Iraq, Leadership Simon Crean - Leader of the Opposition

Radio Interview

Transcript - 'AM', ABC Radio - 11 April 2003

E & OE – PROOF ONLY

MOTTRAM: Opposition Leader Simon Crean has maintained his steadfast opposition to the war, but he's been left to defend his position, with some in his Party arguing that it's exposed deep-rooted tensions within the ALP over his leadership abilities. Mr Crean joins me in the studio this morning. Good morning, Mr Crean.

CREAN: Good morning, Linda.

MOTTRAM: We'll get to leadership issues in a moment, but the reality in Iraq at the moment seems to be that Saddam Hussein's authority has completely evaporated. Is that not a good thing?

CREAN: It is a good thing, and no one will mourn that going or him going. The question is the means by which it was achieved. Now, it's happened. We've got to accept that it's happened. For us, the most immediate thing is getting the troops home as quickly as possible, but if we are part of the occupying forces, the ability to bring them home quickly is pushed out into the future. That's why what Australia should be doing is arguing for the UN involvement in the reconstruction of Iraq.

MOTTRAM: Okay, but, Australia as a western democracy, a wealthy country, do we not have a responsibility to stay in there, no matter what it takes, to help with the reconstruction – even if it is soldiers, even if it is long-term?

CREAN: Not only do we have a responsibility, as an occupying force we must, under the Geneva Conventions – it's a legal obligation. But that's not what John Howard told us before the war started. John Howard said we would not be involved in any peacekeeping operation. He didn't tell the Australian people that, without a UN mandate, we as one of the occupying forces did have obligations. This is just another part of the deceit in terms of how the Prime Minister led us into this.

But my point is, if the purpose is to get the troops home as quickly as possible, that can only happen if what Australia insists upon – which is the correct direction – is for the UN to be involved in the post-regime administration; in establishing the political transition; in doing it either under the Timor model, where they headed the peacekeeping exercise, or under the Afghanistan model where there was a conference convened of the various parties to form the new administration. And pass the running of Iraq over to those people, over to a new administration, but under the UN auspices.

MOTTRAM: Okay, so you concede that we should have a role, that we should leave some personnel there. Should we leave troops there? You know, whether or not it's a UN-mandated process, should Australia stay in there now?

CREAN: My point is that without a UN-mandated process, Linda, we are going to be required to keep a military and an administrative presence there …

MOTTRAM: Okay, but you're saying also that you want us to bring the troops home?

CREAN: Yes, I want the troops brought home and, therefore, the most effective way of ensuring they are brought home as quickly as possible is to pass the new administration over to the UN, not get involved in the coalition administration. Now this is a position that Tony Blair has been arguing for. It's a position that Alexander Downer a couple of weeks ago said he was supporting. But it's not a position that George Bush supports.

MOTTRAM: There is a place for an Australian role in that? In a UN administration?

CREAN: Well, I think that that would depend on what the UN had to – you know, the UN may request that. But I would have thought in all the circumstances, Australia has already made a significant contribution.

MOTTRAM: So you don't think that Australia should necessarily take up that responsibility if it is handed over to the UN, that Australia should take up some of the responsibility for reconstruction?

CREAN: No, I think the UN should take charge, and it should determine the course of the political, the process for putting in place the new political administration – maybe convening the conference like they did in terms of Afghanistan. Then there is the humanitarian dimension of it. That's something that would be under the running of the United Nations.

MOTTRAM: Okay, there will be a security dimension – absolutely no doubt about that. And the complexity …

CREAN: Yes there will be a security dimension.

MOTTRAM: Is that a place where Australia should remain involved?

CREAN: Well, it may be, but …

MOTTRAM: So we could still have troops there in your [inaudible].

CREAN: Yes, but it would be under the UN mandate.

MOTTRAM: But still with Australian forces, potentially, on the ground.

CREAN: Well it could be, but I think that in those circumstances Australia, I think, should be having serious discussions with the UN as to whether we haven't already made a significant contribution. You see, out of this circumstance, Australia has become a bigger threat for terrorism. And I think there is a real question here about ensuring that we're securing our own interests closer to home. This is a question of priority but, depending upon what the UN sought, and depending upon the assessment that Australia has to validly make about our own interests, I would have thought the priority was back here rather than over there.

MOTTRAM: So at the end of the day, it's actually been a good thing that this war took place, isn't it, if Saddam Hussein is gone?

CREAN: Look, no end justifies the means, Linda. That's the point. What we have …

MOTTRAM: But it's a hard sell, though, for you, isn't it? I mean, the polls are showing that you've not really brought the Australian population to your side with these arguments.

CREAN: Well, hang on, let me just answer your question. The whole basis of Australia going into this was to rid Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction. So far these haven't been found and, indeed, the Prime Minister even hinted yesterday they could have gone across the border. Now, if that's the case, that's an incredible outcome from what is now supposed to be the great justification for going in as part of the coalition forces. Where are the weapons of mass destruction? And the big question that we've got to ask ourselves, ‘Is Australia, by making itself part of the Coalition of the Willing, has it exposed us to a greater risk of terrorism?' The answer is yes. It hasn't made us a more secure place.

So I think that we've got to get beyond the euphoria of yesterday and the jubilation on the faces of the Iraqi people to understand the longer-term consequences for Australia. We could have a continuing military and administrative presence over there if we stick blindly to the Coalition of the Willing determining the administration. We have to argue for the UN involvement, and we have exposed ourselves to a greater risk of terrorism, in which circumstances we should be doing more to protect our citizenry and focus the resources here.

MOTTRAM: I need to get to this point, because you have not succeeded in turning the opinion polls around. It's not looking great. I mean, you have mounted those very sophisticated, complicated arguments. Mark Latham is saying there are still destabilisers in the ranks; they should stop it. You haven't managed to rein them in and this was your chance – I just need to make this point – this was your chance to define yourself, wasn't it, separately from the Government. And it appears it hasn't succeeded and it hasn't secured your leadership.

CREAN: Well, let me make my point. You may think that the opinion polls are the determining factor in this. I don't. I took the position last April – before any opinion polls were coming out in relation to this – that said we should only support the exercise in Iraq to disarm under the United Nations mandate. I still firmly hold to that view. The UN process was working, it was disarming. What we now have to ask ourselves is, have the weapons of mass destruction been identified? Has Australia been made a safer place? And the answer to the both of those questions is: no so far to the first; and certainly no on the second. And we've got to ask ourselves, what's in it for Australia? If we're now a greater risk from terrorist threat, has it been worth it for us?

MOTTRAM: Okay, Simon Crean, thanks so much for your time this morning.

CREAN: My pleasure.

(ends)