is up for grabs, our quarantine laws up for grabs. All of these things are intrinsic to the Australian way of life and they are things that are worth defending. So, where we can reach an agreement that has benefit for both of us, let’s reach that agreement. Let’s not give u p our decision-making authority, our ability as an independent nation to make foreign policy decisions, just because we want to be friends with the United States. I think that friendship is entrenched, I don’t think that they’re going to walk away from us tomorrow if we don’t destroy our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for the benefit of their pharmaceutical companies.

I also want to say that – have our long-term interests been served? No, I don’t think they have. I think it’s pretty clear that we are now involved in a war on terror that just didn’t exist five years ago, we are a target – the British Joint Intelligence Committee says that we are a greater target than we were before. But at the end of the day, if I believed that all of this was for a noble cause – like East Timor, I think East Timor has in fact pissed off a lot of people who live to the north of us that we took a principled stand in East Timor, but it was the right thing to do, that we’ve done in the right way, it was done in a way that involved the international community, it was done in a way that was peaceful, it was done in a way that respected the wishes of the local people, and in fact was at the urging of the local people. Maybe that’s not in our long-term best interests either, but it was the right thing to do, so our own interests are not the only factor we should consider when making these foreign policy decisions. (Applause)

Tony Abbott: Well, look, I think it’s in Australia’s long-term interests to stand up for our values and to stand by our friends. Now, if you do that, it’s not risk-free, obviously, and I don’t pretend for a second that Australia is not subject to certain risks in a difficult world. But the interesting thing is that, if the Osama Bin Laden tapes are to be believed, Australia has been a potential target of Islamist terrorists at least since the East Timor operation, and as Tanya says, that was very much in our best traditions of lending a hand to oppressed peoples wherever we can, that we did what we did in East Timor. So, look, I think it was important that Australia stand up for freedom in Iraq, I think it was important that Australia play its part in getting rid of a really evil dictator, just as it’s important that we do our part to try to help reconstruct Iraq, just as it’s important that we do what we can to try to ensure social stability, a degree of civil order, in the other countries where we can make a difference. So, I think that it is part of our obligation to our fellow human beings to do what we can, to lend a helping hand. I’m tempted to quote, Tanya, if I may … [Tanya: you can quote me any time, Tony] Tony: Non, no, someone of even more eminence, the late great Ben Chifley, who spoke of “our light on the hill, not just to make someone premier or prime minister, not just to sixpence more in people’s pockets, but to work for the betterment of mankind, not just here, but wherever we can lend a helping hand.” That was what Ben Chifley said, and I believe that whether it be in East Timor, whether it be in Iraq, or Afghanistan, whether it be in the Solomon Islands or PNG, that’s what Australia has been doing over the last few years.

Donna Mulhearn: I think Ben Chifley will be rolling in his grave. (Laughter) I think we’re in trouble. I think Australia’s long-term interests have not been served. I think - but I don’t think we needed a British intelligence report to tell us that, I think it’s common sense. Yeah, I think, talk about dumbing down, like we don’t really need a report to tell us that, because when you have a hornet’s nest in front of you and you give it a whack, you’re gonna be stung. And I believe that we have been stung, and we’re going to be stung. I think it’s got a lot to do with authenticity and truth. And, to be friends with the United States – the United States, let’s face it, is not known for its commitment to human rights. Let’s face it, so, the fact that they tried to use as a motivation for this war is pretty laughable, and the Iraqi people didn’t believe it for a minute, not for a minute did they believe that this was about liberation from a dictator. So, I think that now, I’m concerned that we’re being put into the same category as the United States. That’s a shame, because as Australians I think we do think differently and I think we are possibly more consistent on human rights, not that the current government, I believe, as I said before, had every opportunity in the world to respond to the brutality of Saddam Hussein but only did it when it was politically convenient to do so.

By the way, I’d just like to make a point on that as well, about Saddam Hussein’s regime. I think it’s a pretty good question to ask: why try to match the brutality of one regime by inflicting more suffering on a people using the same sorts of terrorism that they used. If a people have suffered, suffered terribly, and to be honest, the most suffering I saw in Iraq was due to international sanctions imposed on that country for twelve years, and it was terrible, by the United Nations, it was terrible. So they had to endure war with Iran, they had to endure the Gulf War, and the women especially used to say to me: for God’s sake, we don’t want another war. Whatever they thought of Saddam Hussein, whatever they thought about the regime, that was another matter. They would have preferred to do that themselves, to be honest, but they didn’t want another war. So why inflict suffering on a people who have suffered so much. So it really doesn’t cut it with me – I hear: he did this, he did that – the Iraqi people now are saying: well, we had one dictator, now we have a new one. I get e-mails from Baghdad every day, and it’s really, not amusing but disturbing, the way Iraqis are describing the new regime, because they call it the regime. And the members of the Coalition forces are driving round in black Mercedes with dark windows, and they say: they’re just like Saddam’s people used to do. These black Mercedes are pulling up in front of people’s houses and knocking down doors in the middle of the night and putting guns to heads, searching women, doing all sorts of inappropriate things. Just like Saddam’s people used to do, so they’re saying: what’s the difference? We still have no basic human rights, we have no dignity, we have no freedom of expression, because if anyone expresses anything against the coalition – that’s too polite a term – the invaders and occupiers, if anyone expresses anything against them, they are rounded up, interrogated, thrown into a prison, with no explanation to their families. Now that is happening today, so as far as I can observe, nothing’s really changed in Iraq, except that there’s no power or water, food, business, livelihood, and chaos on the streets and fear and suspicion. So, I think, it really doesn’t cut it, the story about Saddam’s brutality.

So, as far as Australia’s interests go, I’m just disappointed that we have lost, I believe a reputation that we might have had in the international community. When I was in Iraq, the Iraqi people were very – as Mike said – so warm and embracing, and hospitable. They loved us with such a beautiful generosi ty and it was quite overwhelming. Especially the Australians, for some reason they loved Australians, I don’t know why, but they just especially loved Aussies, and I’ve been warned that when I go back, everything has changed. Their opinion is different now and I’m really sad about that, I’m really sad, because Australian people haven’t changed, I believe that we still have this consistency and concern for other people who are in a worse situation than ourselves, so I really believe that we have lost a lot, morally, in this whole fiasco.

Peter Macdonald: Firstly, I think that, in response to this question I’d like to say that it’s been a missed opportunity for this country to define itself in a way that is specially Australian. I think that what we have done, of course, is to tie ourselves to the consequences of US foreign policy in Iraq, which is linked in with pre-emptive strikes, with a war not peace approach, the failure to conciliate in any way, and frankly a bully-boy attitude. So Australia has missed a chance to take its own position. And in fact has led us down a very dangerous path, and one which is frankly a war-like, warring pathway.
I’d just like to give you a little ditty on peace, which was written by RH Long in 1917, the time of the World War 1 days, and he said this:

“I haven’t much faith in a peace that commences
with hacking off limbs or in sniping from trenches.
Yet some say ‘tis peace that we’re now fighting for:
if this brings us peace, what on earth brings us war.”

I think it’s worth just pondering and thinking on that.

The invasion of Iraq in my view was a US response to 9/11, and as has been stated tonight by a number of us, that military action does not solve the problems of terrorism. On the other hand, it’s actually played into the hands of the terrorists, and it’s in fact, as many have said, it’s become a recruitment drive for terrorism. And it’s made the world a less safe place.

At the New York conference on terrorism last month the [UN] Secretary General, Kofi Annan said the following: “Military force against terrorist groups encourages more terrorism, and pre-emptive strikes brings us a lawless world.” This is the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan. He also said: “terrorism can only be defeated if we solve the political disputes and long-standing conflicts and grievances which generate support for it.”

I would like to state, perhaps it’s once again, that the issue of pre-emptive strikes, I believe emerges as the most worrying outcome of all from this whole debate. (Applause) It, to me it seems to fundamentally challenge the principles on which world peace and stability have been based for the last fifty years. Cold war reality of a geopolitical balance, supported by deterrence, was probably not appreciated at the time, but it did seem to bring us peace and stability. US hegemony, on the other hand, has created a whole new world order, and we’ve become part of that, and frankly we didn’t need to become part of it. I believe it calls for some good Australian wisdom and common sense. This country can define itself as a healer, a facilitator for the negotiation of compromise, and to be highly regarded on the world stage. My belief is we’ve missed that chance. (Applause)

John Valder: First of all, I would like to thank each of the speakers for their responses. Donna, if I may say, particularly yours, because you’re the only person in this room, or along with Mike Hartnell, who has actually been in Baghdad, in Iraq. The rest of us have formed our views from what we’ve read or heard, and they’ve been shaped probably around our preconceived political prejudices.

Now, Tony, I really feel I should be up there as a former Liberal Party President supporting you, but you probably know that I’m not able to on this subject, because I do disagree with you strongly, and I do propose to make one or two tough comments, but first I do wholeheartedly support Donna’s comment about you having the courage to be here tonight. (Applause) I think that very few of your colleagues would have accepted the same challenge in the way that you have, and that is to your great credit. But having said that, as I said, [Tony Abbott: You’ll get stuck into the issue properly!] I do want to make one or two comments, because I sense that our government has underestimated the strength of feeling on the issue, not juts in this room tonight, or just in this country, but right around the world on this issue. OK, for the time being the Rugby World Cup is more important than what is happening in Iraq, and the Caulfield Cup, and the couple of fellows from the United States and China later in the week. But let’s not underestimate the enormity of what’s happened in Iraq.

Tony referred to September the 11th and what an atrocity it was, and it was – I hope I never live to see a single atrocity as dreadful as that one was, but I’m afraid the coalition of the willing has inflicted on Iraq a much greater atrocity. As Donna said, bombs raining down and missiles night and day all around the clock. I remember at one point during the war, and not at the end of the war, the United States proudly claiming that it had fired more than a million missiles into Iraq. Does that compare with September 11 – I’m afraid it doesn’t. What I think we should all bear in mind is where this might end, and it might not end very pleasantly for the coalition of the willing. As we all know, there’s a Presidential Election in the United States in almost exactly twelve months time. Now, politicians in the United States are rather fond of trying to indict Presidents of the opposite political party for whatever reason. People have been indicted; Presidents have been indicted for much lesser crimes than what we have just seen this last year in Iraq. I don’t say this is going to happen, but in the twelve months running up to an election there must be quite a conceivable possibility of George Bush facing indictment for what he’s done in Iraq, for the reason that he led the coalition of the willing, with our country, with the British government, in their … on what, I think everybody agrees tonight, except perhaps Tony, was false premises.

It was all about weapons of mass destruction. Your prime minister, your foreign minister and countless others bellowed and trumpeted it from the rooftops, about these wicked weapons of mass destruction, and how Saddam Hussein was going to have the power to rain missiles onto the United States itself, and feed them to terrorists. Now, of course, these things were never checked out, despite Hans Blix and others, and of course in the end it’s found that that premise is entirely false. I’m not going to subscribe to conspiracy theories as to what the other reasons for invading Iraq were, but that without any shadow of a doubt, weapons of ma ss destruction was first and foremost.

Now Saddam Hussein might have fallen, everybody says that’s a good thing. I would like to go to Iraq myself with Donna, and in fact I said to my wife just at the weekend, “we really ought to think of going to Iraq, to see for ourselves, because I just wonder if the people of Iraq today find life more or less bearable than it was under Saddam Hussein.” I don’t know, but as Donna has said there’s huge evidence to suggest that.

So what happens if George Bush does face an indictment, where does that leave the British Government and Tony Blair, and our government and our prime minister? Not in a very comfortable position – they may not be indicted, but I can see political parties in Britain and Australia perhaps raising the spectre of war crimes charges being levelled against them. (Applause) … I appreciate your response to that. I’m not saying that is going to happen, but for the first time, we have a prime minister who has put this country at risk of being branded a war criminal. And that is why, Tony, I think your government is underestimating the enormity of what’s happened in Iraq, and on false premises.

And it really does worry me, you or somebody mentioned, Donna was it, about human rights – couple that with what’s happened in human rights in this country since the people overboard and all sorts of events right through to the present time, the two Australians held in Guantanamo Bay. There is a total disregard it seems by this government, really, for human rights. I understand there's citizens of forty-two nations in Guantanamo Bay, and forty of those forty-two nations have all protested bitterly to the United States about that. Two haven’t: Australia is one of them, I don’t know who the other one is. (Audience members; China) Is it China? So here we have this situation, and Tony, I have to say to you, really as a friend, it is an appalling situation, and it’s not too late for your government to make amends.

Thank you very much. (Applause)

Tony Abbott: Well, John, I’d love to make it up to you in some way, but I suspect that there’s nothing that I could do or say, or that John Howard could do or say, that would satisfy you short of repudiating everything that’s been done. And I don’t do that. [Genia: please let him finish] I don’t do that. I don’t pretend for a second that what the Australian government and other governments did in Iraq was popular. I don’t necessarily expect that it will be popular in the future, but I think it was right. I think it was a bitter necessity, and if in the end this government and indeed its members are judged critically, harshly, and condemned by a voting public, well, let that be our fate. That’s the whole point of democracy. Governments are elected, they do what they think is right, and then they subject themselves to the verdict of the people at t he ballot box. We have responsible government. As Edmund Burke said to the electors of Bristol all those years ago: “I owe you my judgement, not my obedience.” I think the electors of Bristol actually turfed him out eventually, but the fact is he expressed well the fundamental principle at the heart of responsible government. This government is responsible to the Australian people, and the Australian people will pass judgement on it.

Genia McCaffrey: Now our final question is from Lyn Macpherson …

© NSPD 2003. Last modified 22/10/03.