Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker Bird, a general once said:

I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.

So said Dwight Eisenhower, a former five-star general in the United States Army and the 34th President of the United States. I also hate futility and, while this debate is a welcome opportunity, after nine years, to explore Australians’ commitment to the war, sadly, I know it will not result in any practical ramifications regarding Australia’s military involvement in Afghanistan. It will provide the opportunity for politicians to voice our views in respect of this complex issue but, considering the broad parliamentary support for the war and the lack of parliamentary process, nothing will change. Will this debate lead to greater public engagement in this issue, or is the debate largely restricted to politicians and the press gallery? If the former eventuates then that of course is a good thing, but I fear the latter will be the reality.

I cannot comprehend how killing people will change hearts and minds. A recent commentary in the Australian stated:

The best military minds in the coalition have been warning for two years that it cannot kill its way to victory in Afghanistan.

When we read about Afghanistan in the papers, it is more often than not concerning the death of a foreign soldier. I want to put on the record my admiration for the men and women of our Defence forces who voluntarily seek to serve our nation in magnificent style in confronting circumstances, knowing that they risk life and limb. Never is one of their lives given in vain. The fact that 21 Australian soldiers have lost their lives as a result of this war is an immense tragedy. Those young men have made the ultimate sacrifice while serving their country, and my deepest sympathy goes to their families. Their families and our communities will be poorer for the lives those men will not lead and the contribution they would have made if their lives had not been cut so short. I also want to put on the record my thoughts for the many who have returned injured and traumatised from this conflict.

On another level, it is saddening that the deaths and miseries of civilians in Afghanistan are largely overlooked by the mainstream media and are rarely reported in a meaningful manner. Indeed, they have been rarely talked about in this debate. I find it deeply disturbing that we cannot even nominate a ballpark figure for the number of Afghanis killed since the beginning of this war in 2001. Most estimates range between 14,000 and 44,000 civilian deaths—a huge discrepancy for which there is no adequate justification. Additionally, this figure could be expanded by tens of thousands when you consider those deaths caused by displacement, starvation, disease, exposure, lack of medical treatment, crime and lawlessness during this war. What we know is that the human cost of conflict in Afghanistan is escalating in 2010. Indeed, as stated by the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan:

… nine years into the conflict, measures to protect Afghan civilians effectively and to minimise the impact of the conflict on basic human rights are more urgent than ever.

The Afghanistan Rights Monitor says that 2010 has been the worst year for insecurity since the demise of the Taliban regime in 2001. Not only has the number of security incidents increased but the space and depth of insurgency and counterinsurgency related violence have maximised dramatically. The UNAMA recorded 1,271 deaths, and 1,997 deaths in the first half of this year, telling me this amounts to a 21 per cent increase over the number documented in the first half of 2009.

The Taliban and other antigovernment forces show no respect for the rules of war and civilian life. They have proven they care little for the safety and protection of noncombatants. We know they are increasingly undertaking unlawful means of warfare such as the use of improvised explosion devices, suicide attacks and assassination. As the UNAMA states, this violates:

Basic human rights and international humanitarian law principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution that apply to all parties to an armed conflict, requiring them to minimize civilian loss of life and injury must be reinforced at this critical period.

As well as targeting military objectives, a number of attacks committed by antigovernment forces have occurred in civilian areas where there is no clear military target. Improvised bombs have been planted on public roads, in bazaars, in agricultural fields and even in front of schools, clearly targeting and affecting the civilian population. Suicide bombers, particularly in densely populated and civilian areas, have continuously tormented communities throughout the country. The indiscriminate nature of suicide attacks and the fact they occur in highly populated locations ensure they inflict catastrophic outcomes on the civilian population. It is clear from the brutal tactics employed by the insurgents that the international military forces are facing a fiercely violent and unscrupulous enemy.

A tragic reality of the war is the fact that the international military forces cannot escape blame for the deaths of Afghani civilians either. As the UNAMA notes, civilians continue to be killed, injured and arbitrarily detained and their property damaged or destroyed as a result of some operations of the international military and the Afghani national security forces. Twelve per cent of the total civilian casualties in the first half of this year have been attributed to pro-government forces. While this is down 30 per cent from the first six months of 2009, it still amounts to 386 deaths. This is far too many civilian casualties. Of particular concern is that women and children have made up a greater proportion of those killed and injured than in 2009. Unsurprisingly, Afghanis have demonstrated a strong sensitivity to civilian casualties committed by foreign forces. As Brendan Nicholson commented in the Australian last week:

Every death of a civilian caught in coalition crossfire or in a Taliban bomb is likely to be blamed on the war and foreign troops. Each of those deaths has a dreadful multiplier effect as relatives swear vengeance.

A number of emotional demonstrations have taken place in different parts of Afghanistan against the alleged killings of civilian people by foreign forces. There are serious questions that need to be asked about what effect our military presence has on radicalising Islamic youth and strengthening support for extremist ideology. Islam is not a terrorist organisation; it is a religious faith. All faiths have extremists and all extremists have utilised violence in pursuit of ideology. I ask: does the current military strategy produce the consequences it is attempting to prevent?

Concerns exist that the presence of international forces in Afghanistan actually attracts foreign militants to the country and provides ideal recruiting opportunities for the Taliban and antigovernment forces. In a comprehensive study of suicide attacks, Robert Pape found that the motivation for 95 per cent of terrorist attacks was related to the military occupation of culture and economic dominance of a country with which the terrorists identified. A statement from the Taliban from May this year seems to support this connection where they announced that they would be at targeting the Americans, the NATO military personnel, foreign advisers, spies who pose as foreign diplomats, members of the Karzai administration, contractors of foreign and domestic private security companies, contractors and personnel of military logistics and military construction companies, and all supporters of foreign invaders who are working for the strengthening of foreign domination.

A significant proportion of the Afghan population believes our presence in their country is the real problem in this war. I ask: is our military involvement doing more harm than good? It is suggested that the Australian defence budget is 10 times that of our aid budget to Afghanistan. Given the deep level of poverty in Afghanistan, this seems somewhat misaligned. Afghanistan has all but the lowest human development on record. It ranks at 181 of 182 on the United Nations human development index. There is an estimated 42 per cent of the population living below the poverty line, up from 33 per cent in 2005. An additional 20 per cent of the population are hovering just above the poverty line and are highly vulnerable to shocks and fluctuations in household income and consumption.

Afghanistan has one of the lowest literacy rates in the world with only 28 per cent of the total population literate. The figure is just 18 per cent for women and girls. It is the most food insecure country on the planet, according to the Food Security Risk Index 2010. These statistics provide a reflection of the immense poverty facing the country. If we want to make long-lasting change in Afghanistan, I believe greater emphasis needs to be placed on addressing these fundamentals. Australia’s military contribution stands at around 1,500 personnel via Operation Slipper, defined as Australia’s military contribution to the international campaign against terrorism—a campaign I support. This is a considerable contribution. With no clear date for the withdrawal or scaling down of our military involvement, our troops will remain in harm’s way for some time to come.

This is a conflict in which victory is not clearly defined. What does victory look like? A peaceful Afghanistan governed by a genuinely democratic government is not something that can be achieved through military means, or has ever been achieved through military means. Realistically it is not something that will be achieved for many, many years. So how much longer will our troops continue to work, to risk their lives on the front line of this war, and how many more civilians need to die? And what measures will we adopt to determine when it is time to withdraw?

It is worth noting the historical record of military involvement in Afghanistan and the fact that there has never been a successful intervention by a foreign power. During the 19th century the British invaded the country on two occasions and failed to achieve their objectives. More recently, the Soviet invasion in 1979 failed miserably, with the Mujahheddin, along with fighters from several other Arab nations, driving the Soviet troops out of the country within a decade. Experience has taught Afghans to treat Western involvement in their country with a degree of cynicism. Winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan public is critical, and I am not convinced this will be achieved through military means, particularly when we consider the history of the West’s involvement within this country. The independent research organisation, the Williams Foundation, said, ‘Without exception wars lead to injustice and depravity.’ With civilian and military deaths in the tens of thousands and with the definition of victory ambiguous, I believe it is time to cease Australia’s military involvement in Afghanistan. Our presence in Afghanistan is fuelling the extremist ideology we are trying to eradicate. Already 21 young Australians have lost their lives as a result of our engagement. Let us not leave when the body count of Australian Defence Force personnel is too high for the public to tolerate. That would be a cynical exercise in the extreme.

See this speech in context