Contact the ABC Search the ABC NewsKidsABC RadioYouthABC TVSciencePublic AffairsArts & CultureRuralEducationAsia-PacificIndigenousSportHealthABC In Your Area
Australian Broadcasting Corporation Online
ABC Online Navigation Bar

To print this page, select "Print" from the File menu of your browser

Australian Broadcasting Corporation
LATELINE
Late night news & current affairs

TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT
LOCATION: abc.net.au > Lateline > Archives
URL: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/s805611.htm


Broadcast: 12/3/2003
Downer discusses Iraqi crisis
The UN Security Council is in crisis, deeply split over a new resolution specifically authorising such a war. As the crisis in the UN escalates, US Defence Secretary Rumsfeld has openly speculated the US might have to go to war without its key ally, Britain. Foreign Minister Alexander Downer joins Lateline to discuss the week's developments, including whether military action outside the UN is legal or not.

---------
Compere: Tony Jones
Reporter: Tony Jones

TONY JONES: Back to our top story now, and it's been another hectic week for the Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer.

During important meetings with Indonesian ministers in Jakarta yesterday, he was briefed on the resignation of Andrew Wilkie, senior intelligence analyst from the ONA.

Mr Wilkie has gone public with his concerns that Australia should not join the coming war against Iraq.

More importantly, as we've heard, the UN Security Council is in crisis, deeply split over a new resolution specifically authorising such a war.

As the crisis in the UN escalates, US Defence Secretary Rumsfeld has openly speculated the US might have to go to war without its key ally, Britain.

With all this going on, the PM took a personal call today from President Bush.

Foreign Minister Downer joins us now from his house in Adelaide.

TONY JONES: Alexander Downer, what was his message?

ALEXANDER DOWNER, FOREIGN MINISTER: Well, obviously the Prime Minister and President Bush had a discussion about the issue of the Security Council and it was an opportunity for the Prime Minister to repeat the position of the Australian Government, that we hope that the Americans will stick with the Security Council process, as you say in your introduction, that's very difficult.

But that they should continue to work with the Security Council and President Bush indicated that he is certainly committed to doing that.

TONY JONES: Did he discuss at all the situation with Great Britain and Tony Blair?

ALEXANDER DOWNER: Look, I wasn't party to the conversation.

To the best of my knowledge he didn't.

The Prime Minister didn't tell me he did.

But there's no particular reason why he would discuss that with us, I suppose.

TONY JONES: Presumably, the President wanted to know whether Australia's participation in the "coalition of the willing" is contingent on a new Security Council resolution.

ALEXANDER DOWNER: No, I think what the Prime Minister -- the President wanted to do was consult the Prime Minister and seek his advice, and as you know, the Prime Minister and the President are close.

The President genuinely does very much value John Howard's advice, and it's an opportunity for John Howard to feed into the thinking of the President, as this very difficult question of a further Security Council resolution is being worked through in New York.

You see, that's really a movable feast.

There are amendments and amendments to amendments being considered and negotiated with different countries, so -- and I'm not going to go into the details of the conversation, but it was about those sorts of issues.

TONY JONES: Would you agree that President Bush may lose Britain from the "coalition of the willing", as Donald Rumsfeld has virtually admitted today, as Tony Blair's political situation worsens?

ALEXANDER DOWNER: No, I think that's extremely unlikely.

Donald Rumsfeld subsequently put out a press release explaining his position, so he withdrew from at least the implication of the remarks he'd made earlier in the day, at least in the day, our time.

No, but in terms of the general point, I don't think that's right.

I think Tony Blair is truly and very deeply committed to seeing this issue through.

That's all the message that -- that's the message we've had, rather, all the time from the British Government -- me from Jack Straw and the Prime Minister from Tony Blair.

I think Tony Blair is in a difficult position, as you say, but nevertheless he remains tremendously committed to seeing Saddam Hussein's regime disarmed.

So I think he will just work through his internal Labour Party problems as best he can.

TONY JONES: What would be the implications if he were forced to withdraw from the "coalition of the willing" because there wasn't a new Security Council resolution, as so many people in his party, in his government, want?

ALEXANDER DOWNER: Well, I don't think -- you say "so many".

I mean, the best guide we have to that is the vote they had in the House of Commons a couple of weeks ago -- it might have been three weeks ago -- where I think I'm right in saying about 112 members of the Labour Party voted against the Government.

Of course, that's a serious problem, but still two-thirds of the party are strongly behind Tony Blair, so the assessment of the British Government isn't that the party itself is going to turn against him and he's somehow going to have to depend on the support of the Conservative party.

That would clearly be a big problem for him, to say the very least.

But, look, the best assessment we have -- and I can only pass that on to you, we're not the British Government -- but the best assessment we have is that he wants to see this through, however he does see it through, and it will depend on how circumstances evolve in the next few days, and that he certainly has sufficient support in his party, but he clearly doesn't have anything like unanimous support.

TONY JONES: Let's talk about our own situation here in Australia, as this situation, this crisis, evolves in the Security Council.

The Prime Minister has said, time and time again, that he doesn't believe a new resolution is even necessary for there to be a war against Iraq.

Is that the Government's position?

ALEXANDER DOWNER: Well, the advantage of a new resolution is that it broadens the coalition to the widest extent possible.

There's no question of that.

I mean broadens the coalition essentially in two ways.

First of all you get the maximum number of countries on board -- for example, the Arab countries would very much like to see a further resolution, some of the South-East Asian countries, such as Indonesia, where I've just come from, would very much like to see a further resolution if there's to be military action.

So if military action was taken without a further resolution, obviously that would, if you like, minimise the amount of support there'd be for the military disarmament of Saddam Hussein.

And that is what's really driving countries like ours and the United Kingdom, as well as the Americans themselves to try to get a second -- well, second -- it will be an 18th resolution -- but what is, for short hand, known these days as a second resolution.

TONY JONES: But what is our position if there is no resolution?

Because, as I've said, the Prime Minister has stated this time and time again -- on March 9th: "There is already adequate authority under international law."

March 6th: "There is already enough legal authority."

I can go on.

He's said it time and again.

ALEXANDER DOWNER: No, I know what you're referring to.

TONY JONES: You've said it yourself.

The Prime Minister is clearly saying this.

It's what the President is also saying.

Do we need a new resolution for Australia to participate in a war?

ALEXANDER DOWNER: Well, whether Australia participates or not will be, without wishing to sound boring by repeating a mantra, but is obviously going to be considered by the Cabinet, should the situation arise, we'll have to wait and see -.

TONY JONES: Yes, yes, you have said that many times, but do we need a new resolution?

ALEXANDER DOWNER: If you mean -- and I think you do -- you mean legally, our judgment is that on the basis of under chapter 7 of the United Nations charter on the basis of Security Council resolutions, in particular, but not exclusively 678, 687 and 1441, there is authority to enforce those Security Council resolutions by militarily disarming Saddam Hussein.

TONY JONES: Does it worry you, then, that that position has been openly challenged now by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan?

He said, quite clearly, that the US and its allies would be in violation of the UN charter if it went ahead and invaded Iraq or started a war with Iraq without a specific authorisation from the Security Council?

ALEXANDER DOWNER: Well, without any authorisation that would obviously be a problem, but our -- I mean, there's no question of that -- but our position is that we believe that on the basis, particularly of those earlier Security Council resolutions, but on top of those, the latest Security Council resolution on Iraq, 1441, there would be appropriate authorisation --

TONY JONES: Well, not according to Kofi Annan.

ALEXANDER DOWNER: I'm not sure that is actually what he is saying, thank you.

TONY JONES: Well, I'll quote to you --

ALEXANDER DOWNER: No, no, you don't have to, I saw what he said.

TONY JONES: Alright, but he very specifically said -- and for our viewers sake --

ALEXANDER DOWNER: Hmmmm, right.

TONY JONES: ..he said "if the United States and others would go outside the council and take military action, it would not be in conformity with the charter".

That's the UN charter, which we've signed.

ALEXANDER DOWNER: Well, I'm just saying that, sure, if you acted outside of the charter and outside of the council, that would be true, but our response to that is that if Saddam Hussein was disarmed through military action, that would actually be within the charter under chapter 7 of the charter and building on Security Council resolutions in the past, resolution 678 and 687 in particular --

TONY JONES: Foreign Minister, this is the Secretary-General of the United Nations who is saying this.

This is not some lawyer from Sydney University or Macquarie University or the University of New South Wales, all of whom did line up against the legality on this question.

This is the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Are you saying he's wrong?

ALEXANDER DOWNER: No, but I'm saying -- you know, you don't want to overinterpret his words.

Action outside of a Security Council authorisation would be contrary to the charter, but it's our judgment -- and, you know, we haven't had a discussion with him personally about this, but we have with people in the United Nations secretariat -- action based on Security Council resolutions 678 and 687, and I've said all this before, and 1441, and other relevant resolutions would be within the charter.

TONY JONES: But why do you think Kofi Annan decided to come out and make this statement in the past few days, set against the background of what we're seeing inside the Security Council?

We don't have him here to ask the question, but it seems patently obvious from what he's saying that if you go outside the Security Council, if you refuse to listen to the Security Council, if you go to war without an authorisation from the Security Council, that's against the charter?

ALEXANDER DOWNER: Well, that's right, but I'm making -- and I obviously can't answer your question why Kofi Annan says this or that from time to time, as you rightly say, you'd have to ask him -- but my point is that if there were to be military action -- we've said this of course as you know, and you rightly pointed to this, as of the British and the Americans and others, if there were to be the military disarmament of Saddam Hussein, that wouldn't be outside of the charter, that would be within the charter under chapter 7 of the charter.

TONY JONES: Let me tackle this another way.

Is Australia prepared to remain in the "coalition of the willing" if Britain leaves it?

ALEXANDER DOWNER: Well, it depends what you mean by the "coalition of the willing".

We're in the "coalition of the willing" in this respect, that is that we've absolutely forward-deployed our defence force, or elements of our defence force, to the Persian Gulf region and we've done that in order to provide assistance to the Americans and the British to maximise pressure on Saddam Hussein to disarm.

And you're quoting Kofi Annan -- he is one of many people who have said, and even the French have been saying from time to time, that this build-up of military pressure on Saddam Hussein has at least led to the inspectors getting back into Iraq.

Now, to that extent we've absolutely been a party to the "coalition of the willing", but whether we would participate in actual military disarmament of Saddam Hussein, that is obviously going to depend on the circumstances that might arise, and frankly they might arise very soon, where that would happen, and the cabinet would have to make a decision about that.

I can't make a decision for you here on a television program.

TONY JONES: No, of course not.

If the United States forces a vote, and there's no moral majority, as you call it in the Security Council, will you still try to persuade your cabinet colleagues that going to war with the United States is a good idea?

ALEXANDER DOWNER: No, that's too hypothetical.

What I would say in the cabinet in those circumstances, I don't know.

My judgment is that in the end, although there's a lot of negotiation going on over the wording of a resolution, but my judgment is that in the end it will be possible to assemble as I put it earlier today a moral majority -- that is, a clear majority in the Security Council.

Now, I differentiate between a moral majority and, if you like, a majority which might occur without a veto because you might end up with a situation where France decides it would veto a Security Council resolution regardless of what that resolution said.

Now, look, we just have to -- to be honest with you, of course we would, and I think the viewers would expect us to.

We'd have to look at the circumstances that arose, whether it was a moral majority, there wasn't a moral majority, whether there was a veto.

We just have to look at all of that when the time arose, and that obviously could be in the next few days.

TONY JONES: All right, I'm afraid we are out of time, Alexander Downer.

Thank you very much for taking the time to join us tonight.

ALEXANDER DOWNER: It's a great pleasure.



MULTIMEDIA
  • Watch the video
    http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2003/03/20030312ll_interview.ram


Lateline  Archives  About
Lateline@your.abc.net.au
© 2003 Lateline. Australian Broadcasting Corporation.