Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak about the turmoil enveloping the greater area of North Africa and the Middle East and the fears I hold for the future of peace and stability in the region. It was former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger who once said, ‘Each success only buys an admission ticket to a more difficult problem.’ It is an adage which could equally apply to the coalition’s current bombing campaign over Libya. In accordance with UN resolution 1973, there was never any doubt that the numerical and technical superiority of the British, French and American military would quickly establish an effective no-fly zone, but with the resolution authorising member states to ‘take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas’ but ruling out ‘a foreign occupation force of any form’ the question remains: what happens next? What happens when Colonel Gaddafi, a tyrannical leader with more than 40 years experience in the dark arts of maintaining his brutal leadership, seeks to carry out his threats to cleanse Libya of his enemies, house by house?

The lessons of the no-fly zones over Bosnia and Iraq are instructive. The UN Security Council established a no-fly zone in October 1992 but it was not enough to stop the Srebrenica massacre in July 1995 and it was only when the mission significantly expanded, with NATO ground forces in Bosnia, that civilians were fully protected. The no-fly zone over Iraq, in place for 12 years from 1991 to 2003, did help protect the Kurds in the north but only because Saddam knew he would face heavy retribution if he sent his troops to attack the Kurds.

The message is clear: should Gaddafi be allowed to remain in Libya his people will never be safe. Bellicose and brutal, his threats should be believed. His record as a terrorist and his wanton and indiscriminate attacks on civilians have few parallels. History would suggest a no-fly zone in itself may not be enough. With military action underway, America, its allies—the British and the French—and, importantly, the Arab League cannot afford to let a stalemate develop. To do so will not only abandon the Libyan people but undermine the credibility of those in the international community calling for action. What will the next dictator think when he is pushed into a corner—that, if he momentarily pulls back, he will be able to remain in office? Such an outcome would create a dangerous precedent that in time would embolden others.

Minister for Foreign Affairs, your advocacy for a no-fly zone has been loud enough for all to hear, particularly by the Prime Minister, but please tell us what the next stage is of your very public campaign. Why have you dodged the question about regime change? Do you agree with the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, who said Gaddafi’s survival is certainly potentially one outcome? Or was British Defence Secretary, Liam Fox, closer to the mark when he said the Libyan leader is a legitimate target?

The Minister for Foreign Affairs cannot have it both ways. He cannot ring every foreign leader who will listen to modestly offer his expert advice but not provide a straight answer on the key question of whether the international community will accept an outcome that sees Colonel Gaddafi stay in place. The truth is that, while Colonel Gaddafi remains in control, the civilians will not be safe. Indeed, it is this danger of mission creep that those on the Security Council who abstained from the vote—China, Russia, Germany, India and Brazil—all feared. Fragile support from the Arab League is also at stake.

This is no fly-in, fly-out mission. Gaddafi has made it clear he is up for the fight. It is this reality that our foreign minister must now confront. He was bold enough to advocate for international military action on behalf of others; now it is time he told us how it ends.