The Prime Minister, John Howard, hit the airwaves today in defence of his decision to deploy troops to the Persian Gulf. Facing sometimes hostile questions from radio listeners, and with the media reporting divided public opinion, Howard was interviewed on key radio programs across the nation.
This is the transcript of John Howard's interview with Catherine McGrath on ABC radio's AM. Click here to listen to the audio from the ABC website.
MCGRATH:
Prime Minister, welcome to AM. Why do you think you have failed so far to convince the Australian public?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Catherine, public opinion on this issue is far from settled. What my obligation now is to explain why we are doing what we are doing, and the main reason is that we now face a world in which the greatest potential threat to security and peace is the possession of chemical and biological and potentially nuclear weapons in the hands of rogue states like Iraq. And if the world community allows Iraq to stare it down, to intimidate it out of doing anything on this occasion, not only will Iraq retain her weapons, add to them and potentially use them, but worse still other countries will copy Iraq knowing full well that if the world was not prepared to take on Iraq, then it won't be prepared to take them on. Now that is the major reason why I believe that Australia, with a long history of - in its own judgement - doing what it thinks is the right thing and the things that are in the long-term interests of world security and its own security, should be behaving as it is.
MCGRATH:
Well can I ask you this - given the seriousness of the situation that you have just outlined, why wasn't Parliament back this week or why isn't it being recalled next week, so that parliamentarians can debate this?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well parliamentarians have already had a number of opportunities of debating this issue. The Parliament will be meeting on Tuesday week on the 4th of February. There is no way that a final decision on this issue will have been made by then, and indeed unlike 1991 I suspect that Parliament will have a further opportunity to debate this issue before in accordance with the constitutional processes of Government in Australia, a decision one way or the other is taken.
MCGRATH:
Well can I ask you this, because you're very tapped into public opinion, you would have read the letters to the editor in today's newspapers, heard what people are saying on talkback. There is some scepticism out there and some people are feeling that you're perhaps not levelling with them. They want an open debate, they want to discuss it. Why not allow Parliament to be back, why not talk about the war now, what would happen if the war were to go ahead, so that Australians can be involved?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you are using language that you choose to use. My responsibility is to do what I'm doing with you now; that is to level with the Australian people and explain why we are acting as we are. There is a debate going on right now. What do you think this discussion is? This is a discussion over ABC national radio in which I am explaining the reasons why we are doing what we are doing. The question of public opinion is very important. I always respect public opinion. In the end, as a responsible leader, I have to take the decisions after listening to people and weighing the evidence that I think are in the best long-term interests of Australia. And I believe the stance we are taking - I know it has been criticised by many, but that is the nature of debate in a great democracy such as Australia - but you have to keep going back to that fundamental issue - if the world allows itself to be stared down, there is a real danger that other countries will say if Iraq can get away with! it, we can do likewise because the world won't do anything. And I believe that over the weeks ahead that will be an increasingly powerful and persuasive argument, not only in Australia but in other parts of the world.
MCGRATH:
Prime Minister can I ask you this, because there are some key questions that people would like answers to. Do you think the United States should go back to the UN Security Council? There is increasing speculation from America this morning that they may not do so.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well what will happen is that Blix will make a report on the 27th of January and we will see how that is received, not only by the United States but by the rest of the Security Council. It is inevitable in one way or another this issue will go back to the United Nations. The point I want to make is that we can't be certain that the UN outcome will be black or white. It's very possible it could be a shade of grey. There are a range of possible outcomes. You could for example have a resolution authorising force carried 13-2, one of the two is a permanent member and a veto is exercised. Now what does Australia do in those circumstances? If you follow what Mr Crean for example said a short while ago, in those circumstances even the Labor Party might consider supporting Australian involvement. You could have a resolution that was different in terms than 100 per cent explicit endorsement. You could have one that acknowledged the justice of some kind of action but expressed it in different language. There are a whole range of possible United Nations outcomes...
MCGRATH:
But what you're saying is that you need a resolution...
PRIME MINISTER:
Please can I finish, please. What I'm saying is that there is a whole range of outcomes and until we know precisely how it works its way through the United Nations Security Council process, it's impossible to speculate about what the final Australian response should be.
MCGRATH:
Can I clarify this though - it must go back. There must be a UN Security Council resolution.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well under the terms of the resolution there has to be a report back to the United Nations. What form that report takes, I don't know yet. How the Security Council deals with it, I don't know. And I think it's also important that in the days before the 27th and indeed in the days after, we don't jump to conclusions about the final attitude of countries. I mean I hear some reporting this morning where I think the soundbite is failing to match the headline, suggesting that France and China and other countries have taken final positions. They haven't taken final positions.
MCGRATH:
Can I ask you this though - France and Germany, China and Russia have expressed concerns. With the French and German leaders, what do you know perhaps that they don't, that they're forming their opinion?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I make a judgement according to Australia's interests. I don't copy the decisions of any country - the United States, Germany or France or indeed any other country - I make a decision based entirely upon Australian interests. Now what is in their minds is a matter for you to ask them about. On the information available to me and bearing in mind the need for the world to deal with this new threat of rogue states having biological, chemical and potentially nuclear weapons, I think the world community has to deal with this issue and unless it does it will in years to come regret its failure to do so. If it doesn't stare down, Iraq will not oblige by giving up her weapons. She'll add to them and potentially use them, and other countries will be emboldened to do exactly the same thing.
MCGRATH:
Prime Minister, you're sounding very committed, very strong on this issue this morning as you have consistently, but the key question really left is this - if the situation develops where the US is going it alone and you believe as it turns out at that time, if you believe that it's not the right thing for Australia, how would you turn around and get our troops out if you made that decision? It may be hypothetical, but people want to know.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it is very hypothetical. What people want to know from me, and what I've been talking about this morning, is why we're doing what we're doing. They also want to...
MCGRATH:
But can you answer...
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I'm answering your first question. Please don't interrupt with another. The other thing they want to know from me is how the thing is going to develop, and until we know the final outcome from the United Nations Security Council, that question is impossible to answer. But we have not made a final decision or even a tentative decision to be involved in military conflict. What we have done is put ourselves in a position that if we do decide to join an international military operation, we are able to do so with a maximum guarantee of safety and security and acclimatisation for our military forces. This idea that you would wait until there was a final decision before you even deployed, would not only relieve Saddam Hussein of pressure but it would also potentially expose our forces to unnecessary risk and danger, and that's not fair and it's not something that I'd ever be part of.
This is the transcript of John Howard's interview with Neil Mitchell on Melbourne radio 3AW.
MITCHELL:
Mr Howard, good morning.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning, Neil, and Happy New Year.
MITCHELL:
Thank you, same to you. It's that way, I wonder about the New Year but, look, there's no doubt there's significant division in this country over your handling of the crisis. People need to be convinced. Is there still something you know that we don't know, are you not making everything public?
PRIME MINISTER:
Obviously there are intelligence briefings that you get that you can't go into the particularity of because it risks compromising sources but the overwhelming reason why we're doing what we're doing is that we now live in a world where the biggest threat to security is the growth of the number of rogue states that have chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. It would be very easy to say, it's all too hard to deal with Iraq, let's hope that because nothing's happened over the last few years, nothing will happen in the future and we forget about it.
MITCHELL:
So there's a line in the sand because...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don't want to use hackney phrases. I want to use my own language. And whereas the great threats to security some years ago were large countries rolling armies over borders the big threats now are international terrorism and the potential that rogue states, like Iraq, if not forced to disarm will not only add to their arsenal of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons but other countries will look at the situation and say, well, the world was not willing to do anything about Iraq, they reared themselves up and then they retreated. They gave in, they were stared down by Iraq. Well, if Iraq can do that, why can't we?
MITCHELL:
What are the other countries of concern, though?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, for example, I don't disconnect Iraq and North Korea. I don't mean that the two of them are necessarily cooperating, I'm not saying that, but isn't it at least a respectable argument to say that one of the reasons that North Korea has behaved as she has is watching the ambivalent response of the world to date to the way in which Iraq has behaved.
MITCHELL:
Others, Iraq?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Iraq is one but there could be ones now that we don't know of that could develop this capacity and it's all very well for people to say that, you know, America has nuclear weapons, Britain, yes, but under the international treaties they are authorised to retain them and it is in the long-term interests of the world to minimise, as far as we humanly can, the number of countries, particularly countries with an appalling political human rights record like Iraq, a country that has used chemical weapons against its own population, has used them against the Iranian Army in the Iraq-Iranian war, has invaded other countries, has encouraged and financed international terrorist behaviour. And when you're dealing with a country that has that track record you know that, as we do, that they've got chemical and biological weapons and that's borne out by the British and American dossiers that have been on the public record now for months, we know that they have a capacity within the! ir own resources, if they're unchecked, to develop nuclear weaponry within five years at the outside.
MITCHELL:
I take your point [inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
If we don't face those things...I know it is inconvenient and there's nothing...
MITCHELL:
Well, it's not inconvenient, it's frightening.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it is. And I know it's inconvenient, it's difficult, the situation we now face and I, like all other Australians, I don't want military conflict. I mean, it's the last thing I wanted to start with this year was something where you had to face the reality of dealing with an issue like this. But we have to, as a world community, we have to face it. And the Australian community exercising its own judgement has to debate these issues and I will go any distance and I will listen to anybody in the course of explaining what I'm doing. I accept the enormous responsibility of it. I know that a lot of people don't agree with me, I respect their opinions, I'll listen to them and I'll try and put my view.
MITCHELL:
How would you shift their opinions? I presume if we do go into a conflict, even sending the troops to the Gulf, we want them there with public support, we don't want a country divided.
PRIME MINISTER:
No, we don't but, above all, we want to do the right thing for Australia's long-term interests and I just don't read the opinion polls on something like this. I respect public opinion very much. It's part of my job to understand the public's concerns. I know if you look at the polls in a nominal sense at the moment they're certainly pointing in a particular direction but I don't think public opinion on this issue is settled. I think we still have a long way to go and people are wanting to hear from the Government as to why. They're wanting to hear from me, I understand that and I'll do my very best to talk to them and to explain it. But, in the end, I have to make a judgement as to what I think is the right thing for Australia and I have to take into account the things I've mentioned. I have to take into account the importance of our alliance with the United States. It's not the only issue. It's not a question of Australia automatically doing everything America wants. We make a judgement based on our own assessment.
MITCHELL:
If necessary will you make a decision which goes against public opinion?
PRIME MINISTER:
I will take what I think is the right decision in Australia's long-term interest. I will brave public opinion, I will listen to the public, in the end, however, this, as on other issues such as introduction of a new tax system, there are a number of other things I won't just be swayed by the latest opinion poll. You can't make national decisions based on that but, equally, you have no right as a Prime Minister to be contemptuous at public opinion and I've never been that. I'll always respect the opinion of Australians because they're very commonsense people and because they're commonsense people they will listen to an argument on this issue. I think there are a lot of people who are not feeling very strongly either way at the moment. They're wanting to hear more, they're wanting to know what ultimately happens before the United Nations and wanting to hear more from the Americans, the information they have and I think all of that will be coming into the fore over the days and weeks ahead.
MITCHELL:
It does seem the United Nations is the key to it and the public support seems to be predicated on support for action with United Nations approval. Is there a possibility of the Australian Government supporting action without United Nations approval?
PRIME MINISTER:
You can't give a clear cut answer to that until you know the final outcome of the UN process and the reason for that is that the final outcome is very likely to be either black or white. People assume that at the end of the day the UN will either 15-0 explicitly, without argument, authorise the use of force or alternatively heavily say under no circumstances should force at any time be used. Now, I'm afraid that it's not going to quite end up that way. You're going to have something in between. You may remember the NATO intervention in Kosovo at the time when the NATO countries decided to attack Serbia because of the ethnic cleansing that was occurring in Kosovo. That was not authorised by the United Nations.
MITCHELL:
Well, true, but it is a legitimate question [inaudible] the Australian people. In the event of the United Nations not supporting action, would Australia still possibly support it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it would depend on what happened before the United Nations. It would depend...and it may well be that the United Nations adopts a resolution that has the effect of acquiescence in military action without expressing endorsing it. I mean, there are a range of options that could come out of the United Nations debate.
MITCHELL:
Is it not a reality now that we have the pre-deployment? And I think we're only one of three nations to be pre-deploying in the area, that it would be extremely difficult to withdraw those troops if a conflict was to break out regardless of whether it had the UN approval or not. I mean, we can't have the troops there and say, oh no, the war's started, we're coming back.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, they're under separate national command. They're not under and American command.
MITCHELL:
I understand that but it would look very bad, cowardly.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Neil, obviously we have, by our deployment, we have indicated a willingness to be involved if we judged circumstances to justify that involvement and we've gone that far but it has to depend ultimately upon the working out of the process, the material that becomes available. I don't know yet what the weapons inspectors are going to say to the Security Council on the 27th. You get very contradictory reporting as the days go by. One day I will see Blix and he sounds very accommodating to the Iraqis, the next day he sounds very impatient.
MITCHELL:
Do you still believe they haven't had enough time?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think they should be given some more time.
MITCHELL:
How much?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it's hard to quantify that in days. I don't think the 27th of January should be D-Day. I'm sure it won't be. But I don't think they should be given unlimited time because in a sense, that's the game Iraq has played over the last 12 years and they would just string it along and string it along. I think they should be given some more time and that is a view that I have put to President Bush when I spoke to him yesterday morning. I don't know what view the British Prime Minister is going to put to him. I haven't spoken to Tony Blair for a while on this issue but our position is that we believe there should be some more time, but we don't think it should be open-ended because that would just be taken advantage of by Iraq.
MITCHELL:
We'll take some quick calls. We may have many people wanting to speak about this. Tony, go ahead.
CALLER:
Good morning. Good morning Mr Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER:
Good morning Tony.
CALLER:
Several comments, and bear with me please. Firstly I would make the point that at the moment community support is very strongly against and this is primarily due to the lack of information coming forward. Now if you could explain your reasons helpfully and I fully understand the reasons for national security, but explanations makes it easier for decisions. We're not getting explanations. On top of which we're three of 191 nations at the moment that are really endorsing a campaign by the US.
MITCHELL:
Specifically Tony, I mean the Prime Minister has explained this morning, what is it you want to know?
CALLER:
Well there has to be, in my humble opinion, justification as to why we go there. Now it's no good saying the weapons inspectors say there is a problem. We need to have that problem fully explained and I mean fully explained. We are no longer in a situation where we follow rulers of countries blindly. Explanation makes it a lot easier to understand the decision to go to war on this, is going to war. I was asked to be involved in the Vietnam period and that was a big mistake.
MITCHELL:
Okay, well let's not get back into Vietnam. The explanation argument - Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I accept Tony's argument. There is an obligation on me to explain why, and this interview and many others I will be giving is part of that process.
MITCHELL:
Prime Minister, does this potentially increase the terrorism risk in Australia?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't believe so but you really have no way of measuring that. If you look at the language of Osama bin Laden, the issue he singled out as the blackest mark against Australia was our intervention in East Timor - which had overwhelming public support from the very beginning. In the end you have to weigh all of those things into account. You've got to put them in the mix in making a decision. And I haven't seen any evidence around the world over the last couple of years that those countries that have given the impression of a different position from Australia on these sorts of issues, have seen their citizens escape the wrath of terrorists. I think of the German citizens who died in that synagogue in Tunisia and French citizens who have been killed and yet if you read the papers over the last few days, you see both the Germans and the French giving a different impression. Although I don't think they've made up their minds. I think it's quite wrong of some of the news reports to be saying that the French have ruled things out. The French have been very careful. People often rule out involvement in some kind of military operation if the circumstances they believe are justified.
MITCHELL:
Certainly it seems to be damaging Australian relations in the area. China, Indonesia and Malaysia have all been critical now in the past [inaudible]. Is it damaging relations in the region?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look there will be a variety of views, but once again in the end you can't be hostage to any one set of relationships. You have to decide what is in the best interests of Australia. And I just go back to my fundamental argument - if the world allows itself to be intimidated out of action by a rogue state like Iraq and she retains chemical and biological and potentially nuclear weapons, not only will they be added to and perhaps used, but other countries with equally bad track records will be encouraged to copy Iraq and they will be comforted by the fact that the world was unwilling to do anything about it.
MITCHELL:
And what sort of world do we have then?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think a far more frightening world than we have now. We have to understand that we're living in a different age. Warfare is no longer defined by some of the canons of the 30s or 40s or even the 60s and 70s, and that is why - and I know you didn't encourage it - that is why this comparison to Vietnam is historically flawed and irrelevant. We're not dealing with that kind of situation. There were no UN resolutions that had been defied by one side or the other in Vietnam. It was a different situation.
MITCHELL:
There is one lesson I hope we've learnt from Vietnam however, and Simon Crean touched on it yesterday in his speech, and that is that I hope the anti-war movement does not turn against the troops as happened after Vietnam. And that's a wound only now healing. I assume you would agree with that.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I have gone out of my way in relation to all of Australia's military deployment since I have been Prime Minister, to ensure that they are given a proper send off and a proper welcome home.
MITCHELL:
But an unpopular war shouldn't blame the troops.
PRIME MINISTER:
Absolutely. I mean under no circumstances. I thought what was done to our Vietnam Veterans by those who opposed our involvement, what was done to the veterans as distinct from the political debate which is utterly to be expected in a great democracy, I thought it was appalling, I thought it was vindictive and quite beyond the pale and I felt desperately sorry for them and they still do carry the scars. And I remember at the time of our East Timor deployment a large number of our Vietnam Veterans getting in touch with me and saying please when they come home can they be given a decent welcome home, can they be allowed to march down the street and let people give them a cheer and so forth. That is my very strong view.
MITCHELL:
Well did you think Simon Crean's comments yesterday were inappropriate or were they brave?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that is for other people to make a judgement. One of the things I've done as Prime Minister and the courtesy wasn't extended to me when I was Opposition Leader that when we do have troop deployment I invite the Opposition Leader to come and to speak whatever the view may be. I certainly wasn't extended that courtesy when we were in Opposition but I think it's better to give the other side a go and whatever they decide to say is a matter for them. I mean Mr Crean chose to say what he did for his reasons and he should answer for that and he should be accountable for that. I'm not going to offer a view.
MITCHELL:
We'll take another quick call. Mary go ahead.
CALLER:
Yes I have separate questions for you. One, Mr Howard I heard you say categorically that you would not make any arrangements to send soldiers before you have a debate in the Parliament. That did not occur. Question two, what guarantee do we have that this maniac hasn't got a plan whereby if he's going to be bombed he will take half the world with him, I'll die and I'll take all of them with me? Is that worth avoiding?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'll take the second one first. The best intelligence we have he doesn't at present have the capacity to use your language to take half the world with him. But the fact that you would invoke that language in a sense proves...supports my argument that the world has to deal with this.
CALLER:
[inaudible] megalomaniacs like that. People have plans in place.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well if I could just finish, I respect your view and I'll try and answer it, but carefully. If you carry that sort of argument to a logical conclusion you never do anything about anything, any threat from anybody and we have learnt in the last century, particularly in the 1930s that appeasement in the long run, and I'm not suggesting the circumstances now are on all fores with the 1930s,they're clearly not but in the long run if you feed the appetite and the potential threat of a dictator you are not rewarded with kindness. You are rewarded with more brutal behaviour and they interpret your reaction for what it is - a sign of weakness - and they are emboldened to do even more outrageous things. What I said about Parliament was that I would follow the same procedure that Mr Hawke followed in 1991 at the time of the first Gulf War deployment.
MITCHELL:
Well will you recall Parliament Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Parliament will be meeting on the 4th of February.
MITCHELL:
So it won't be any earlier?
PRIME MINISTER:
There's no need for it to meet earlier and even the Labor Party I understand has rejected the suggestion of the Greens that the Senate be recalled next week. We've already had several debates on Iraq and there'll be plenty of opportunity on the day we come back for questioning and debate on the issue of Iraq and I have said before that we'll take a decision, if there is to be commitment to a military conflict, we will take a decision as an executive government in accordance with the constitutional processes of this country and there will be a debate about the issue. But the decision in the end under our constitution is taken by the executive government and that was a principle that was annunciated by Bob Hawke without dissent on behalf of the then Labor government in 1991.
MITCHELL:
Okay Bill, very quickly please Bill.
CALLER:
Prime Minister what are Australian soldiers dieing defending as people die in wars?
MITCHELL:
What do you mean Bill?
CALLER:
Well in World War II Australian soldiers died defending this country. What are they dying defending in Iraq?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well nobody has died yet defending anything in Iraq at the moment and we pray God that no military conflict becomes necessary.
MITCHELL:
What can Saddam Hussein do to avoid a military conflict?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well he would come clean as some of the Arab states had suggested and acknowledge that he does have chemical and biological weapons as the British and American intelligence has demonstrated, he were to do that and open fulfil inspection and make a full inventory of those things so then I think that would represent a very powerful case.
MITCHELL:
Which of course is what he says he's doing already.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well he's clearly not. I mean even the most benign interpretation of what Hans Blix has said from Iraq's point of view demonstrates that that is not the case.
MITCHELL:
Prime Minister thank you for your time. Do you personally, professionally, morally.....it's going to be a pretty tough year isn't it?
PRIME MINISTER:
It's going to be very tough. I don't....one doesn't enjoy a situation like this but I have to do what I believe is in the long term interests of Australia. I'll listen to the public. In the end I'm charged with the responsibility of taking a decision and I'll do my level best. I believe what I'm doing is right and I'll always be ready and available and willing to explain and to answer questions.
MITCHELL:
Thank you very much for your time, we'll speak to you again soon.
This is the transcript of John Howard's interview with Leon Byner on Adelaide radio 5AA.
BYNER:
Meantime, let's introduce the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard. Mr Howard, thank you for joining us and happy new year.
PRIME MINISTER:
Happy new year to you, Leon. Good to be with you and your listeners.
BYNER:
Everybody on the television news saw you last night farewelling and wishing God speed to our troops and people in our armed forces going to the Middle East, is the Government receiving vastly more information from its intelligence or the US or Britain about the necessity for war in Iraq than is able to be told publicly?
PRIME MINISTER:
We are receiving some intelligence that you can't talk about without compromising sources. But the argument for what we have done is out there in the public and the fundamental challenge the world faces is that in the new environment the real threat to peace and security is the danger that a growing number of rogue states, like Iraq, will get hold of and potentially use chemical and biological or even nuclear weapons. We know from the published documents of the British and American governments that Iraq does have biological and chemical weapons, does have a capacity, on its own resources, to develop nuclear weapons within not more than five years. And our argument very strongly is that unless the world deals with this issue now, if we allow Iraq to stare the world down not only will Iraq retain those weapons but add to them and potentially use them. And there is the greater danger that other rogue states, other countries will think to themselves, if Iraq can do that and get away with it, intimidate the rest of the world community out of doing something then we're going to do the same thing and that will just add to the unstable, strategic environment in which we all live. And then, of course, there is the ultimate nightmare - and it will increase the more the number of states have these sorts of weapons - that they will ultimately fall into the hands of terrorist groups and they will be used in an indiscriminate and horrifying and destructive fashion. Now, whereas years ago when you thought of peace and security being interrupted, it was interrupted by the armies of large countries rolling over the borders of others. We're not living in that kind of environment now. We're living in an environment where the real threats are really the combination, the proliferation of these sorts of weapons in the hands of irresponsible countries, undemocratic, dictatorial countries, countries that are completely contemptuous of human rights and also the potential link between that and world terrorist groups. So that is why we have to do something about this.
BYNER:
Prime Minister, if the threat is as vivid as you describe why would countries like France and Germany be [inaudible] almost any kind of military intervention, almost critical, if you like, of Britain, Australia and the United States?
PRIME MINISTER:
We haven't heard the last word from France, in particular, we haven't. I've followed very closely what the French have said. They haven't, as is reported, finally and firmly ruled out supporting UN action. I think what the French are doing is what they often do and that is making their presence felt. France is very sensitive about her position in the world, particularly in Europe. And there is the interplay of France, Germany and Britain at work within Europe and while it doesn't directly affect us, it is something to borne in mind. It's too early to know where people are ultimately going to come out before the Security Council. I do know this, that when the resolution under which the inspectors are now operating was carried, France voted for that resolution. And that resolution contemplated compliance by Iraq, that resolution gave Iraq a final opportunity to comply and it was a very strongly worded resolution. It did talk of material breach and it does involve the weapons inspectors going back to the Security Council on the 27th of this month - that's in a few days time - and giving a report. So it's too early to jump to conclusions. There's a lot of shadow boxing going on at the present time and it's too early to jump to conclusions about what France and Germany, particularly the French, are doing. But in the end we have to make up our own minds according to what we think is right and I believe that it is in Australia's interests to be part of the world community doing something about this problem. We could easily ignore it. We could cross our fingers and hope it would go away. It won't go away. If you just think now that if the world retreated, America pulled all her troops back and the UN said, well look, it's all a bit too hard, can you imagine the reaction in Iraq, can you imagine the reaction in the Middle East, can you imagine the reaction of other countries that think, well, if Iraq can get away with this we'll try and ! do the same thing. I think that would make the world a more dangerous place than what we're facing at the present time, far more dangerous.
BYNER:
Kim, good morning, you're talking to Prime Minister John Howard.
CALLER:
Good morning, Prime Minister and Leon. I only have one question to ask you, Prime Minister. Now, the best case scenario for this war is it's going to be over in two weeks, have you thought about the worst case scenario?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the best case scenario is that there isn't one and we're far more likely to bring about, difficult though it is to see at the moment, we're far more likely to bring about a peaceful resolution of this issue by the world showing Iraq a willingness to take the tough option if necessary. Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations said last weekend that the inspectors would not be in Iraq had it not been for the American military build-up. So if you...
CALLER:
[Inaudible] sending our boys overseas and we don't know what the future's going to be. [Inaudible] a foregone conclusion that we are going to war because it's been happening for so long.
PRIME MINISTER:
It is a difficult situation. It is more likely...
CALLER:
Scenario...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, could I just finish. It would be more likely to be resolved peacefully if the world shows Iraq a willingness to do something if Iraq does not comply with the Security Council requirements. Iraq for 12 years has thumbed its nose at the Security Council and unless the world is prepared to take the sort of risks that I've outlined then, unless it's prepared to do that we really have no alternative to communicate to Iraq that we're no longer prepared to allow that contemptuous non-compliance to go on.
BYNER:
Let's talk to Ian. Ian, good morning, you're talking to Prime Minister John Howard.
CALLER:
Oh, good morning, Prime Minister, good morning, Leon. The point I'd like to raise is the fact that we're...if we are, if we do and are successful in getting rid of Saddam Hussein who's to say not another one's going to pop up in his place? I mean, this man is a dictator, he obviously wasn't elected by a democratic means like we have here. So, I sort of seem to think that all his understudies and cronies are going to have the same sort of mindset as him anyway. If you get rid of him there's only another going to pop up in his place. I don't think you can get him eradicated are you?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the main objective, Ian, is to get rid of the weapons he has. If in the process he goes then that will be a bonus and he probably will go. His understudies and cronies wouldn't replace him. There is plenty of evidence that the people of Iraq would love to get rid of him, plenty of evidence of that. I can't guarantee that it's going to be a model democracy but there are a lot of countries in the world that aren't model democracies but which don't have weapons of mass destruction and don't constitute a threat. I mean, I don't seek to impose the Australian system on every other country. It works here and we like it but I don't expect other countries to adopt it. But other countries decide what kind of regime they have but you can have an undemocratic regime that doesn't have chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons [inaudible] countries. So that is the main aim. As to what replaces him, well, I can't guarantee it, I won't try but you'll certainly have a regime that won't have those sorts of weapons because they would have been got rid of.
BYNER:
Prime Minister, approximately 60% of Australians, we are led to believe, do not support a war in Iraq unless there is a UN mandate. What are your comments on this?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I saw that poll and the question that was asked was which of the following best describes your attitude. Now, obviously if you say to people, what best describes your attitude - action with a UN mandate, action without it, most people will say, action with it. Most people would, I understand that. I don't think public opinion has finally settled on this issue. It will depend a lot on how the weapons inspectors report to the United Nations, what further information becomes available over the next few weeks. In the end it's doubtful in my mind that you will have a black and white position out of the Security Council. I don't think you're going to have a clear, unambiguous, explicit resolution. You might. Equally, I don't think you're going to have a clear, unambiguous rejection of some kind of military action. You could well end up with something in the middle and in that event we have to make a judgement. In the case of Kosovo when the NATO countries took action against Milosevic - remember when we provided safehaven to the refugees from Kosovo?
BYNER:
Yes.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, following on from that there was military action taken against the ethnic cleansing that was occurring at the hands of the Serbian forces against Slobodan Milosevic. Well, that military action was not authorised by the Security Council and the reason why it was not authorised was that the US and France and Germany and other countries knew that the Russians would veto any resolution before the Security Council because of Russia's close alliance, historically, with Serbia. So it's a bit grey when you get into the area of the United Nations. In some cases it's clear cut, in other cases you have to make a judgement according to the merits of the situation and until we know the full working out it's impossible to say exactly what our position is going to be. We have clearly indicated a willingness to be part of something if we believe the circumstances justify it but we have not taken any decision and we won't be taking any decision until we know the full working out of the UN and, obviously, the more the UN is involved the better. I mean, everybody wants as much UN involvement as possible, that's why that opinion poll said what it did. But in the end I've got to make a decision based on what I think is in the best interests of Australia. I have to listen to public opinion, I respect it, I always have and I always will. In the end, I have to make a judgement that best fits Australia's longer-term interests.
BYNER:
Is it a given, Prime Minister, that our outwardly enthusiastic support for the United States war-footing makes us more of a terrorist target than would otherwise be the case.
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't regard that for a moment as a given. The fanatical terrorist movement around the world is generically hostile to the west and they lash out at western manifestations, whether they're American or European or, for that matter, Australian or Asian. You've got to remember that the people who've died at the hands of terrorists have been many people from African and Asian countries. Germany, if you read the papers, is taking a somewhat different attitude on Iraq than Britain yet it hasn't spared German citizens from terrorist attacks. Osama bin Laden's only reference to Australia has been to criticise our liberation of East Timor. We had the support of 75% to 80% of the Australian community. In the end you still have to make judgements on what you think is right otherwise the terrorists win every time.
BYNER:
Prime Minister let's talk to Ken. Ken you're talking to John Howard.
CALLER:
G'day Johnnie, how you doing there Mr Howard?
PRIME MINISTER:
Pretty good Ken.
CALLER:
Yeah it's a lovely day out here.
PRIME MINISTER:
Pretty warm I gather in Adelaide.
CALLER:
Yeah and commiserations for all the people suffering with the fires and everything else.
PRIME MINISTER:
Very bad.
CALLER:
Yeah you know. I've got one point really. Now you say how about these countries just we don't get it right and that you know because they foster terrorism. Now the thing is why are they fostering terrorism? Is it because the country's been ripped off by the Americans in the long run? I mean like there was a country called Bangladesh years ago that they were sick and tired of getting the second, the third, the second-hand medicine from American companies, like the pharmaceutical companies so they built their own medicine places and that helped that country, Bangladesh, and they're a whole Muslim country [inaudible] and we haven't had any problem from them.
BYNER:
So Ken you're really asking the Prime Minister whether or not we are doing enough to address the causes of terrorism?
CALLER:
Yeah that's the question. I don't think we are because....and can I just add another one?
BYNER:
Yep.
CALLER:
If we don't get this one right we're going to have it right on our back doorstep. Timor. Now we have business people from this country, which is good. I'm not saying it's not good. But we had business people go over there and, what I read, exploit them people over in Timor you know by the simple fact is they open up a hotel and charging up to $100 a night and then you've got supermarkets charging for food and them people are scrounging around on the streets.
BYNER:
Any comment on that Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't accept that we have allowed Australian businessmen to exploit the East Timorese. I don't think that's fair. Australia more than any country in the world is responsible for the freedom and the independence of the East Timorese. It's one of the proudest things that Australia's done in recent years and it had very strong support from the Australian community. We have provided East Timor not only with military help to become independent but also a lot of ongoing aid and they're also getting a very generous share of the oil and gas revenues that are going to come out of the Timor Sea as a result of concessions that the Australian government has made in the negotiations. I think we've treated East Timor very generously.
The reasons for terrorism are complicated. They as best I can judge it and the experts tell me it's rooted more than anything else in a fanatical hatred of a small number of unrepresentative Muslim fundamentalists against Western society. It's not representative of total Muslim opinion in the world, anything but. I want to make it very clear that ordinary Muslim people both in Australia and around the world are as appalled by terrorism as you and I are. Dealing with that is not easy. It's the responsibility of the moderate forces of Islam within their own societies to deal with that problem. It's also the right of governments such as the Australian government to take very tough action against terrorism.
The point I was making about Iraq was that the more countries there are with dangerous weapons the more likelihood there is that those weapons will either be given to terrorists or fall in the hands of terrorists. That's the nub of it and it's a matter of inescapable logic that that becomes a greater danger the more countries there are that have got those weapons. And the world must do all it can to prevent the spread of these weapons and unless it does we are only running the risk of a more dangerous world environment.
BYNER:
Let's go to Reynella. John, you're talking with Prime Minister John Howard.
CALLER:
Good morning Leon, and Mr Howard. You're both looking well. Talking with a certain amount of experience Mr Howard, like I served in Korea, Malaya, Borneo and Vietnam, and I don't have a lot of faith in the United Nations. I don't think they've made too many good decisions as long as they've been there. But I do feel that we should at least wait until they give us the green light to go. I don't disagree that we should go. I believe that if that man wants to be a fool well we should go and wipe him off the face of the Earth. Also a lot of people are getting a bit hysterical because of movement of troops. But my answer to that is - location location. If something happened over there immediately it would take about three weeks to get troops there and the decision that's been made to get them there closer is all the more benefit to the people who will more likely be wiped out in the event of a war.
BYNER:
Yeah John, Michael O'Connor from the Defence Association was on television making that very point last night. Let's go to Port Elliott and talk to Peter. Peter, good morning. You're talking to Prime Minister John Howard.
CALLER:
Good morning Mr Howard and Leon. Compliments of the season to both of you.
BYNER:
Same to you.
PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you.
CALLER:
The question I ask, if I may call you John.....
PRIME MINISTER:
Please.
CALLER:
.....is what you're saying to these lovely people in this country that come from Iraq. I support what we're doing, Australia's doing, but what do we say to these people that have come to our country and made it their home you know?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well many of them have come to this country because they don't like Saddam Hussein.
CALLER:
True, yeah.
PRIME MINISTER:
So what do I say? Well I suppose....
CALLER:
I've got really good friends....
PRIME MINISTER:
I understand that and there's some wonderful Australians of Iraqi descent and they're very welcome as part of our community. I would hope they would share the views and the conclusions that other Australians have reached. I mean many of them will agree with me and many will disagree. It's part of the democratic spirit of this country. I would say to them that the arguments that I've advanced over the past few minutes apply to all Australians. They're not just arguments for Anglo-Celtic Australians. They're arguments for Australians of an Asian or Middle-Eastern descent. We are all Australians before anything else....
CALLER:
Some of them would have some [inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
And I know they will be very nervous.
CALLER:
I feel for them.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I do too. But nothing is uncomplicated.
CALLER:
Absolutely.
PRIME MINISTER:
And I hope they would understand that what we are endeavouring to do could result in the long run in a more benign and a free, better environment in Iraq for their family and friends.
CALLER:
Hear hear.
BYNER:
Peter thanks for your call. Prime Minister, how much of a stretch on our best resources is our commitment as it stands now given that we are in a very tender diplomatic area of the world with our very near neighbours for the very same reasons? [inaudible] on our resources.
PRIME MINISTER:
The circumstances are different. None of our near neighbours have chemical or biological weapons. I mean none of our near neighbours have behaved the way Iraq has. I mean you can't compare the behaviour of Iraq with countries like Indonesia and Malaysia and so forth. I mean we have some differences with Malaysia but Malaysia is a good citizen of the region as is Singapore and Indonesia. There's no immediate likelihood of heavy military involvement in our part of the world but in any event this is not going to impair our capacity if that were required. We after all did bring special forces back from Afghanistan. The forces that we're talking about in a hypothetical sense are - save and except the potential use of the Hornets -are broadly the same forces that we had in Afghanistan. We do have a commando and some helicopters in a supporting role for the SAS but they are there as a support for the SAS. They're not over and above the SAS and they won't have separate duties from the SAS if they were involved in duties. We don't have the refuellers, the 707 refuellers that we had in Afghanistan. We do have the P3 Orions. So as I say save and except for the Hornets, broadly the same. Now that didn't stretch it. I mean any operation that comes about puts some strain on the defence forces but it's not an unreasonable strain. There was talk earlier on of possible, there was some discussion about a light armoured battalion and we said no that's not within our capacity and it's not something we're going to commit.
BYNER:
Any likelihood of a war levy Prime Minister? I know it's been talked about.
PRIME MINISTER:
Not on the information before me, no.
BYNER:
My other point too is the fact that the Afghanistan War and the Iraqi conflict are both desert wars. What would you....
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it's somewhat topography.
BYNER:
Yeah but we overwhelmingly train our troops in jungle warfare rather than.....
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that's one of the reasons why they should be pre-positioned isn't it?
BYNER:
Yeah, well I'm just making the point....
PRIME MINISTER:
The point that was made a moment ago by that gentlemen who served in Korea and Malaya was a very valid point but in fairness to our troops if they are ultimately involved in combat the longer they have to get acclimatised the better. That's why this argument that they shouldn't be pre-positioned until we know the final outcome of the UN process is not only strategically flawed but it's unfair and wrong in relation to the men and women themselves.
BYNER:
Prime Minister in conclusion what do you say to the thousands of Australians who believe this isn't a just war and that we're sabre rattling?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we haven't got a war yet. We're not sabre rattling. We're part of an international community effort to deal with a problem which if left unresolved will produce a more unstable and dangerous world in the future. Now many of them won't agree with that and that's the nature of a democracy. I can but explain my reasons and my justification for what we have done. I believe that what we've done is right. I haven't just sat down and looked at the latest opinion poll. I've sat down and tried to work out what is the best thing in the long term interests in Australia and I believe what we're doing is right.
BYNER:
Prime Minister, thank you for spending the time to talk to South Australia this morning and I wish you well in the new year and I hope that next time it will be under more happy circumstances.
PRIME MINISTER:
So do I.
