Labor's foreign policy Mark Latham - Leader of the Opposition

TV Interview with Tony Jones

Transcript - Lateline, ABC TV - 7 April 2004

Video - Mark Latham on Lateline, ABC TV (RealMedia)

TONY JONES: Back now to the interview we forecast at the beginning of the program with Labor leader Mark Latham.

As I said, it's the first of two interviews we've done with Mr Latham.

Tomorrow's will deal with domestic politics.

But tonight, after Mr Latham's landmark speech at the Lowy Institute, the subject is foreign affairs, concentrating on Labor's policies on Iraq, the US alliance and terrorism.

TONY JONES: Mark Latham, let's start with Iraq if we can.

The US Senator Ted Kennedy says Iraq has now become George Bush's Vietnam.

You seem to agree with him?

MARK LATHAM, FEDERAL OPPOSITION LEADER: Well, I think that the nature of the engagement has changed.

It started out as a search for weapons of mass destruction that now evidently don't exist and can't be seen as part of the war against terror for that reason.

But the developments in the last couple of days, the last week, of course show that the Shiite uprising puts a different complexion on it, that part of the occupation of the country now is clearly the management of tensions and violence that are about religion, ethnic differences, nationalism, and that of course makes it a very different engagement for everyone involved.

TONY JONES: What about the Vietnam analogy?

Is it legitimate?

MARK LATHAM: Well, Vietnam went for a longer period of time.

Let's hope that Iraq doesn't stretch out over decades and end up with the sort of tragedy that we had in Vietnam, but the changing nature of the engagement is fair commentary in that Vietnam did change from a conflict against the French to a nationalistic war.

It was seen by the West as communism but in hindsight people would have to say it was more about nationalism and when it gets to the point where the occupation of the country becomes more of the problem than the solution, where the costs of occupation are starting to outweigh the risks of withdrawal, then obviously you get some pretty serious dilemmas in terms of foreign policy.

How do we handle that in Australia?

It's wise to have an exit strategy.

That's what we had in Afghanistan, that's what we had in Somalia.

The Government last year was saying months rather than years in Iraq and pointing to an exit strategy.

Well, that's what Australia needs.

TONY JONES: Are you making a political gamble here, that Iraq is going to end up in a quagmire and that voters will therefore agree with your position?

MARK LATHAM: Well, in foreign policy events change and to anticipate change and have a handle on it is pretty important.

That's the making of good foreign policy.

Anyone who says that the war in Iraq was part of the war against terror was proven wrong because the weapons of mass destruction didn't exist and now of course if you'd said, say a couple of years ago in this country that Australia was going to be part of a military engagement on the other side of the world, nothing to do with the war against terror, that's part of the management of ethnic, religious and nationalistic issues in the Middle East and we'd be doing that at the expense of our commitments to defence of Australia and the war against terror, well people wouldn't have believed you.

I mean, foreign policy can unfold in the form of folly and to have some strategies to avoid that is pretty important and for Australia that means having an exit strategy from Iraq.

TONY JONES: I notice you used the word 'folly' there, and I know you're a big fan of the American historian Barbara Tuchman.

The central thesis of her book The March of Folly is that government's sometimes pursue policies against their own interests.

Have you been... she in fact took the case of America in Vietnam as one of her case studies.

Have you been informed in what you're saying by that book?

MARK LATHAM: Yeah, I've read that book The March of Folly and it's sort of how government's are drawn into the vortex of decision making and they can't pull themselves out, the march of folly as they get drawn so far in they don't know how to get out.

Obviously that was a big part of the dilemma with policy making for Vietnam, and you certainly have to think afresh the whole nature of Iraq because of recent events where you don't want the occupation of the country to become a problem rather than part of the solution.

When you've got a Shiite movement emerging, then obviously you have to think in terms of exit strategies and the way of managing what's now a very complex situation.

Certainly no-one can say that going to war for weapons of mass destruction was the right decision, because the weapons didn't exist, but now you have to make a judgment about how to handle that and the judgment of the Labor Party in contemporary circumstances is an exit strategy from Iraq, and we've set out our timetable.

The Howard Government is not even able to answer to the Australian people the fundamental question - what's the job that needs to be done?

If the job is supposed to be now the management of these tensions, then I don't think that's in Australia's national interest at all.

TONY JONES: We'll get to the national interest question in a minute.

Let me ask you this, though.

Right now our US allies are talking about the possibility of putting more troops in.

Labor's saying it's going to pull troops out if it comes into government as soon as it possibly can.

Could that damage our key alliance?

Have you contemplated what damage that could cause?

MARK LATHAM: Oh, I think it's well known Labor's stance.

We opposed the war at the beginning for the reason that we didn't think it was warranted.

Subsequent information - no weapons of mass destruction used during the conflict, none found since - would confirm the correctness of our position.

So we've had a difference of opinion from the United States on this from day one.

And it's not surprising that a party that strongly opposed the war feels vindicated in our stance and now watching the changing circumstances we're mindful of the need to have an exit strategy and there may well be other countries need to go down that path.

I don't think any country legitimately wants to stay there forever.

TONY JONES: But what about the alliance question?

Have you contemplated that this stand, the specific one you've taken now, bring the troops back by Christmas, could damage the alliance?

MARK LATHAM: Well, I think the alliance between a future Labor government and the American administration will be founded in three areas of strength. One, is the intelligence relationship and the joint facilities in Australia are a very important part of that.

I'd like to think the constructive role that a Labor government will play in Asian engagement will be seen as a strength for the Americans and also the strength of policy and personnel, which was the basis in the Hawke and Keating years.

But for the Labor Party having founded the alliance in World War II, having kept it a vibrant and strong in all the years since, we've never seen it as a rubber stamp.

We've had a long standing now, what's a couple of years difference about Iraq, and I don't see that as being at the forefront of future relationships.

It's more a dilemma that both countries have got to deal with and I'm sure this matter - you mentioned Ted Kennedy - it's going to be a matter of very sharp political debate and difference in the United States in their election year as it is in our country.

TONY JONES: Would you accept that the sudden plunge in your Newspoll approval rates might have something to do with some voters thinking, "He's going to damage the alliance by this stand?"

MARK LATHAM: Well, polls come and go.

I always get my best information talking directly to the Australian people.

It's a great privilege and honour to do that in this position.

I think what we had in Parliament actually was a ding-dong, polarised debate, a fair dinkum debate and stoush in the Australian Parliament and it's not surprising that in that environment the polls return a bit more to normal as opposed to some of the artificial peaks that were around before that.

A parliamentary engagement or a polarised debate, those give you a better sense of normality in Australian politics than what some of those numbers were indicating, say, a month ago.

TONY JONES: You're not at all concerned that it may be reflecting a fear among some voters that you were making policy on the run?

MARK LATHAM: Well, Labor's very, very committed to the alliance.

Our stance on Iraq is well known, it's been a point of difference stretching into years now with the United States and quite frankly, we've got the right to disagree but keep the alliance strong.

We've never seen it as a rubber stamp.

If we'd been wrong in our initial assessment in opposing the war, if weapons of mass destruction were found and this was a legitimate part of the war against terror, then of course our position wouldn't be as strong today, but we feel proven in the evidence, proven in the argument and now as these events shape up in Iraq itself, convinced that our exit strategy is the right approach for Australia.

But our arguments have grown stronger in the past week.

TONY JONES: Do you really believe though that Australia's legal responsibility as an occupying power ends at the moment that a possibly quite unstable interim government is put into place in Iraq?

MARK LATHAM: Well, that's the change in sovereignty and the point where Australia's no longer an occupying power.

TONY JONES: It is in theory, but if the government is unstable, if they're facing a potential civil war, is that really the moment?

MARK LATHAM: Well, it's always been my expectation and that of others, including Paul Bremer and the Bush administration, that the interim government comes in when it's ready to govern and they've been at different times upbeat about that capacity even in the last month.

So when they have a sovereign government in Iraq, we've consistently said, well, that's appropriate point to start up an exit strategy for Australia and that's what we've set out.

The thing for the Howard Government of course is to define what is the job they're expecting Australia to do.

We think the job is to get to the point of a new sovereign Iraqi government.

If a Howard Government thinks the job goes further than that, they should say so to the Australian people and avoid the risk of Australia being bogged down in engagements that aren't part of the war against terror, that aren't part of the defence of Australia and soak up the resources we need as a nation to do those other two things effectively.

TONY JONES: What if Iraq does become the main front in the war on terror?

What if it does become the rallying point for Al Qaeda and we've left it?

MARK LATHAM: Well, that's hypothetical and there's no evidence of that happening.

Al Qaeda activities have actually regenerated in Afghanistan and north Pakistan.

There's no evidence that Saddam, as evil as his regime was, was some active part of Al Qaeda.

There's no evidence of the weapons of mass destruction.

There's no evidence that this Shiite uprising can be defined as part of the war against terror.

The Shiites were the people who were supposed to be liberated, feel liberated, as a part of the coalition action in Iraq.

So given all those factual pieces of evidence, it's hard to agree with the hypothetical scenario that you've presented.

TONY JONES: You have talked today in your speech about Labor's new multilateralism or Labor going back to multilateralism, of aligning itself much more closely with what the UN does.

What happens then if the UN does get a new Security Council resolution, as some say will happen, to take a kind of mandate in Iraq and asks Australia to leave its troops in place?

Labor has not given a clear answer on what it would do if it was requested by the UN to keep troops there.

MARK LATHAM: I answered that last week by saying it's hypothetical, but in the nature of such a request we'd respond favourably in terms of humanitarian, economic and civilian aid, an aid effort, but we also recognise that the overstretching of Australia's military resources mean that peacekeepers wouldn't be possible.

The Howard Government has said that as late as December... as recently as December the PM was saying that UN peacekeepers on the other side of the world, "that's not Australia's cup of tea," and again he pointed to the fact that we've got commitments closer to home that need to be met.

We'd respond favourably in terms of the different aspects of aid, but in terms of a military commitment we wouldn't be able to respond in such a fashion.

TONY JONES: Alright, you're going to Washington very soon.

Do you expect to be snubbed by the White House and by senior White House officials?

MARK LATHAM: Well, I'm going to the Australian-American Leadership Dialogue, but also the United Nations... visiting the States and the United Nations.

I'm hoping to make contact as best I can with both sides of politics.

Like us, they've got an election year and Republicans, Democrats, Labor and Liberal, I'm sure there's going to be a lot of interaction as we try and deal with these issues in common and build personal connections as much as that is possible in an election year.

TONY JONES: You won't meet the President, though, will you?

MARK LATHAM: No, that's not expected and wouldn't normally happen.

TONY JONES: What about the alternative president, what about Senator Kerry?

Are you making an attempt to meet him?

MARK LATHAM: Well, that would be desirable.

I would hope that that was possible but we'll have to see how these things pan out in terms of itinerary and people racing around in their system in an election year.

But certainly with senior Democrats I'll be doing the best I can to make contact and talk about the issues that matter.

The relationship between the Clinton administration and the Keating Government was very, very strong, particularly in terms of President Clinton looking to PM Keating to help with the some of the Asian engagement issues, and that's a very good template for what we'd try and achieve in the future.

TONY JONES: No word from the Democrats yet as to whether you'll see Kerry?

MARK LATHAM: Well, there's a few months away so we're still trying to obviously work out itineraries and possibilities, but suffice to say that on these trips - I suppose I got one proviso - the election campaign gets in the way or its heating up in terms of elections -- well, best to be in Australia rather than the United States.

But the intention is to obviously meet people as senior as possible in the circumstances while I'm over there.

TONY JONES: You also suggested today that a Labor government will look to reverse Australia's military stance, that it's building what appears to be an expeditionary force, and you will seek to reverse that.

Does that mean you will be prepared to give up contracts like the contracts for example for Abrams tanks, American Abram tanks, and the large troop carrying ships that are being planned?

MARK LATHAM: Well, what we've said is that when last in Government we had a strategy for defence of Australia, rather than building up capability around these overseas expeditionary forces, and in the future a modern defence of Australian strategy we would stick to those Labor fundamentals.

What it means in terms of detail and the like, you're always reluctant to overturn contracts that are signed.

Goodness gracious, the compensation costs of that can be huge.

But in terms of a detailed capability strategy, we'll have that further and closer to the election campaign.

But in terms of direction, we favour the defence of Australia as opposed to building up capability around overseas expeditionary forces, the like of which Australia obviously launched into Iraq and which Senator Hill, the Defence Minister, seems keen on for the future.

TONY JONES: One question on regional terrorism.

We know that the ONA's top Indonesia analyst, David Farmer, specifically warned in a written report in September of 2001, more than a year before the Bali attack, that if Islamic fundamentalists wanted to make a catastrophic, symbolic attack against Westerners they might choose a hotel in Bali.

Do you fear that there was either a major political failure or a major intelligence failure in the lead-up to Bali?

MARK LATHAM: You know, Bali was such a shocking thing and for the families that have suffered it will always be a terrible tragedy, but the point is there's a Senate inquiry into these matters and they're going to make the judgment based on the evidence that comes forward, a part of which you've mentioned there.

It's not for me to jump to a conclusion about that piece of material but, rather, wait for the Senate inquiry and see what they throw up.

Obviously, we always want our intelligence and decision making to be the very best for Australia's national security.

That goes without saying.

The Senate inquiry's got some recommendations about the future, the future effort, then obviously we all need to take those seriously.

TONY JONES: You did have a very close connection in your briefings with one of those senior intelligence people, Mr Bonighton.

What did he actually say to you?

MARK LATHAM: Well, I found out on Friday he's actually Australia's expert or the person oversighting the search - futile search - for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

So I can't go into the detail of what he said but when I made the claim in Parliament we'd discussed weapons of mass destruction, and obviously he wasn't telling me they'd found lots of them.

People can conclude that and I concluded from the discussion, the detailed discussion, that there had been a serious failing of intelligence and decision making, and Australia's policy in relation to Iraq was a farce, an absolute farce.

I made that conclusion based on the briefing provided by the Howard Government, and the ironical thing out of all this, the Howard Government said in Parliament, "Oh, Mark Latham hasn't received any of these briefings about Iraq."

I received a briefing about Iraq that went to the core issue of the failure to find weapons of mass destruction.

TONY JONES: But Mr Bonighton's been put into the spotlight here by the Howard Government and by you?

MARK LATHAM: Well, by the Howard Government.

I didn't want to name him or the agency.

TONY JONES: But you did in the end.

Did he say to you that the policy was flawed or was a fiasco, as you concluded?

MARK LATHAM: Well, he gave me a briefing that led me to certain conclusions that I put out in the public arena I mentioned just a moment ago.

But this came up because the Howard Government accused me in Parliament, a very serious accusation - the leader of the Opposition hasn't received any briefings about Iraq, any matter to do with Iraq.

And I knew that to be false.

I had received information that was consistent with Labor thinking on this issue, verified the stance that we'd taken in opposition to the war and certainly strengthened my resolve that Government policy had been a farce and we needed to do something about that in the future.

TONY JONES: It would be a huge issue, though, wouldn't it, if one of the key intelligence figures in the Government actually believed the policy was a fiasco and said so to you?

MARK LATHAM: This is the difficulty.

I received a confidential briefing and I'm obliged to keep the detailed content of that confidential.

It's become a matter of controversy because the Howard Government tried to abuse the agency, the briefing, the confidentiality of it, to try and score some points in the Australian Parliament.

So I had to defend myself in some shape or form.

I've done that by on the public record talking about the conclusions I reached.

I wish the Howard Government wouldn't play politics with our national security and they'd respect the confidentiality of these matters.

So, too, they shouldn't have named ASIS in relation to Iraq.

That's actually increased the level of risk for Australians in Iraq, both civilian and military.

So these are terrible abuses by the Howard Government, all to try and score some points in the parliamentary debate.

TONY JONES: Mark Latham, that's where we'll leave our analysis of foreign policy with you for tonight.

We'll speak to you again tomorrow night.

MARK LATHAM: OK, look forward to that.

Thanks, Tony.

Ends. E & OE