Geoff Prosser (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister inform the House of the latest developments in the trial of Saddam Hussein? How is Australia contributing to the construction of a more pluralist and democratic society in Iraq?

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Bowen interjecting

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Prospect is warned!

Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for Forrest for his question. It is fair to say that this government is proud of its role in the great coalition that removed Saddam Hussein from power and is glad that Saddam is no longer a threat to his people, to the Middle East or to anywhere else. His weapons of mass destruction programs are gone. He produced those weapons; he used them. In his second trial, which is on this week, he stands accused of killing an estimated 100,000 Kurdish men, women and children, including by the use of chemical weapons. Witnesses have testified about bombs in 1987 producing clouds of green poisonous gas that sent civilians screaming through their villages blinded and vomiting. Saddam Hussein can no longer perform these deeds. No longer will he finance suicide bombers, shelter other terrorists or, for that matter, invade his neighbours. Some people in this House may say that he should still be in power, but for our part we are proud that we played a role in overthrowing him.

The best judges of this debate are, curiously enough, not the Australian Labor Party, and not necessarily the government. The best judges of this debate are the Iraqi people. A recent poll in the Sydney Morning Heraldand that is hardly a newspaper that has been passionately our way on this issue—showed that, despite the hardships of the people of Iraq, 77 per cent of Iraqis agree that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was worth while. That is something for the House to reflect on. That is the view of the Iraqi people. It may not be the view of the Australian Labor Party—

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Brendan O’Connor interjecting

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Gorton is warned!

Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

but, as a matter of fact, that is a matter that is rather incidental to the people of Iraq. Let me go further and say that even if you disagreed with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, as many have, it is—in the government’s submission—absurd to argue that defeat of the fledgling Iraqi democracy through premature withdrawal would be a good thing. If the terrorists were to win in Iraq it would be a catastrophic setback in the war against terrorism.

Osama bin Laden understood this when he said that a loss in Iraq by the United States and the free world would lead to the US having to withdraw in ‘defeat and disgrace forever’. Obviously, such a withdrawal would be a triumph for Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden is not alone. President Ahmadinejad of Iran shares that view as well. We know that here in Australia the Labor Party has said that in the event of it being elected it would immediately withdraw Australian forces from Iraq.

You could make an argument that, if America stayed there and Australia did not, America could still battle on alone. I noticed on Channel 10 the other night the Leader of the Opposition saying that ‘we ought to be encouraging the Americans to uncouple themselves from Iraq as well’. In other words, as the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition would go to Washington and say to the President of the United States, ‘What we would like you to do is join us in hauling up the white flag in Iraq and withdrawing and allowing that country to be taken over by the terrorists.’ It is another classic example of two things. The first is the Leader of the Opposition being a bit of a charlatan when it comes to international relations. He pretends to be some kind of an expert. Secondly, it does confirm a view that many Australians hold: that the Leader of the Opposition is weak.