Howard: why Australia must fight

Australian Prime Minister John Howard yesterday outlined his case for war against Iraq. This is an edited version of his speech:

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. The Australian Government strongly believes that it is in the national interest of this country that Iraq has its chemical and biological weapons taken from it and that Iraq be denied the capacity to ever develop nuclear weapons.

Not only is it inherently dangerous to allow a country such as Iraq to retain such weapons, particularly in the light of its past aggressive behaviour, but the failure of the world community to disarm Iraq will encourage other rogue states to do likewise, safe in the knowledge that the world will do nothing to stop them.

As the possession of weapons of mass destruction spreads, so the danger of such weapons coming into the hands of terrorist groups multiplies. Possession of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons by terrorists would constitute a direct, undeniable and lethal threat to Australia and its people.

That, more than any other reason, is why we must be intensely concerned about Iraq.

Australia's alliance with the United States is also a factor - unapologetically so. America has given strong leadership to the world on Iraq. Let us be honest and recognise that the United Nations would never have been re-energised to again pursue the disarmament of Iraq had it not been for the United States ...



Terrorist groups want weapons of mass destruction. Of that there can be little doubt.

Australian intelligence agencies, including the Office of National Assessments, judge that al Qaeda has demonstrated the intention to acquire or develop chemical and biological weapons, and an interest in radiological and nuclear weapons.

This judgment reflects the intelligence community's professional assessment ... But it is not just secret intelligence that points to this conclusion. Information in the public domain indicates that al Qaeda has made repeated attempts to acquire chemical, biological, and nuclear materials and capabilities over almost a decade, and continues to do so.

If the world fails to deal once and for all with Iraq, it will effectively have given a green light to the further spread of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and have further undermined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the conventions on chemical and biological weapons which the world - and not least Australia - has worked so hard to build ...

The world, particularly our own region, is rightly concerned at the behaviour of North Korea. That country has blatantly violated its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Far from the challenge of North Korea overshadowing the need to address the problem of Iraq, it adds to its urgency and importance. If the world is incapable of dealing strongly and effectively with Iraq, it will not effectively discipline North Korea. If the Security Council fails the Iraqi test, it will surely fail the test of North Korea.

These reasons for our direct and urgent commitment to the cause of disarming Iraq must be seen against the background of the far different world in which we now all live.

The Gulf War of 1991 came about in conventional circumstances. It was one we all clearly understood. The army of one country - Iraq - had rolled across the borders of another - Kuwait. The invader had to be evicted. He had no right to be there. It was as clear and as simple as that.

That war predated the rise of international terrorism as a potent force. Terrorism existed long before 1991, but not the random, mass-casualty kind born of radical Islam and exemplified by the acts of September 11, 2001, and October 12, 2002.

Those attacks transformed our world ... No longer could America's security or indeed that of other liberal democracies be seen just in terms of responding to or deterring the aggression of nation states. A different enemy carrying a new menace had attacked.

International terrorism is borderless. A key motivation is detestation of Western values. Its prime, but by no means only target is the United States, its interests and its citizens anywhere in the world.

Australia is a Western nation. As such, we are a terrorist target.

Those who assert that, through calibration of our foreign policy responses, we can buy immunity from terrorist attacks advance a proposition which is both morally flawed and factually wrong.

It is morally flawed because this nation should never fashion its foreign policy under threat ...

Osama bin Laden identified Australia as a terrorist target because of our support for the independence of East Timor. If such a threat had been issued on the eve of the Interfet intervention in East Timor in 1999, should the Australian Government have pulled back? I think not. Would the Aus-tralian people have wanted us to have pulled back? I likewise think not.

It is factually flawed because the victims of terrorists have come from nations with a wide range of foreign policy and security stances.

Those who doubt the case for the urgent disarmament of Iraq should be reminded of Saddam's appalling track record. Saddam Hussein has without provocation invaded Iran and Kuwait. He has fired missiles at Saudi Arabia, Israel, Bahrain and Qatar. He has bullied and threatened Syria, Jordan and the Gulf states.

He has used his weapons against his own people. Without the no-fly zones enforced by Britain and the United States over the past 12 years, other horrors would have been inflicted on the Kurds and the Shi'ite Muslims.

Iraq has a long history of training and supporting regional terrorist groups. It financially rewards the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, who have caused such death and destruction in Israel.

Iraq's history of relationships with and support for terrorist organisations magnifies our concerns.

Many will accept this line of argument but say that this is why the French and Germans are right and that the weapons inspectors must be given more time. Those advocates must face two important questions.

Do they really argue that the weapons inspectors would even be in Iraq, let alone squeezing a few morsels of compliance out of Saddam Hussein, had it not been for the American (and by extension British and Australian) military buildup in the Gulf region.

Hans Blix and Kofi Annan have both said that it has been the pressure applied by the United States military buildup that has forced Iraq to begin, however inadequately, to respond ...

There is an even more fundamental question to be answered by the critics of the United States.

Let us assume that the joint British, Spanish and United States resolution fails and nothing comparable is supported in its place by the Security Council. Presumably the majority would in that event say that no military action should be taken to enforce disarmament on Iraq.

If they were to say that, then would those same nations expect the American, British and Australian forces to be withdrawn from the Gulf region? Of course they would expect no such thing to occur. They would be perfectly happy for those forces to remain where they are as the only certain way to maintain pressure on Iraq.

Crucially, also, the failure of the Security Council to adopt a further effective resolution, even if the forces were to remain, would create a completely new dynamic. Saddam Hussein would know that he had won, at the very least, a major reprieve. His incentive to co-operate in full with the demands of the world community for complete disarmament would disappear ...

Those who have constantly attacked the United States' handling of this issue have sought to give their case intellectual respectability by describing it as the continuing containment of Iraq.

It is, however, a false historical comparison ... Containment of the old Soviet Union worked because of the possession of nuclear weapons by both the West and the Soviet Union. Then the potential cost of doing something was greater than the cost of doing nothing.

Now in the case of Iraq, the potential cost of doing nothing is clearly much greater than the cost of doing something.

If Iraq is not effectively disarmed, not only could she use her chemical and biological weapons against her own people again and also other countries, but other rogue states will be encouraged to believe that they too can join the weapons of mass destruction league.

That is what is at stake in the true containment of Iraq. The cost of doing nothing is infinitely greater than the cost of acting.

Those who argue that more weapons inspectors should be given more months to do their work in Iraq do not acknowledge the history of Saddam's failure to co-operate, or that there is nothing in that history that has changed.

For 12 years the community of nations has tried to cajole and encourage Iraq to honour its UN disarmament obligations, and it has failed ... Iraq has not taken up the one last chance the UN Security Council gave it four months ago in Resolution 1441. It has not complied with its disarmament obligations ... .

It is not a question of time for inspections, and it is not a question of resources for the inspectors. It is - and has always been - a question of Iraq's attitude. Without full co-operation, the inspectors will never be able to do their job ...

Disarmament rather than regime change is Australia's primary policy goal, but we certainly recognise that the end of Saddam Hussein's rule would provide an opportunity to lessen the suffering of the Iraqi people and create a more stable and secure environment for Iraq's neighbours.

Perhaps it is unpalatable or unfashionable to be reminded that the Iraqi people are oppressed by the current regime. There is no chance for normal life in a country where torture, killing, rape and genocide are standard practice ...



This is a regime that will gouge out the eyes of a child to force a confession from the parent This is a regime that will burn a person's limbs off to force compliance or confession. This is a regime that in 2000 decreed that the crime of criticising it would be punished by cutting out the offender's tongue.

Since Saddam Hussein came to power in 1979, he has attacked his neighbours and ruthlessly oppressed ethnic and religious groups in Iraq. More than one million people have died in internal conflicts and wars. Some four million Iraqis have chosen exile. Two hundred thousand have disappeared from his jails, never to be seen again.

He has cruelly and cynically manipulated the United Nations oil-for-food programme, rorting it to buy weapons at the expense of the wellbeing of his own people ... Surely it is undeniable that, if all the humanitarian considerations are put into the balance, there is a very powerful case to the effect that the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime will mean less suffering for the Iraqi people than if the regime were to continue.

This is a difficult and challenging issue for our nation. The easy way would have been to have done little diplomatically or militarily. We could have been spectators on the sidelines, as many have urged. We have chosen to take a strong position because the Government believes that vital Australian interests are at stake.

I respect the fact that many of my fellow Australians disagree with my position. I understand that. In return, I ask them to respect and understand that I and my Government have arrived at our position after much thought and with a deep belief that what we are doing is the right thing for Australia.

In the sadly different world in which we all now live, it is vital that Australia takes a stand against the threat posed to us of the twin evils of the spread of dangerous weapons to rogue states and international terrorism.