Greg Combet (Charlton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) Share this | Hansard source

The attacks on the World Trade Centre, the Pentagon and the fields of Pennsylvania on 11 September 2001were a defining moment in the history of the 21st century. These events, of course, were followed by terrorist attacks in Bali, London, Madrid and Jakarta, and together these events brought home to the international community the seriousness of the threat to democratic freedom posed by a small group of fanatics whose purpose is to destroy the basic human rights that define a civil society. Those rights and freedoms, including the freedom of speech, the freedom of association and the freedom of religious affiliation, have all been hard won. They have been defended in two world wars and they are being defended now in Afghanistan. It is important to remember the speed and the intensity of the international reaction to 9-11. The tragedy and the terror of it took our collective breath away. The leaders of the Western democracies named the attacks for what they were—terror attacks on our fundamental values. To his credit, former Prime Minister John Howard, supported by Labor, was quick to associate the Australian government with the international community’s support for the United States. It is also important to remember that the United Nations moved quickly to condemn the terrorist attacks and al-Qaeda. The legitimacy of our presence in Afghanistan is expressed in Security Council resolution 1378 of 14 November 2001 to which I will return.

The Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence have canvassed in some detail the reasons that Australia is part of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. I will not retrace that ground but I would like to speak further about tackling international terrorism, because it is at the core of our mission in Afghanistan. The former Minister for Defence, Senator Faulkner, delivered a ministerial statement on Afghanistan on 23 June this year, in which he reminded the parliament of the reasons for which Australia remains committed to eradicating terrorism and restoring stability in Afghanistan. He said:

Our fundamental objective in Afghanistan is to combat a clear threat from international terrorism to both international security and our own national security. Australia cannot afford … to let Afghanistan again become a safe haven and training ground for terrorist organisations.

This reasoning for Australia’s involvement in Afghanistan has not changed. It is as valid now as it was in 2001. I personally support this reasoning because I am resolutely committed to democratic freedoms and recognise that they are threatened by the terrorism that we confront. The fact that terrorist training and organisation has developed in other countries since 2001 does not constitute a basis for withdrawal from Afghanistan as has been argued or suggested by some. It means, however, that we must remain resolute in Afghanistan and also work in an appropriate way with our allies to meet the terrorist challenge wherever it does arise.

International terrorism seeks to destroy the foundations of our democratic way of life because it seeks to impose absolutist values on peoples and nations where mutual respect, tolerance and a basic belief in a fair go for everyone underpin the fundamental civil freedoms. Because international terrorism is by its nature a direct attack on us, we have no option but to tackle it head-on and defeat it wherever it appears. Terrorists employ clandestine methods. They secret themselves within the body politic, exploiting its freedoms and tolerance in order to destroy them. They rely on assassinations and bombings to achieve their objectives. Improvised explosive devices remain a weapon of choice, for example, in Afghanistan, killing soldiers and civilians alike. To counter terrorism we need to remind ourselves of the underlying factors on which Australia’s approach to our involvement in Afghanistan is based. They are the strategic necessity for the conflict and the legitimacy of the conflict. Strategic necessity is driven by the need for a nation to defend itself against attack, and there is no doubt that the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were attacks on the territory of the United States. As a strong ally of the US, there were clear implications for our own country, not simply because of our mutual obligations under the ANZUS treaty.

Traditionally, attacks on a nation’s territory and population by another state have been the symbols of a more basic attack on the political and social fabric that gives a nation in its identity. This is something that Churchill grasped implicitly at the outbreak of the Second World War when he described Hitler’s attack on Britain as a repudiation of what is most sacred to humankind—that is, individual liberty. Terrorism seeks to destroy us as a nation and that is why we have no option but to act in concert with like-minded nations to confront and destroy those who would seek to destroy us. There is no room for appeasement and accommodation with this threat, rather strategic necessity demands strength and determination.

In that strategic context, the coalition’s operations in Afghanistan are supported by a suite of Security Council resolutions that confer clear international legitimacy on what are our acts of self-defence. Resolution 1368, adopted on the day following the 9/11 attacks, together with resolutions 1373, 1378, 1383 and 1386, provide a clear mandate for international cooperation in the use of armed force to destroy terrorist groups in Afghanistan. But there is another dimension here as well. The people of Afghanistan need to see the deployment of foreign forces to their country as being in their interests, as being legitimate at the local level.

Australia’s contribution to reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan and to the training of the Afghan National Army are, therefore, central components of our strategy in Afghanistan. In this task the ADF is well equipped to undertake those responsibilities and continues to operate successfully in Oruzgan province in particular. Its mission includes the following: disrupting insurgent networks and restricting their mobility and supply routes; training the 4th Brigade of the Afghan National Army; protecting the civilian aid workers who are delivering the reconstruction projects; and working with the Afghan National Army to implement the ISAF strategy of securing key population areas, food production areas and key transport routes. As Senator Faulkner has said previously, all of that translates into safer villages, a better food supply and more economic activity, which are crucial if we are to build local legitimacy. The ADF is achieving these objectives within the force levels recommended by the Chief of the Defence Force and as committed to our ISAF partners.

Implicit in a number of public comments made in recent times is both an attempt to politicise some aspects of the Australian effort in Afghanistan and also a challenge to the judgment and advice of the Chief of the Defence Force. We have heard, for example, some commentary to the effect that troop numbers may be inadequate, that equipment is insufficient or inappropriate, and that the military justice system itself is deficient. This is regrettable and very ill-advised commentary. As members know, the CDF is the government’s principal adviser on operational deployments by the ADF. Those who, with little operational knowledge or insight, make those comments pay insufficient regard to the professionalism and competence of the CDF and his senior leadership team. As a former minister in the defence portfolio I can attest to the outstanding quality of the ADF leadership and especially that of the CDF, for whom I have the highest regard. As the head of the Defence Force, the CDF has frequently expressed his deep and continuing concern for the safety of our defence personnel. This was a key reason for the government’s substantial increase to the ADF’s organic force protection.

That concern has been front and centre of the government’s approach to force protection for our troops in Afghanistan. As Senator Faulkner announced on 1 June this year, the government has allocated $1.67 billion for force protection capabilities for the ADF. This investment takes into account the evolving nature of the risks from roadside bombs. It includes measures for better intelligence on those who make the IEDs, greater protection and firepower for ADF vehicles and upgraded body armour for our troops. It also provides for the acquisition of a counter-rocket artillery and mortar capability to warn of incoming rocket attacks.

It is also disappointing to observe some of the confusion that has arisen in some quarters about the military justice system as it applies to possible disciplinary action against those who may be subject to allegations that they acted illegally or inappropriately in the conduct of operations. This is a matter on which there has been longstanding bipartisan agreement. It was Prime Minister Howard’s government, with Labor’s support, which created the independent position of Director of Military Prosecutions and it is important and vital that the Director of Military Prosecutions remains completely free from external influence and direction. It is even more important that some of the populist sentiment that we have heard should not be permitted to colour the decisions of the Director of Military Prosecutions.

There has been considerable commentary on an exit strategy. It is evident that the job facing the international community in Afghanistan is very difficult and complicated. The best protection we have against terrorism is a strong civil society with strong institutions, which is the key focus of the ADF and our international partners in Afghanistan. For us to be successful in this endeavour it is important that the parliament is squarely behind our troops as they help deliver the stability and reconstruction in Afghanistan that is essential if we are to have a secure world.

In recent days a number of commentators have declared the war in Afghanistan perhaps unwinnable and, for that reason, have recommended that Australia should withdraw. A much more sober assessment was offered by the former CDF General Peter Gration, who noted that an exit strategy depends on knowing when the key goals have been achieved. The government’s view concerning the duration of our commitment in Afghanistan has been clearly articulated by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has said our forces will be part of this vital work through the coming decade. The international community is working with the government of Afghanistan to improve the quality and integrity of its governance and accountability. Far from it being a reason to withdraw, as some have suggested, it is critical that we continue with this work in progress.

In asymmetric contests such as we face in Afghanistan, victory is defined not by the conventional concept of total destruction of the enemy’s capacity to fight but by the practical denial of training opportunities and logistics support. These goals are measured by the success of reconstruction, the creation of an Afghan National Army that is able to deliver domestic security, the building of viable institutions and the establishment of a functioning civil society. As the US general in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus, has noted, the International Security Assistance Force is making progress to achieve these goals. If this can stay on track, it is to be expected that Australia will be able to wind back, ultimately, its contribution. In the meantime, we must do all that we can to support the members of the ADF.

Again, as a former portfolio minister I had the privilege of meeting many ADF members and their families. We all grieve at the loss of life and care for those struggling with physical and mental wounds. I extend my sincere gratitude to all who serve for our country. I know that they serve with the knowledge that they defend our democratic values and freedoms, and I share with all Australians a deep respect and admiration for their endeavours on our behalf.

See this speech in context