Crean argued that Labor's policy had been clear and consistent since April 2002. He said: "Australia should be getting behind the United Nations and ensuring firstly that a war can be avoided. But, secondly, if it can't be avoided, that no action is supported against Iraq unless sanctioned by the UN Security Council. Australia, in particular, should not be backing any US-led individual action against Iraq."
The Labor leader left open the possibility of support for unilateral US action in the event of a UN Security Council veto. Any of the permanent members of the Security Council can veto proposals that come before it. China's attitude is seen as crucial. Crean said: "That's the interesting caveat, and I think that that always has to be kept in mind. The UN could find itself in circumstances in which there is very strong support, based on the evidence that Saddam Hussein still has weapons, but a UN Security Council resolution can't be passed because one of the permanent members vetoes it. In those circumstances, I'm saying that we should consider those facts at the time. But the principal positions that should guide us is, only support for action authorised by the United Nations, not being supportive of US-led unilateral action."
Crean's position has received cautious support from his critics, including former shadow ministers Laurie Brereton and Carmen Lawrence.
This is the transcript of Simon Crean's doorstop interview in Melbourne on January 15, 2003.
CREAN:
Australia should not be preparing for a war with Iraq. Australia should be getting behind the United Nations and ensuring firstly that a war can be avoided. But, secondly, if it can't be avoided, that no action is supported against Iraq unless sanctioned by the UN Security Council. Australia, in particular, should not be backing any US-led individual action against Iraq.
JOURNALIST:
Why is that?
CREAN:
The reason for this is that the United Nations has carried unanimously a resolution – Resolution 1441 – calling for the weapons inspectors to go back in. The fact that people said that the UN wouldn't have the authority has been proven incorrect. The weapons inspectors are in there. They have to report by the 27th of January. There have been suggestions that they may need more time. If they need more time, they should be given more time. As for Mr Blix saying that there's no ‘smoking gun', it's important to indicate that the ‘no smoking gun' related to evidence of any new programs. What Saddam Hussein still has to do is to convince the United Nations that he has disarmed in relation to chemical and biological weapons that were established that he had back in the ‘90s. Now, this is a very delicate exercise. It's one that has to be pursued properly through the United Nations, and through the United Nations alone.
JOURNALIST:
Is Mr Howard too anxious to fall in line with his friend Mr Bush?
CREAN:
He always has been, and I think it's a serious error of judgement. Of course he has to maintain the strength of the alliance with the US, but that doesn't mean doing everything they want. A strong ally means that you can use that influence to in turn urge the United States to get behind the UN. We shouldn't be supporting US-led unilateral action. We should only be acting in accordance with what the United Nations determines. What we're talking about here is, potentially, young men and women being asked to put their lives at risk. This is a serious matter. It's one that we have to avoid at all costs if we can. But if, in fact, the UN decides and determines on the evidence before it that Saddam Hussein is not complying with the UN resolution then, of course, it's up to the UN to determine what course of action should be pursued, and Australia should be prepared to support the United Nations. This is a clear-cut issue. We'll support the United Nations, but we won't support US-led unilateral action.
JOURNALIST:
What happens in the case of a veto?
CREAN:
That's the interesting caveat, and I think that that always has to be kept in mind. The UN could find itself in circumstances in which there is very strong support, based on the evidence that Saddam Hussein still has weapons, but a UN Security Council resolution can't be passed because one of the permanent members vetoes it. In those circumstances, I'm saying that we should consider those facts at the time. But the principal positions that should guide us is, only support for action authorised by the United Nations, not being supportive of US-led unilateral action.
JOURNALIST:
What kind of a message does it send to the international community that Australia is preparing the troops?
CREAN:
I think it sends a bad signal. I think it was inappropriate that our troops, as the Prime Minister indicated last Friday, will be deployed to the Iraq theatre. I don't argue at all with our troops still being sent to support the War against Terror, and it's important to make that distinction. John Howard tries to make the link between the War against Terror and the campaign in Iraq. No such case has been made. And, of course, if such a case were made, then the circumstances would change. But no such case has been made. So it's inappropriate to be deploying any of our troops or any of our support by troops for a potential war against Iraq ahead of any determination by the United Nations.
JOURNALIST:
You've been criticised in the past weeks for not making Labor's position about Iraq clear. Do you feel that this is a definitive policy statement now?
CREAN:
Our position has been clear. I think what's changed is that the Prime Minister's action last Friday has been the wrong decision – a decision that he says he wants a diplomatic solution and he wants to back the United Nations, but he's already prepared to deploy forces. That's what's wrong about his decision. Labor's position has been consistent – that is, we will support the United Nations, but we won't support US-led military action.
JOURNALIST:
Do you think that your statement will appease your critics, even within the party that have suggested that you have been a little weak on the subject?
CREAN:
Well, those critics are wrong and they have misread, themselves, what Labor's policy is. Our position has been consistent since April – that's support for the UN – and we adhere to that. What's changed, of course, is the strengthened hand of the UN by virtue of the unanimous resolution. An interim statement by the head of the UN weapons inspection team that says, essentially, that they might need more time. And thirdly, the decision by the Prime Minister to say, ahead of the United Nations' determination, that he is prepared to deploy troops. He shouldn't. It's not in Australia's interests, and it's certainly not in the interests of securing a lasting settlement under the auspices of the United Nations.
JOURNALIST:
Can I ask on one other issue? The English cricket team will play in Zimbabwe. What do you feel about the Australians playing there?
CREAN:
Well, I'm very disappointed with the decision of England and the England Cricket Board to say that they're going to participate in cricket in Zimbabwe. I think that the Prime Minister needs to explain what steps and what efforts he made to urge the boycotting of the tour in Zimbabwe. He, after all, was part of a trio arising from CHOGM that argued that Zimbabwe should be expelled from the Commonwealth. He, correctly, last week said that all efforts diplomatically should be used to ensure that the tour does not proceed. And, whilst the English Cricket Board decision is disappointing, the key question here is, what political pressure has been brought to bear in getting the respective cricket authorities to support what we all believe should occur, and that is the tour occurring elsewhere.
JOURNALIST:
John Howard had floated the idea of compensation, what do you think about that?
CREAN:
Well, look, what he's got to do is just to work harder at convincing people of the merit of playing it somewhere else. And I think it's also the question of doing it earlier. The problem with the Prime Minister is that he is always doing things at the last minute, and not terribly effectively and this is another example of that failure on his part. Now, I would urge him to use every effort possible to get a reconsideration. Mr Blair, as I understand it, is not supportive of the tour proceeding in Zimbabwe. There is significant political clout there to effect a change, and that's what they should be about doing.
JOURNALIST:
Returning to Iraq, Mr Crean, do you feel that you are now in step with the mood of the nation?
CREAN:
The overwhelming majority of Australians don't want a war with Iraq, and they are of the view that the United Nations processes that are in train have the potential to avoid that war. They don't want to see their sons and daughters put in the position in which they might have to go off and fight a war that can be avoided. But they do understand the importance of the international rule of law and the United Nations' authority being upheld. My firm conviction is that the vast majority of Australians want a resolution to this matter. They want it through the United Nations, and their belief and hope and wish is that that can be achieved diplomatically without going to war. I'm of the view that that can be achieved, and if I were the Prime Minister of this country I would be arguing very strongly and leaving no stone unturned to achieve that outcome. That's what the current Prime Minister should be doing. He's not doing it strongly enough. And to be deploying troops in advance of the UN decision is a totally inappropriate call in the current circumstances.
JOURNALIST:
How do you think Australia should respond to Korea's decision to pull out of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty?
CREAN:
It should respond strongly by urging North Korea to reconsider that position. It again should be using the authority and the influence of the international agencies; the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency. It should be using its diplomatic presence in North Korea – one of the few countries that still has one – to put pressure on the North Koreans.
But it should be taking a leadership role in the region by re-establishing the Canberra Commission, a Labor initiative back in 1995, to address this broader question of the threat to our region from nuclear weapons proliferation and how we can achieve nuclear disarmament in the region. What we want is to secure our region, secure and in peace, and we can achieve that through diplomatic means, and the Government should be working harder at achieving that outcome. It's not appropriate simply to send officials. It needs a political involvement. And the Foreign Minister and, if need be, the Prime Minister should be making those representations. We've got to work harder at it. And see this is a consistent position, this is saying that the solution lies through the international body, through the United Nations, to strengthen its hand. Underpin its authority, don't go it alone. You won't achieve the results alone, you'll only achieve them sensibly and constructively if you do it collectively through the United Nations. That's what we've got to get behind, whether it's Iraq, whether it's North Korea or whether, quite frankly, it's the issues to deal with environmental sustainability in terms of the planet.
This is the transcript of Simon Crean's interview with Philip Clark on Sydney radio 2GB on January 15, 2003.
CLARK:
The Australian Labor Party has all but ruled out support for military action against Iraq without the backing of the United Nations. It's really nailed its colours to the UN mast. Labor Party Leader Simon Crean appears to have hardened his position on Iraq just a week after ALP powerbroker Laurie Brereton accused his party of failing to set out a clear position on the matter.
Mr Crean doesn't think Australia should be preparing for a war, but we should be supporting UN weapons inspections rather than deploying troops. Well, as I mentioned earlier, the stable door is open, isn't it? Mr Howard has already dispatched some defence forces to the Gulf.
Mr Crean thinks that if military action can't be avoided, then the only action we should support is that sanctioned by the UN Security Council. Mr Crean joins me on the line this afternoon. Mr Crean, good afternoon.
CREAN:
Hi, Philip.
CLARK:
So in essence your position is that unless the Security Council agrees to go to war with Iraq, we should not be involved in any military action?
CREAN:
That's correct, and that's because of the unanimity with which Resolution 1441 was reached – that's the one that set up the UN's weapons inspectors – and it's in the context of the Prime Minister saying that he believes that the UN should be allowed to do its work but, nevertheless, we're going to start deploying troops anyway. I think that's the inappropriate response. Now, I do …
CLARK:
I mean, this is the bind that you're in, though, isn't it? I mean, we've got troops there. I mean, if there is a hot war, if conflict develops, they'll be involved. And then, as Opposition Leader, in essence you'd be bound to support them, wouldn't you?
CREAN:
We've got troops in the Gulf essentially for two reasons. One is enforcing economic sanctions, which are consistent with a previous UN resolution. And the others are those are those that are deployed in relation to Afghanistan. And it was interesting yesterday in terms of the planes that were being sent. They were linked with the continuing War on Terror, not the Gulf War, not the …
CLARK:
Not the war in Iraq, you mean?
CREAN:
Not the war in Iraq.
CLARK:
Yes, but the continuing War on Terror means just that, doesn't it?
CREAN:
Well, that's what John Howard wants you to believe. He wants you to believe there's a link between the two, but no one has established that link.
CLARK:
No, but Mr Crean, what I'm saying is that, well, we can debate the niceties of it here, but isn't the difficulty you're going to be faced with – not definitely, but possibly going to be faced with – is this, that there will be a hot conflict with Iraq which British and US forces will be involved in and Australia will be lending support to those forces? We will be involved?
CREAN:
I have a different view, and that is that the war can be avoided. It can be avoided if the UN authority is enforced, a UN authority that has the unanimous backing of all of its members that voted on Resolution 1441. Now if, in fact, it's got that unanimity then clearly those same people have got to be given the opportunity to consider the report backed by the weapons inspectors, and not for action to be pre-emptively taken, but to allow the UN to run its course. That's my argument …
CLARK:
Yes, no, I understand the argument. I suppose I'm asking this question: what is your response going to be, though, in the situation which could easily occur that the United States and Britain decide to go ahead anyway. Australian forces, as you know, are already there. They would be lending assistance. I mean, in essence you'd be forced to either not support the Australian forces there, or lend them support, wouldn't you?
CREAN:
No, my argument is that we should not be …
CLARK:
No, I know what the argument was, but what about this situation, which is a developing one, isn't it?
CREAN:
No, the developing one is the UN weapons inspectors. That's the real development, that's the real development, Philip. A United Nations resolution unanimously carried, and the weapons inspectors in there, and a report due on the 27th of January. That's what developing, and that is what should be allowed to develop. And no action, no military action, should be taken in advance of the UN determining it.
CLARK:
Hmm. You've said that that there is a caveat on this, that if the UN Security Council by and large supports military action but, as you know, it can be vetoed by the vote of one member – whether it's Russia or whatever – that in that case you would agree to consider giving support to the UN, sorry to giving support to action despite the fact that formally the UN may have voted against it.
CREAN:
Well, actually I think that's a sensible position to be in. I mean, you could well have overwhelming evidence that because of the way the UN has this, the permanent members of the Security Council have a veto power, you may not get a specific resolution up…
CLARK:
Yes…
CREAN:
…because it's vetoed. Now, I think in those circumstances, you'd have to reconsider the position on the weight of the information available. But take that circumstance out, the guiding principle should be that no action, unless it's in support, unless it's supported by the UN, and no support for US-led unilateral action.
CLARK:
I said yesterday that it seems to me, it seems to, I think, to many Australians who don't want to go to war in Iraq that it doesn't seem that there's much in Australia's interests to be gained or served by a military action against Iraq. That would certainly be my view, why can't we make up our own mind and why can't you make your own mind about what's in Australia's interests without tying your position to what the UN, the United Nations might consider?
CREAN:
Well, look, no, no, because I think it is in Australia's interests and its national interests for the authority of United Nations to be upheld. Australia has been at the forefront of the role of the United Nations and as a medium-sized power and influential player, it's terribly important for Australia to strengthen the hand of the United Nations.
CLARK:
That's true, but it doesn't mean that we have to support military action if the UN decides that military action by the US and Britain and, let's face it, they'd be the major players, needs to go ahead against Iraq – why do we have to support it?
CREAN:
Well, because, no, see I think that is the difference, if the United Nations…
CLARK:
But that's what you're saying, you're saying we'll support it then?
CREAN:
Yes…
CLARK:
Why should we support even then?
CREAN:
In the way in which we've supported back in '91, in the way in which we've supported the peace-keeping efforts that have been sanctioned by the United Nations. If the United Nations comes to the view that its efforts of diplomacy, etcetera, have failed and it needs to take stronger action, then we should be prepared to support the UN, that's why we're up there supporting the economic sanctions now.
CLARK:
But that, but that worries me. That means the lives of Australian Defence personnel, you're basically offloading onto the United Nations saying well `they'll make the decision about whether Australian troops live or die over there or not', not us.
CREAN:
I'm saying that the position is that the support that we give should be conditional on the UN determining it in its collective responsibility. That's the point I'm making.
CLARK:
In other words we don't make the decision the UN does?
CREAN:
No, well we have influence in terms of what the United Nations does, just as we do in terms of our alliance with the United States, but I think that the important thing here is, it's the authority of the UN that has to be supported. Now I've consistently argued the case that it should be the UN that we back and obviously, if the UN determines the course of action we should be supportive of it. But the great opportunity that we've got is the ability for the UN to avoid for the war, and that surely must be the overriding factor…
CLARK:
Well, I'm sure…
CREAN:
…because in the end, it is Australian sons and daughters that are going to have their lives put at risk and we should avoid that at every cost.
CLARK:
Yes, exactly…
CREAN:
And our chance for avoiding that is the United Nations. Not going …
CLARK:
Well, it's very easy to make a decision and you could say right here, `well look, regardless of what the UN says we won't be sending anybody there'.
CREAN:
Well, that is another course of action, it's not a course of action that I support because I believe that it's in our long-term interests in the region and as a nation, for the authority of the UN to be upheld and we should be supportive of actions that the UN is prepared to sanction. But the truth of it is, the strength of that position is the great leverage you've got to force the rogue states into doing it. Because what we're really talking about here is the fact that Iraq still has to comply with decisions of the United Nations – which it hasn't. And if we're already part of a mechanism to try and get it to comply with those decisions, we, in the future, should be prepared to be supportive of that.
CLARK:
Is the situation in North Korea is more serious? After all North Koreans say, `yes we've got nuclear weapons and hey we're about it start developing a missile that is able to fire them at other countries.'
CREAN:
It is a very serious question and that too should be something in which Australia should be using…
CLARK:
So should we be guided by the UN there as well?
CREAN:
Yes, of course we should. Because the whole argument is that if North Koreans didn't withdrawal from the International Agency - the International Atomic Energy Agency which reports to the UN - if it hadn't withdrawn from that there would be a discipline on it now not to proceed with the program it's talking about. If you can get North Korea back into the international body then you address that problem as well. And it's a consistent resolution of it, it is using the United Nations and its authority to deliver a circumstance of peace and stability in our region and internationally.
CLARK:
Good to talk with you, Mr Crean.
CREAN:
Okay, Philip.
CLARK:
Okay, thank you.
This is the transcript of Simon Crean's interview with John Jost on Melbourne radio 3AK on January 15, 2003.
JOST:
Thanks for joining us, Mr Crean.
CREAN:
Good morning, John, how are you?
JOST:
Good. Simon, explain the, the shift and why you have taken it.
CREAN:
Well, actually it's the development of the position since the United Nations Resolution 1441. I consistently said that this matter should be resolved through the United Nations. There was a sense that the United Nations didn't have the authority, that the Resolution 1441 - which is what the weapons inspectors are currently going in on and was carried unanimously. Now, it's essential that if the United Nations have been able to get to the position of demanding of Iraq certain things, that that course of action run its course, if you like, that the weapons inspectors report, and that the UN collectively determines what happens as a consequence of that report. Now that's been consistent all along - let's get the UN in there.
What I've sought to do here is merely reiterate the point, that we won't be supporting unilateral action, in other words, the US taking action precipitously of the United Nations. And of course, there is the caveat that the United Nations with the best will and intentions in the world of arriving at a decision could be frustrated in the sense of the veto arrangements. What I have said in those circumstances if that we would have to assess it in light of the developments at the time. So in essence, the principles are the same. No support for US-ordered military action, no case has been made for that, no link to terrorism etcetera. And secondly, the United Nations process has to run its course and all efforts should be directed to achieving that.
JOST:
Well, so far the UN Inspectors have found nothing. Look, we've had statements from Blair, and I think, American statements too saying that there's definitely Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Now, what do you think Simon? Have you had intelligence briefings that comfort you about Blair's statement yesterday…?
CREAN:
Well, I've had the intelligence briefings, John, and I can't comment on those. But let me say this, we know that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction because that was established…
JOST:
Well he used them against the Kurds.
CREAN:
He used them and it was also established by the previous UNSCOM Commission leadership, right, back in the late 90's. I think that whilst people focussed on the `no smoking gun' comment of Mr Blix, that's in relation to, so far, no finding of new programs. What hasn't been established satisfactorily by the Iraqis, according to the UN, is that responses to what's happened to that build up in the late ‘90s has not been satisfactorily made. Now, in other words, that's something that the UN Weapons Inspections team are going to have to report on. It isn't just a question of finding something, it's a question of being satisfied that that which have been previously found have been destroyed. And so this is a very difficult, complex and exhausting task that the Weapons Inspectors must go through. And that's why people are saying that that may not be concluded by the 27th of January which was the first deadline, so to speak. If the United Nations needs more time to establish the facts, I think it should be given that extra time. But that's consistent with going through the processes of United Nations, allowing it to run its course and get on top of the full factual position in the best way it can in order to report accordingly.
JOST:
Yes, it's interesting that two weeks ago today, the calling of the US half-mid term elections later this year…
CREAN:
No they've just had the mid-term elections….
JOST:
Oh, yes, of course they have, so what you've got is the two years now… [inaudible] … you've also got the summer, the summer coming, … the wind over there…
CREAN:
Well you mean in terms of the climate?
JOST:
Yes.
CREAN:
Well of course, that's always an issue in terms of logistics, I suppose. But the truth of it is, if you set the course you have to pursue that course. And what I don't like about John Howard's approach is that he wants to have it both ways. He wants to say, pursue the diplomatic solution, and ‘I'm backing the United Nations', but at the same time he is deploying troops in readiness for war. Now, I believe that's precipitous. The sending, the deployment of troops in relation to Iraq is inappropriate. Clearly, troop commitments in relation to the ongoing War Against Terror in Afghanistan is a different issue, but so far as the Iraqi situation is concerned, we need to be talking up the peace and getting behind the United Nations dealing with this matter not getting behind those who want to pre-empt it or take it outside the UN.
JOST:
Right, within your party I see there are two people that, I mean, let's face it, there's a very strong point of passion in the Labor Party, you have to deal with them, now obviously Tony Blair has the same problem because according to all the newspaper reports something like two-thirds of his Party are dead against his policy. Could that potentially, if that's something that could happen in the British Labor Party, could it happen in the Australian Labor Party?
CREAN:
Yes, but it's not a question of just party politics, we are talking about people's lives, their futures, the involvement, the pressure on families, the people who would be sent in the event of war. What we've got to do is to avoid war. I don't know anyone in the community who wants war. And as I go round the community, people are constantly saying to me `look can you just keep saying we don't want the war?'. Now that's a broad community concern, John. Now, in circumstances in which peace is threatened - in other words, a terrorist attack or facts establishing that Saddam Hussein is intending to use Weapons of Mass Destruction – that's clearly a circumstance in which we as a nation have to defend ourselves. But all of these are different dynamics of a very fluid position, so what I'm saying is, this is not just a question of the debate within the Labor Party, it's a healthy debate within the Labor Party, but it's a fundamental debate within our community. And I don't want to be seeing, and I don't want to be part of any exercise that unnecessarily commits our young men and women to a war that can be avoided.
JOST:
All right, now let's say it does happen and we go in there, and it's quick, and that there is an occupation force required and there is a political settlement that needs to be struck.
CREAN:
Yes?
JOST:
What are your views on that?
CREAN:
If the United Nations asks us to be part of that exercise, my inclination would be to support that. If we're saying that we have got to get behind the UN and its authority then we've got to be prepared to back it. And that's a consistent position. But at the same time, we have to be prepared to deal with the problems, and the problem that we know with Iraq is that Saddam has held together a country – he's a vile human being, we know that – but he has held together a country that's a Shi'ite, Sunni split with a great chunk of Kurds in it.
JOST:
That's three ingredients, it could almost be three different states.
CREAN:
That's right, and that's going to be the role after the disarmament, after, if a regime change occurs in any circumstances. Of course, that is going to be another issue that the United Nations has to face up to.
JOST:
Well, it's interesting that in the past we have drawn the lines that have created these states in the Middle East and we didn't draw them very accurately, to say accurately, you know, it divided communities, put people in the wrong place…so would you support a restructuring along those lines?
CREAN:
Look, that's a matter that in terms of the resolution of this issue, is best dealt with through the United Nations framework.
JOST:
But do you agree with the point?
CREAN:
If that's the case, John, if we agree on that…
JOST:
I'm just interested in your thoughts on it…
CREAN:
…if you decide to follow or disagree with it. All I'm saying is that we can have our views in relation to what might happen, but we should be arguing those and suggesting them through the United Nations framework. I don't think that any individual country can make on its own, the assessment as to what the resolution should be. And that's why I'm so strong in this argument that says, `let the UN do its task'. But in the doing of its task it's got to be apprised all of the consequences of actions that may be taken and prepared for them.
JOST:
Simon, the last time we went to war in the Middle East, America rattled the can and raised $50 billion to pay for it. This time, it has been suggested that Iraqi revenues would pay for it, and I would have thought that it would be certainly on the agenda. What do you think about that?
CREAN:
Well again, I don't think that this can be seen as an exercise, a grubby exercise in terms of grabbing someone else's revenues. That's the worst type of warfare, the economic imperialism, and that's where a lot of people are questioning the US motives – I don't in that regard. I do believe that Saddam Hussein is an evil person, and I do believe that he has, still, Weapons of Mass Destruction, because there's no evidence to demonstrate that he got rid of that which he had, that pile of things that was established that he had back in 1999.
Therefore, the United Nations Resolution, including the last one that says that he should disarm them, has got to be adhered to. That's in all of our interests because that enhances our security and diminishes threats within a volatile region. So I do support the strength of the position to get Saddam Hussein and his regime to comply with United Nations authority. That's what's got to be the driving factor in this exercise.
JOST:
Simon Crean, thanks very much for joining us today.
CREAN:
My pleasure, John.
As the United States military build-up in the Persian Gulf intensifies, and as opposition to war mounts in the West, the Opposition Leader, Simon Crean, has clarified and toughened the ALP's stance on Australia's involvement in a war on Iraq. In a series of interviews in Melbourne yesterday, Crean maintained that "Australia should not be preparing for a war with Iraq."