Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister advise the House of the link between security and political progress in Iraq? Are there any other approaches? What is the government’s response?

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

First of all, I thank the honourable member for Stirling for his question and for his interest. I appreciate it very much. There is of course a vital link between security and the reconciliation process in Iraq. It is the view of most analysts that you do need some degree of security in Iraq for reconciliation to proceed. It is our view, by the way, that the reconciliation process has been proceeding too slowly. It is the view, though, of the Leader of the Opposition that, without security, reconciliation will proceed—that the withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq will lead to reconciliation. Most people would agree with the proposition that if foreign troops immediately withdrew from Iraq then the consequence would be blood-letting which would make the blood-letting in Darfur minor by comparison. It would be a simply horrific circumstance. The Labor Party rightly support intervention in Darfur to stop bloodshed and they rightly support intervention in Afghanistan to defeat terrorism and stop bloodshed, but for party political reasons they support withdrawal from Iraq, which will of course lead to massive increases in bloodshed.

Yesterday the Labor Party’s candidate for the electorate of Eden-Monaro said that our troops were just involved in ‘a flag-waving exercise’. I did think that was shameful and I said so. The Leader of the Opposition, to be fair and to his credit, dissociated himself from the remarks of the Labor candidate for Eden-Monaro. He said that he had ‘nothing but respect for our troops in the field’ and he had nothing but respect for the job they do. He repudiated the Labor candidate for Eden-Monaro, but a little research found that the member for Barton, who is the opposition spokesman on foreign affairs, and the member for Hunter, who is the opposition spokesman on defence—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

I know the opposition are interested to hear what those two gentlemen do. They put out a press release on 2 July which said:

But increasingly evidence suggests the Howard Government’s purpose for having these combat troops in Iraq has more to do with symbolism than military strategy.

These two honourable gentlemen said the same thing as the Labor candidate for Eden-Monaro said, and if the opposition leader had any sense of leadership he would also repudiate the remarks made by those two members of his frontbench. The fact is this: these soldiers in the south of Iraq are doing a brave job and an important job, and we should be proud, not just of the soldiers but of the job they do. I refer to an AAP report in which Lieutenant Dan Wright was quoted, which said he:

… leads a troop of up to six vehicles on patrols which run from 12 hours to four days and could range across … al Muthanna or Dhi Qar province.

This, he says, is hard work in desert conditions.

‘When we are out there for a number of days we really need a couple of days back here to recover,’ … Lieutenant Wright hasn’t yet needed to open fire, which he attributes to a combination of diplomacy and intimidation.

This is what he said:

‘We are a much better-drilled opponent. We like to think we present a hard target and by doing that they are not going to attack us because they know they are going to come off second best.’

For the government, they are not the words of somebody who is doing a symbolic job; they are the words of a brave man doing an important job. The member for Barton and the member for Hunter should be repudiated for saying precisely what the Labor candidate for Eden-Monaro said—for taking exactly the same attitude to our troops. Ultimately, the Labor Party needs to explain what it wants in Iraq. What is its vision? Is its vision victory for terrorism? Is its vision conflict, civil war and bloodshed on a grander scale than Darfur? Is that the vision of the Australian Labor Party, or does the Labor Party want a struggling democracy to survive and people to be able to live stable and prosperous lives? The Labor Party should be careful in what it wishes for. I would have hoped that a major political party in this country would support peace and prosperity in Iraq, not options which would turn it into a bloodbath much greater than the bloodbath in Darfur.