Downer Defines Our Responsibilities As An Occupying Power Kevin Rudd - Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs

Media Statement - 14 May 2003

Alexander decides this year to spend more on improving Embassy décor than on humanitarian assistance to Iraq

Alexander Downer has decided to spend more than $50 million in the upcoming financial year on improving Embassy décor at a number of our overseas missions – including Paris, Geneva and Washington.

By contrast, Mr Downer has decided to allocate $45 million for the upcoming year for humanitarian assistance and economic reconstruction in Iraq.

• This figure represents an 18% reduction in humanitarian assistance and economic reconstruction for Iraq from the current financial year;

• This $45 million is also to be found from within the existing total overseas aid budget rather than being new money provided from consolidated revenue (Budget Paper 2, pg 160); and

• This figure stands in stark contrast to the $645 million that the Government has so far committed for the cost of the war against Iraq.

These figures say everything about Mr Howard's and Mr Downer's definition about of Australia's responsibilities as an Occupying Power in Iraq under the 4^th Geneva Convention. Under the 4^th Geneva Convention Australia, the UK and the US, are now the Occupying Powers of Iraq under international law – until such time as a properly constituted Iraqi government is established.

Under the Geneva Convention, Australia is therefore conjointly legally responsible for ensuring the physical protection of the Iraqi civilian population, the proper functioning of Iraq's hospital and health facilities and the provision of food and clean water.

However, according to Medecins Sans Frontiere as of last week there was not a single properly functioning hospital in all of Baghdad – a city of 5 million people. And as of today, the WHO has confirmed the outbreak of cholera from samples taken from cases in three hospitals in Basra.

Mr Howard's and Mr Downer's response to their responsibilities as an Occupying Power in Iraq is both morally and legally bankrupt. It is as if Iraq is now an inconvenient subject that should now be swept under the carpet. If there was any doubt about this as a political strategy on the part of the Howard Government, then analysts should look no further than the scant treatment of Iraq in Mr Downer's overseas aid budget for 2003-04.

1. Total Aid

The Government has claimed an increase in its total overseas aid budget of $79 million or 2.2%.

A close examination of the Government's own figures, however, reveals that all is not what it is said to be.

• Table 1 on page xiii of Australia's Overseas Aid Program 2003-04 (see attachment A) indicates that total Australian aid flows to partner countries for 2003-04 will decline by $9.3 million from $1291.9 million to $1282.6 million.

• So how does Mr Downer manage to bring about the appearance of a $79 million increase in the total aid budget? He does so by means of a breathtaking manipulation of a line entry in the aid budget entitled Aid Contributions by Other Government Departments. Last year the Government spent $85.3 million under this item, this year the figure has risen massively to $137.1 million – an increase of $55.8 million.

• NGOs have been advised by AusAID officials that this (and related items in the budget papers) conceals $87 million budgeted by the Department of Immigration for the costs of offshore processing in Nauru, as well as (for the first time) $48 million for DIMIA costs for supporting refugees within Australia. In other words, Mr Downer is now inflating his own aid budget with domestic expenditure and masking the real decline in core aid within that budget by now incorporating DIMIA's costs for running the Pacific Solution and aspects of its mandatory detention policy within Australia. This is obscene.

• A further masking device employed by Mr Downer is the line item also contained in Table 1 of Australia's Overseas Aid Program 2003-04 entitled Core contributions to multilateral organisations, other ODA. This large figure has risen from $443.8 million in 2002-02 to $449 million for 2003-04. It is completely unclear what Other ODA means under this item – and whether it masks further non-AusAID contributions, which Mr Downer for the purposes of this budget has deemed to be official ODA. It may, for example, conceal within it some $17 million for Defence Cooperation Programs. However, any attempt to use Mr Downer's Portfolio Budget Statement - Budget Related Paper 1.10 as a means of accurately disaggregating a lump sum which represents more than a quarter of the total aid budget is impossible. Labor will pursue this matter vigorously in estimates.

• The final device, which Mr Downer resorts to, as a means of inflating his total budget figure is his use of the accounting device, entitled "Reconciliation of expenses to cash". While this figure has consistently been registered negatively for the previous four financial years, this year, by happenstance, it has become positive to the tune of $28.4 million. Once again Labor will pursue this matter in estimates.

• In other words, Mr Downer has been desperate to engineer a $78.9 million increase in the total aid budget in order to sustain the Government's "record" of delivering 0.25% of GDP as Australia's official ODA. But the reality that this figure conceals is a real decline in what core aid Australia actually delivers to partner countries. And the further reality is that this real decline is masked by the gross manipulation of so-called aid contributions by other government departments – most obscenely DIMIA.

2. Regional Aid Allocations

Table one of Australia's Overseas Aid Program 2003-04 also reveals a disturbing pattern: there are marginal increases for Australia's aid contributions to PNG and the Pacific and to East Asia. But most disturbingly, there is a massive decline in Australia's aid contribution to the Middle East. Australia contributed $88.7 million to the Middle East (principally Iraq) in 2002-03, however, this figure declines to $37.8 million for 2003-04. This represents a 59% decline.

3. Iraq

Page 41 of Mr Downer's statement Australia's Overseas Aid Program 2003-04 contains virtually no detail on Australia's allocation for Iraq.

The figure of $100.5 million referred to on page 41 covers both the current and upcoming financial year, 2003-04 – and possibly beyond.

As noted above, $45 million of this amount has been allocated for the upcoming financial year – representing an 18% decline on the $55 million allocated for the current financial year. Furthermore, this $45 million has to be found from within the existing AusAID global budget - which means withdrawing funds from other programs (possibly including the Government's much vaunted increase in its provision for general humanitarian assistance).

Australia's responsibilities as an Occupying Power are likely to continue for a number of years. Secretary Rumsfeld stated last week that it would be impossible for anybody to put a fixed time limit on it. But the basic reality is that the humanitarian and reconstruction needs of Iraq will increase in the coming financial year – not decrease, as Mr Downer's aid allocation would indicate.

Australia's overall contribution to Iraq should also be seen in the context of our relative contribution to the UN $US2.2 billion Flash Appeal for Iraq. As of 5 May, only 30% of the UN Emergency Humanitarian Appeal for Iraq had been met. As for Australia's contribution, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) has advised that of the US$677 million so far made available by member states for Iraq, Australia had contributed US$10.2 million – or 1.51%. This contrasts with Canada (a non-combatant state) that has offered US$29.6 million; the Netherlands (another non-combatant state) that has offered US$14.9 million; and Germany (totally opposed to the war) that has offered US$10.2 million (see attachment B)

The only conclusion that can be drawn from the above is that Mr Howard and Mr Downer are fundamentally reneging in their responsibilities as an Occupying Power in Iraq. Mr Howard himself confirmed in a press conference on 10 April that Australia was an Occupying Power for the purposes of the Geneva Convention and the draft UN Security Council resolution currently being considered in New York further underlines what those responsibilities are. Mr Howard cannot simply sign up for a war without simultaneously accepting his Government's legal responsibilities arising from such a war.

4. Afghanistan

Mr Howard and Mr Downer's treatment of post war Iraq shows some similarities of their marginal contribution to the reconstruction of post-war Afghanistan.

The Australian Government over the past two years has allocated approximately $ 1 billion for the so-called Pacific Solution dealing with the arrival of Afghan and Iraqi asylum seekers in Australia. The Howard Government has never adopted a comprehensive policy for dealing with the challenge of asylum seekers for Australia: i.e. how to deal with the problem of refugees at source, the problem of refugees in transit countries (such as Indonesia and Malaysia) and how to deal also with asylum seekers upon their arrival in Australia.

The Howard Government has always run a political strategy focused on the latter. After sustained pressure both from the Opposition and Indonesia it has begun to address the question of transit countries, but the Government has never grasped the importance in dealing with the stabilisation of countries of origin.

In the case of Afghanistan, the continued absence of security beyond Kabul and the continued threat of landmines creates fundamental problems for the repatriation of asylum seekers.

Australia in relative terms also remains on the smallest donor countries ($23 million in the current year) to the economic reconstruction of Afghanistan – as underlined by Mr Downer's refusal to attend the international donor conference in Tokyo last February.

5. Contribution to UN agencies

The Howard Government continues to preside over a decline in Australia's contribution to UN humanitarian agencies – despite the enormous good these agencies do in the world.

Since 1995-96 when Labor left office, Australia's contribution to UN agencies has declined by 51.3% in real terms.

• Funding for UN agencies will decline for 2003-04 by 10.4%; from $68.2 million to $61.1 million.
• Funding for the World Food Program has declined by a massive 22.5% in 2003-04 compared with the previous year from $40 million down to $31 million. The Government says this is because of the winding down of a WFP program in China. But what about the continuing famines in North Korea and Zimbabwe where the WFP tries to keep literally millions of people alive.
• The Government's funding for the UNHCR remains static at $7.3 million, having effectively halved in the previous budget from $14.3 million – reflecting the Government's longstanding political hostility to the High Commissioner for Refugees and his objection to many aspects of the Howard Government's refugee policy.

6. HIV/AIDS

HIV/AIDS represents a looming economic and social catastrophe for many developing countries – including Papua New Guinea. A report commissioned by AusAID itself in 2002 indicated stated that: "HIV/AIDS has the potential to reduce the labour force by 13 to 38 per cent by the year 2020 and increase PNG's budget deficit by 9 to 21 per cent".

It is not apparent from this year's budget that there has been any increased allocation beyond the five-year/$60 million program initiated previously.

Given the gravity of the HIV/AIDS crisis confronting PNG and given the potential impact of this crisis on Australian indigenous and other communities in the Torres Strait and on the Australian mainland, this figure should be reviewed as a matter of fundamental priority.

It should be noted with some concern that in 2002-03, the aid budget for PNG was underspent by $21.1 million. Australia, both for its own national interests as well as to assist PNG, should assume primary responsibility for the totality of the HIV/AIDS strategy for PNG. This strategy is of fundamental importance to Australia's national security.

7. SARS

Despite the impact of SARS on the Asia Pacific regional economy and, prospectively, the Australian economy, we have been unable to identify a single reference in either Mr Downer's Portfolio Budget Statement (Budget Related Paper 1.10). In Australia's Overseas Aid Program 2003-04 we have found a single reference to SARS as a descriptor of current problems facing the region – but not a subject for policy or budgetary action.

Quite apart from the potential impact of SARS on Australian public health as well as its impact on sections of the Australian economy (eg tourism), it would have been reasonable to expect the department of state with overall responsibility for Australia's international interests would have at least made reference to the SARS problem in the context of this budget.

Some time ago Mr Downer announced a Government contribution of $1.2 million to WHO work on SARS. The budget gives us no confidence whatsoever that Australia's contribution has occurred in the context of a fully integrated global and regional public health policy response to the SARS problem.

8. Travel Advisories

Mr Downer's statement about the budget indicates an allocation of an additional $10 million to improving the system of travel advisories for Australian tourists in an age of terrorism. This addition is a welcome, although belated, response to the Bali bombings seven months ago.

Mr Downer appears to have accepted a number of recommendations by the Federal Opposition on how to better disseminate travel advisories to the Australian public prior to departure. Mr Downer however has failed to provide real assistance to the Australian travel industry for relevant, adverse travel advisories to the Australian travelling public at the time they make booking enquiries. This must occur.

Furthermore, Mr Downer's reforms appear to have done nothing to systematically advance the dissemination of embassy travel warnings to travellers or residents within countries if their security circumstances radically change. This was also dealt with in detail in the Oppositions proposal on 21 October 2002. It is also hoped that Mr Downer will attend to this matter with real urgency.

Mr Downer's failure to conduct a proper, independent inquiry into his department's travel advisory system post-Bali is unacceptable. The British Government did so and found major deficiencies in their system. It is hoped that Mr Downer responds appropriately to the upcoming Senate Inquiry on this matter.

9. Diplomatic Accommodation

Mr Downer's budget allocates more than $50 million for a range of diplomatic refurbishment projects in Australia's embassies abroad, including:

• $5.9 million for the Ambassador's residence in Washington;

• $4.7 million for the Australian Chancellery in Geneva; and

• $9.5 million for new apartments in Paris.

As a matter of departmental priority, it is questionable why Mr Downer would proceed with these projects while not being able to identify additional resources for humanitarian assistance and economic reconstruction in Iraq.

10. Millennium Development Goals

The Howard Government in 2000 signed up to the United Nations Millennium Development Goals. These goals deal with explicit targets and timelines for the halving of global poverty and global hunger; the extension of universal primary education; reduction in under five infant mortality; the reduction in the maternal mortality ratio; the reversal of the spread of HIV/AIDS; and the halving the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water.

It appears from the overall construction of Mr Downer's third budget since the introduction of the Millennium Development Goals that they do not form the conceptual framework within which the Government has developed its overseas development assistance budgets.

The Howard Government appears to pay lip service to the MDG framework. It has made a number of pious statements on the MDG. But the MDG have not been reflected in the substantive actions of the government over the past three years.