Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I support the censure motion. The Prime Minister correctly said that the most difficult foreign policy issue facing the United States of America is Iraq. Certainly, since the Vietnam War, that has to be the case. In that context, how more inappropriate is the Prime Minister’s attack on Mr Obama, a candidate for President of the United States, and, on his own words, an attack on the Democrat Party itself as it works through these very significant issues facing the people of the United States and, in particular, the young men and women serving that country who are putting their lives literally on the line in Iraq?

The Prime Minister said the subject matter of the alliance was what we had to protect and that that subject matter required loyalty and understanding. But that begs the question—and this is constantly the Prime Minister’s error—as to what is the subject matter of that alliance. The alliance between Australia and the United States of America is not a personal relationship between two men; it is an enduring relationship between the peoples of both countries. The Prime Minister’s attack on Mr Obama and, on his own words, on the Democrats is clearly an affront to a substantial portion—most probably the majority—of the people of the United States of America. That cannot be in Australia’s national interests, particularly in the circumstances where they are trying to work through a resolution to what Republican Senator McCain has described as the ‘train wreck’ which is Iraq.

The alliance has been so strong because it has been sustained and, indeed, grown throughout successive administrations, whether they be Labor or Liberal in Australia, Republican or Democrat in the United States. As the Leader of the Opposition said, that has involved 13 Australian prime ministers and 12 presidents of the United States. In that context, Democrat Senator Ron Wyden said that the Prime Minister’s comments were bizarre and there has been quite sensible advice from a Republican, Senator John Cornyn, who basically said: ‘Stay out of our affairs; we’ll stay out of yours.’ He considered the Prime Minister’s intervention singularly unhelpful as his country tries to resolve what has been described by a Republican as the train wreck, the disaster, which is Iraq—and there is no question it is all of that.

There are estimates of between 60,000 to 450,000 civilians killed in Iraq. It is clear that some 1.3 million people are displaced within Iraq as a result of the most horrid sectarian violence. There are probably about 1.8 million people who have been made refugees from their own country as a result of the invasion of Iraq. The United States of America has spent something like $375 billion to date—funded substantially, I might say, by bonds held by Asian countries, making the economy of the United States and hence the international economy beholden to the holders of those bonds—and it is spending at the rate $US6 billion a month, which is in the order of $A2 billion per week. Quite frankly, the United States economy cannot sustain that sort of commitment, and the international economy will inevitably suffer the consequences of that burden that is being placed on the United States economy.

The greater sacrifice—and this is precisely why we have no right to interfere in this very important debate that is taking place in the United States—is the fact that now over 3,000 young Americans have been killed in Iraq. They are men and women whose bravery, commitment and dedication—that is obvious—we acknowledge in no uncertain terms. And some 20,000 young Americans—more than would fill a local suburban sports stadium—have been maimed fighting in this conflict. For the Australian Prime Minister to seek to intervene in those circumstances is, quite frankly, offensive.

From the point of view of national interest, how are Democrat members of the congress supposed to regard Australia? Firstly, they are undertaking any number of inquiries into the Australian Wheat Board fiasco. I think they will be coming after some government members, but that is a side issue. In the interests of their nation and our nation they have to consider a number of pieces of legislation that will directly impact on Australia, including those which impact through the free trade agreement, most notably, as referred to by the Leader of the Opposition, the farm bill. The Democrats hold the majority in the congress at the moment. That is not why you should necessarily be beholden or not be beholden to Democrat members of congress; it simply underlines how unwise and irresponsible it was for our Prime Minister to seek to intervene in the internal affairs of the United States of America. Indeed, we have been monitoring public comment in the United States as a result of the Prime Minister’s intervention, and it is being dismissed by congressmen and senators alike and, indeed, the response of call-back commentators has been, ‘Well, we have always known that Prime Minister Howard is a mate of George Bush.’

The trouble with that is that it narrows the alliance to being an alliance, and being perceived to be an alliance, between two men rather than what it is: an alliance between the people of both nations—an enduring alliance. But the Prime Minister has justified his intervention on the basis of, on the one hand, mateship and, secondly, his analysis as to what will enliven terrorism around the world. I will address both of those issues.

It is the case that Australians have a culture of standing by a mate in a fight—and moments have occurred that I am not proud of; perhaps my nose is not as straight as it otherwise should be because of that. John Williamson in his famous song True Blue includes the line:

Is it standing by your mate

When he’s in a fight?

But Australians are also people of common sense: if your mate is copping a hiding or being used up you will tell them the reality; you will tell them the truth. You will not give blind loyalty to a mate who is in strife. And this is where our Prime Minister has not been the friend the President of the United States needs and certainly not the friend the people of the United States need. He has not spoken the reality.

The reality, quite frankly, of his criticism of Mr Obama and Mr Obama’s bill is that Mr Obama’s statements and the bill essentially reflect the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group. After that report was handed down the Prime Minister said words to the effect that the views of that study group had much to commend them and were worth considering. He has now turned from that point of view to undertaking a personal attack, we say, on the Democrats; he says on Mr Obama. Indeed, he says Mr Obama is the candidate of choice for al-Qaeda. The reality is that the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group were based on the realisation that, quite frankly, the al-Maliki government in Iraq is not stepping up to the plate. The Iraq Study Group in fact doubted whether Prime Minister al-Maliki had the ability or the willingness to take on some of the sectarian militias because at least one of them provided him with a support base.

In fact, the national security assessment that the Prime Minister referred to did not and should not be represented by the Prime Minister as commenting on either the plan of phased withdrawal as recommended by the Baker-Hamilton report or the escalation of the additional 21,000 troops committed by President Bush. What it did say was that Iraqi leaders will be hard-pressed to achieve sustained political reconciliation in the time frame of this estimate. I will go through why that is the case. If you are going to look at common-sense strategies, which, we suggest, have been part of the Baker-Hamilton recommendations, you should not go past the comments of generals on the ground. In that context, in January of this year the then Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces in Iraq, General Casey, said this:

The longer we in the U.S. forces continue to bear the main burden of Iraq security, it lengthens the time that the government of Iraq has to make hard decisions about reconciliation and dealing with the militias. And the other thing is that they can continue to blame us for all Iraq’s problems, which are at base their problems.

That is, quite frankly, the reality. The White House national security adviser cautioned about the intervention by the office of the Prime Minister of Iraq to stop military action against Shiah targets and encourage them against Sunni ones. He cautioned about the removal of Iraq’s most effective commanders on sectarian bases and efforts to ensure Shiah majority in all other ministries.

The Iraq Study Group, as I have mentioned, cautioned about the links between the Iraqi Prime Minister and militias, and the Department of Defence in August last year gave a damming assessment of the competence of the al-Maliki administration. To extract some of those main points, they said that some Iraqi politicians ‘are condoning or maintaining support for violent means as a source of political leverage’. They also said that an increasing number of death squads, to use their language, including those formed from ‘rogue elements of the Iraqi security forces’, prevailed in the country. They spoke of corruption in ministries hampering their capabilities, with experienced or talented employees being purged and replaced with party elements or cronies. Indeed, they very much emphasised that the Iraqi government had a long way to go to get its house in order.

The logic in those circumstances of giving an open-ended, unconditional, open-cheque-book commitment to a regime which has shown an inability and, indeed, an unwillingness to get its house in order stands for all to see. That is why the Iraq Study Group in its Baker-Hamilton report recommended a phased withdrawal of American troops in order to put pressure on the Iraqi administration to step up to the plate and accept responsibility for their own security. Obviously you can have a different point of view about these issues. Obviously you are entitled to voice those points of view if you are a national leader. But what you are not entitled to do is engage in personal attack and intervene in the internal politics of the American people when they are trying to resolve these issues.

I also want to address in conclusion a couple of other points made by the Prime Minister in saying that the Leader of the Opposition—and I should be included in that along with others and, indeed, our own researchers—noted the advice that we had received that there was evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Where we differed and why we opposed the intervention in Iraq was that there was not the urgency present. It was significant because part of the legal basis for the intervention in Iraq was that pre-emption was predicated on a situation of urgency. At no stage did we say that the threat of imminent attack had been established. We spoke out and voted in opposition to the war because the United Nations had not been allowed to undertake their investigation—again, in accordance with the international rule of law. There is no question that the invasion of Iraq was contrary to the international rule of law. The international community does not have ownership of it as a result of that fact. There is no question that Iraq is a train wreck. There is no question that an open-ended, open-cheque-book and unconditional commitment to an administration that is using a United States—(Time expired)

See this speech in context