Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I draw his attention to my statement to the Senate on 4 February 2003 regarding the Iraq war:

This is not Australia’s war. This is an oil war. This is the United States recognising that as the economic empire of the age it needs oil to maintain its pre-eminence.

I also draw his attention to the Prime Minister’s statement of the same day:

No criticism is more outrageous than the claim that US behaviour is driven by a wish to take control of Iraq’s oil reserves.

I ask the minister: in the light of the point of view of Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the US Federal Reserve, as revealed today, ‘what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil’, why did Prime Minister Howard mislead this nation? How could he have gotten it so wrong? Will he now face up to the fact that he came behind George Bush to invade Iraq for reasons of oil, not the other reasons spuriously put forward?

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I noticed press reports of Mr Greenspan’s alleged comments and I am not going to suggest that he did not say that, but I have not read all those comments. I would only say that, while he is regarded highly internationally for his record as the US’s central banker, I do not know that he has such a reputation with respect to strategic issues confronting the world and the war on terrorism—I do not think that is his expertise. I am, frankly, rather surprised by the reports of him suggesting that the Iraq war was all about oil. From the Australian government’s point of view, and I am sure the US government’s point of view, we totally and utterly reject the suggestion that the effort to liberate the Iraqi people and to ensure that the UN position with respect to Iraq was put into effect had anything to do with oil. One could go so far as to suggest that, if one was worried about oil supplies from Iraq, the last thing you would do would be to invade that country. Rather, you would have done some sort of deal with the former dictator of that country. It would have been utterly naive and idiotic to do what we have done.

If I could go back to the primary position that Senator Brown is putting to us—that we should never have participated in the US action with respect to Iraq—I would remind Senator Brown of the circumstances of that action. For years we had had the dictator of Iraq thumbing his nose at the UN with respect to sanctions imposed on that country by the UN as a result of that country’s invasion of Kuwait. The dictator of Iraq invaded its peaceful neighbour, Kuwait, and as a result of that invasion there was a UN action to repel Iraq, to repel Saddam Hussein and restore peace and liberty to the people of Kuwait. As a result of that, sanctions were imposed by the UN on Iraq and a regime imposed which required inspection of military facilities and weapons facilities in Iraq, to ensure that Iraq was not in a position to develop weapons of mass destruction. The Iraqi government, under Saddam Hussein, expelled the UN, refused to comply with the UN, refused to allow inspection of those facilities and thumbed its nose at the UN.

Even the now Leader of the Opposition, Mr Kevin Rudd, accepted that, in all likelihood, there were weapons of mass destruction being developed by the Hussein government. It was reasonable for the world to assume that the behaviour of Saddam Hussein was consistent with him developing weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, tragically, the UN could not bring itself to enforce its own sanctions. The great tragedy in all of this is that the UN, regrettably, was incapable of enforcing the sanctions that it had imposed and enforcing its rule on the dictator of Iraq and, as a result, the US decided to lead a coalition to impose those sanctions and enforce the will of the UN upon Iraq. It was one of the most difficult decisions that this government has ever had to make. I was a member of the cabinet which made that decision and it is probably the most difficult decision that I have participated in. The cabinet members knew it would be controversial and that people like Senator Brown would oppose it. We continue to believe we did the right thing, we continue to believe that we acted properly, in good faith and in Australia’s national interests, and it had nothing to do with oil.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Dr Greenspan says, ‘It was largely about oil.’ How could the government have gotten it so wrong? And I ask, flowing from that, with the Prime Minister making it clear that 20 per cent of crude oil comes from the Middle East, what is the government’s preparation for this nation as peak oil approaches?

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not sure that a discussion about peak oil, which could take at least several answers, has anything to do with the rest of that question. All I would say is that, with great respect to Mr Greenspan, a gentleman whom I do respect for his record as the US Federal Reserve Governor, he is completely wrong on the issue of the motivation for the action that was taken in Iraq. We continue to believe that what we did with respect to Iraq was right, that our presence there is right, and that what we have done is to bring liberty to the people of Iraq and ensure that the dictator of Iraq could not develop weapons of mass destruction to imperil the free world.