SPEECH ON IRAQ
DARYL MELHAM MP
SHADOW MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CUSTOMS
17 September 2002
Check against delivery
It is a solemn moment when our national parliament debates questions of
war and peace.
I was still a relatively newly elected Member of Parliament when this
House debated the commitment of Australian forces to the 1991 Gulf War.
With a heavy heart, I spoke in favour of Australia’s support for the
use of force under the explicit mandate of the UN Security Council.
This morning we heard the UN Secretary General’s announcement that Iraq
has agreed to readmit weapons inspectors. This has been welcomed by
many governments and by speakers in this House today.
The United States reaction has been notably less than enthusiastic. A
White House spokesman is quoted as saying the Iraqi offer is merely a
tactic aimed at giving false hope that Iraq intends to comply with the
relevant Security Council resolutions.
The US is right to be sceptical about the Iraqi offer. Saddam Hussein’s
track record doesn’t inspire confidence. But observers are also right
to be sceptical about American motives too.
Much has been said in recent days about the enforcement of UN Security
Council resolutions. But what a pity that there is not a great deal
more consistency on these matters.
While we debate the enforcement of Security Council resolutions against
Iraq, the Middle East Peace Process lies in a broken shambles. Key UN
Security Council resolutions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have
been ignored for decades.
Over the past two years, the United States has given Israel a free hand
to coerce the Palestinians. And the Australian Government scarcely
bothers today to differentiate its approach to the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict from that of the United States.
At the same time, the United States declared stopping the proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction to be absolutely vital. Yet no mention
is made of Israel’s persistent refusal to sign the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty.
For the record, it should be noted that the estimates of the undeclared
Israeli nuclear arsenal range from 75 to more than 200 weapons,
including thermonuclear warheads, deliverable by aircraft and ballistic
missiles. Israel is a major nuclear power with the capability of
destroying all its neighbours.
The threat of WMD proliferation in the Middle East will never be
properly addressed until Israel’s nuclear forces are brought into the
equation, and indeed disarmed under international supervision.
American policy makers never mention Israel’s nuclear capability.
Notwithstanding Australia’s strong commitment to non-proliferation, the
Australian Government never does either.
Little wonder that the US policy in the Middle East is viewed in the
Arab world to be deeply hypocritical and biased in favour of Israel and
its own geopolitical interests. Little wonder too that the Australian
Government’s approach is seen to be merely an echo of our great and
powerful friend.
A key focus of today’s debate is on securing a resumption of UN weapons
inspections in Iraq. In this regard, however, it should be noted that
US Defence Secretary Rumsfeld has repeatedly said that inspections will
not be effective in eliminating Iraq’s WMD capacity. He says
inspections won’t work.
Even more importantly, President Bush has repeatedly and unambiguously
declared his goal to be “regime change” in Iraq. He is committed to the
forcible overthrow of the government of that sovereign country.
There is no doubt about the deeply evil nature of Saddam Hussein’s
regime. But it is an enormous step to contemplate the overthrow of a
sovereign government.
This is something that President Bush’s father rightfully baulked at in
1991. It is something that could only be contemplated with the explicit
mandate of the UN Security Council, under Article 42 of the UN Charter,
and in circumstances of the gravest threat to international security.
If the United States and its allies are to act to uphold the rule of
international law, they must act within international law.
This brings me to an important point.
Much has been made in this debate about the question of evidence that
might link Saddam Hussein’s regime with the terrorist attacks of 11
September or indicate significant change in Iraqi’s WMD capabilities.
Others have spoken at length about this. I make the point that it is
not merely a question of what evidence is available, it is the question
of what action, if any, does the evidence justify?
Any action taken must be proportional to the evidence of a threat to
international security.
In 1991 Iraq invaded and occupied another sovereign UN member state.
With the authority of the Security Council, the US led a military
response which removed Iraq’s forces from Kuwait, but which left the
Government of Iraq in place.
In 1998, when Iraq refused to comply with Security Council resolutions
to allow weapons inspections, the US and the UK eventually conducted air
strikes to destroy various Iraqi weapons facilities.
Diplomacy and UN processes having run their course, the US and UK
engaged in a limited and targeted military response focussed on Iraqi
WMD capabilities. They did not seek to invade Iraq.
Four and a half years later, the question is whether the evidence that
may be presented comes anywhere near justifying what the US is very
obviously contemplating – that is a massive air offensive followed by a
full-scale invasion to overthrow the Iraqi Government.
Iraq’s non-compliance with UN Security Council resolutions is
undeniable. There are unresolved questions about Iraq’s WMD capabilities
and it is asserted that there is intelligence indicating continuing
Iraqi interest in WMD procurement.
In recent weeks there have been reports that Iraq is only weeks or
months from acquiring nuclear weapons. But on close inspection much of
this is not much more than conjecture. The authoritative Bulletin of
the Atomic Scientists and other respected observers have argued strongly
that Iraq’s nuclear and other WMD capabilities are most likely much less
than they were a decade ago.
It is also noteworthy that the Australian Army’s leading expert on the
medical aspects of nuclear, chemical and biological warfare recently
declared that the threat of biological terrorism to be subject to “far
too much media hype and far too little critical analysis”.
We should subject all so-called “evidence” to very careful and critical
scrutiny.
It remains to be seen whether Iraq’s latest offer to readmit weapons
inspectors is just a delaying tactic. It also remains to be seen what
further steps the UN Security Council will decide.
It may be that if Iraq fails to accept the verified disarmament of its
WMD capabilities, the UN will eventually authorise some form of military
action. But the evidence presented to date comes nowhere near justifying
President Bush’s declared objective -- the forcible overthrow of the
government of a another sovereign state.
As for Australia’s position, we are duty bound to support the United
Nations and the rule of international law. We should not support
offensive military action outside the mandate of the UN Security Council.
Moreover, even if the UN eventually endorses military action against
Iraq, there is no compelling case for Australia to become directly involved.
At present RAN warships are deployed in the Persian Gulf to help enforce
UN sanctions on Iraq, but that is not a basis for Australia to support
air strikes on Iraq, let alone a full-scale invasion.
In this regard the Opposition’s policy is clear. Labor’s approach is
set out in the joint statement issued on 22 April this year by the
Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Ministers for Foreign Affairs
and Defence.
That statement indicates that, even in the event that evidence is
presented of Iraqi complicity in the 11 September attacks or of renewed
WMD programs, Australia’s limited military capability is such that any
involvement should be limited to our ongoing intelligence cooperation
and broader logistical support.
Labor’s policy, first stated on 22 April and reaffirmed on many
occasions since then, does not support direct Australian military
involvement in hostilities against Iraq.
Australia is a strong ally of the United States. We have already made a
significant contribution to the campaign against the al Qaeda terrorists
in Afghanistan. We are also heavily engaged in other military
commitment in East Timor, Bougainville and the Solomon Islands.
There is no compelling reason for Australia to commit any elements of
the ADF to any future attack on Iraq. We do not have to automatically
follow the United States.
Whatever measures may or may not ultimately be authorised by the UN
Security Council, we should determine our own position based on the rule
of international law and a realistic assessment of our own limited
military capabilities.
It is not in our national interest to make an essentially token
contribution to any military offensive against Iraq. We should not do so.
..
--
--
Leftlink - Australia's Broad Left Mailing List
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archived at http://www.cat.org.au/lists/leftlink/
Sponsored by Melbourne's New International Bookshop
Sub: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=subscribe%20leftlink
Unsub: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20leftlink
