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 update the House on the situation in Iraq? Is he aware of other approaches?

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

I thank the honourable member for Stirling for his question. On this side of the House—and I think we reflect the views of many Australians, after all the difficulties there have been in Iraq—we are heartened by the Petraeus and Crocker reports to the US congress. They paint an encouraging picture, but they do make the point that there is very hard work ahead. General Petraeus has reported that progress has been made on security and the military objectives of the surge are gradually being met. He said that attacks in Iraq are now at their lowest level since April 2006; since December 2006 civilian deaths have declined by 45 per cent and sectarian deaths are down by 55 per cent; and the Al-Qaeda operation in Al-Anbar, which was not only particularly dangerous in and of itself but also designed to provoke sectarian violence, has been substantially routed—not just as a result, General Petraeus says, of America’s intervention but as a result of a change of view of local people in the Al-Anbar province.

On the political challenges, Ambassador Crocker welcomed recent improvements, including the commitment of Iraqi leaders to work together on hard issues, but he also highlighted, interestingly enough, gains at grassroots and provincial government level. The point to add to this is that neither General Petraeus nor Ambassador Crocker are walking away from the scale of the ongoing challenges in Iraq. They are, of course, very significant. As General Petraeus said, there are no easy answers or quick solutions. But one thing General Petraeus did say—and, after all, I think we can safely assume he is a great authority on this issue and is not a political player of any kind—was that premature withdrawal will have devastating consequences and that political progress can happen only if sufficient security exists.

Today is 11 September; it is the sixth anniversary of the dreadful events of 9/11. In our country we have made a big contribution to attacking and dealing with the problems of terrorism. We have had good success in South-East Asia. There are great challenges still in the Middle East. If a country like Australia were to adopt the policy of the Labor Party, which is essentially a defeatist policy on Iraq—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Those opposite scoff, because a defeatist policy apparently does not include withdrawal and signalling withdrawal to terrorists. I think that is a defeatist policy. To signal a defeatist policy is to encourage our enemies in Iraq and in other places around the world.

As I have said in this House once before, the simple fact is that it is very important that people think about what they wish for in Iraq. They may have a view about opinion polls, but they should think about what they wish for. On this side of the House, we wish for the success of democracy in Iraq. We wish for the success of the people of Iraq in their struggle against terrorism and against those who would incite sectarian conflict. That is what we wish for. The Labor Party oppose the surge—they said they were opposed to the surge—and I draw the Australian public’s attention to the fact that the Labor Party, as these events have demonstrated, are not driven by good judgement and wisdom but driven by public relations companies and nothing more and nothing less.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to recommendations made to the United States congress by General Petraeus concerning a draw down of US forces and also to the UK’s plan for the reduction of its forces in southern Iraq. Given that the Prime Minister before the last election promised not to increase Australian troops, before doing the opposite after the election, what is the Australian government’s plan now for the draw down of Australian combat forces in Iraq?

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We do not have any proposal to draw down the forces in Iraq. Unlike the Labor Party, we do not propose to reduce Australia’s forces in Iraq. So far as the Americans are concerned, I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that prior to the surge there were about 130,000 American combat troops in Iraq and the surge has added approximately 30,000 and, as I read Petraeus, he is talking about a possible phase down to the pre-surge levels. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that the force levels that Australia had prior to the surge are exactly the same as the force levels we now have. We think the battle group in southern Iraq is doing good work. We think it is a good thing to provide humanitarian assist-ance. We think it is a good thing to provide training. We think it is a good thing to provide backup security for the local forces. We think it is a bad thing to say to our closest ally in her hour of need in Iraq, ‘We are going to partially walk away from you.’ Because that really is what is happening. I know there are those opposite who tend to denigrate the role of our forces in Iraq. They say—

Julia Irwin (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, they don’t.

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh yes, they have. They have talked about them just being symbolically present. They have talked about them not doing very much at all. The reality is that they are doing good things for the people of Iraq and, while they continue to do good things for the people of Iraq, and until the Iraqi people can look after themselves, I believe they should stay. That is our policy. I know that when you ask Hawker Britton, ‘Is it a popular policy?’ they come back to you and say, ‘No, it is not a popular policy,’ and that of course is the basis on which the Leader of the Opposition has made his policy on Iraq. It is a Hawker Britton policy. It is not a Rudd-Gillard policy. I just say to the Leader of the Opposition that this is too serious a group of matters to be determined by a public relations firm; they ought to be determined by the national interest of our country.