



LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

TRANSCRIPT OF DOORSTOP - MELBOURNE, 15 JANUARY 2003

E & OE - PROOF ONLY

Subjects: Iraq; Cricket tour of Zimbabwe; North Korea



CREAN: Australia should not be preparing for a war with Iraq.   Australia should be getting behind the United Nations and ensuring firstly that  a war can be avoided.  But, secondly, if it can’t be avoided, that no action is  supported against Iraq unless sanctioned by the UN Security Council.   Australia, in particular, should not be backing any US-led individual action  against Iraq.

JOURNALIST: Why is that?

CREAN: The reason for this is that the United Nations has carried  unanimously a resolution - Resolution 1441 - calling for the weapons  inspectors to go back in.  The fact that people said that the UN wouldn’t have  the authority has been proven incorrect.  The weapons inspectors are in  there.  They have to report by the 27th of January.  There have been  suggestions that they may need more time.  If they need more time, they  should be given more time.  As for Mr Blix saying that there’s no ‘smoking  gun’, it’s important to indicate that the ‘no smoking gun’ related to evidence  of any new programs.  What Saddam Hussein still has to do is to convince the  United Nations that he has disarmed in relation to chemical and biological  weapons that were established that he had back in the ‘90s.  Now, this is a  very delicate exercise.  It’s one that has to be pursued properly through the  United Nations, and through the United Nations alone.

JOURNALIST: Is Mr Howard too anxious to fall in line with his friend Mr  Bush?

CREAN: He always has been, and I think it’s a serious error of  judgement.  Of course he has to maintain the strength of the alliance with the  US, but that doesn’t mean doing everything they want.  A strong ally means  that you can use that influence to in turn urge the United States to get behind  the UN.  We shouldn’t be supporting US-led unilateral action.  We should only

1

be acting in accordance with what the United Nations determines.  What  we’re talking about here is, potentially, young men and women being asked  to put their lives at risk.  This is a serious matter.  It’s one that we have to  avoid at all costs if we can.  But if, in fact, the UN decides and determines on  the evidence before it that Saddam Hussein is not complying with the UN  resolution then, of course, it’s up to the UN to determine what course of  action should be pursued, and Australia should be prepared to support the  United Nations.  This is a clear-cut issue.  We’ll support the United Nations,  but we won’t support US-led unilateral action.

JOURNALIST: What happens in the case of a veto?

CREAN: That’s the interesting caveat, and I think that that always  has to be kept in mind.  The UN could find itself in circumstances in which  there is very strong support, based on the evidence that Saddam Hussein still  has weapons, but a UN Security Council resolution can’t be passed because  one of the permanent members vetoes it.  In those circumstances, I’m saying  that we should consider those facts at the time.  But the principal positions  that should guide us is, only support for action authorised by the United  Nations, not being supportive of US-led unilateral action.

JOURNALIST: What kind of a message does it send to the international  community that Australia is preparing the troops?

CREAN: I think it sends a bad signal.  I think it was inappropriate  that our troops, as the Prime Minister indicated last Friday, will be deployed to  the Iraq theatre.  I don’t argue at all with our troops still being sent to  support the War against Terror, and it’s important to make that distinction.   John Howard tries to make the link between the War against Terror and the  campaign in Iraq.  No such case has been made.  And, of course, if such a  case were made, then the circumstances would change.  But no such case  has been made.  So it’s inappropriate to be deploying any of our troops or  any of our support by troops for a potential war against Iraq ahead of any  determination by the United Nations.

JOURNALIST:  You’ve  been  criticised  in the past weeks for not making  Labor’s position about Iraq clear.  Do you feel that this is a definitive policy  statement now?

CREAN: Our position has been clear.  I think what’s changed is that  the Prime Minister’s action last Friday has been the wrong decision - a  decision that he says he wants a diplomatic solution and he wants to back the  United Nations, but he’s already prepared to deploy forces.  That’s what’s  wrong about his decision.  Labor’s position has been consistent - that is, we  will support the United Nations, but we won’t support US-led military action.

2

JOURNALIST: Do you think that your statement will appease your critics,  even within the party that have suggested that you have been a little weak on  the subject?

CREAN: Well, those critics are wrong and they have misread,  themselves, what Labor’s policy is.  Our position has been consistent since  April - that’s support for the UN - and we adhere to that.  What’s changed, of  course, is the strengthened hand of the UN by virtue of the unanimous  resolution.  An interim statement by the head of the UN weapons inspection  team that says, essentially, that they might need more time.  And thirdly, the  decision by the Prime Minister to say, ahead of the United Nations’  determination, that he is prepared to deploy troops.  He shouldn’t.  It’s not in  Australia’s interests, and it’s certainly not in the interests of securing a lasting  settlement under the auspices of the United Nations.

JOURNALIST: Can I ask on one other issue?  The English cricket team will  play in Zimbabwe.  What do you feel about the Australians playing there?

CREAN: Well, I’m very disappointed with the decision of England  and the England Cricket Board to say that they’re going to participate in  cricket in Zimbabwe.  I think that the Prime Minister needs to explain what  steps and what efforts he made to urge the boycotting of the tour in  Zimbabwe.  He, after all, was part of a trio arising from CHOGM that argued  that Zimbabwe should be expelled from the Commonwealth.  He, correctly,  last week said that all efforts diplomatically should be used to ensure that the  tour does not proceed.  And, whilst the English Cricket Board decision is  disappointing, the key question here is, what political pressure has been  brought to bear in getting the respective cricket authorities to support what  we all believe should occur, and that is the tour occurring elsewhere.

JOURNALIST: John Howard had floated the idea of compensation, what  do you think about that?

CREAN: Well, look, what he’s got to do is just to work harder at  convincing people of the merit of playing it somewhere else.  And I think it’s  also the question of doing it earlier.  The problem with the Prime Minister is  that he is always doing things at the last minute, and not terribly effectively  and this is another example of that failure on his part.  Now, I would urge  him to use every effort possible to get a reconsideration.  Mr Blair, as I  understand it, is not supportive of the tour proceeding in Zimbabwe.  There is  significant political clout there to effect a change, and that’s what they should  be about doing.

JOURNALIST:  Returning  to  Iraq, Mr Crean, do you feel that you are now  in step with the mood of the nation?

CREAN: The overwhelming majority of Australians don’t want a war  with Iraq, and they are of the view that the United Nations processes that are

3

4

in train have the potential to avoid that war.  They don’t want to see their  sons and daughters put in the position in which they might have to go off and  fight a war that can be avoided.  But they do understand the importance of  the international rule of law and the United Nations’ authority being upheld.   My firm conviction is that the vast majority of Australians want a resolution to  this matter.  They want it through the United Nations, and their belief and  hope and wish is that that can be achieved diplomatically without going to  war.  I’m of the view that that can be achieved, and if I were the Prime  Minister of this country I would be arguing very strongly and leaving no stone  unturned to achieve that outcome.  That’s what the current Prime Minister  should be doing.  He’s not doing it strongly enough.  And to be deploying  troops in advance of the UN decision is a totally inappropriate call in the  current circumstances.

JOURNALIST: How do you think Australia should respond to Korea’s  decision to pull out of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty?

CREAN: It should respond strongly by urging North Korea to  reconsider that position.  It again should be using the authority and the  influence of the international agencies; the United Nations and the  International Atomic Energy Agency.  It should be using its diplomatic  presence in North Korea - one of the few countries that still has one - to put  pressure on the North Koreans.

But it should be taking a leadership role in the region by re-establishing the  Canberra Commission, a Labor initiative back in 1995, to address this broader  question of the threat to our region from nuclear weapons proliferation and

how we can achieve nuclear disarmament in the region.  What we want is to  secure our region, secure and in peace, and we can achieve that through  diplomatic means, and the Government should be working harder at achieving  that outcome.  It’s not appropriate simply to send officials.  It needs a  political involvement.  And the Foreign Minister and, if need be, the Prime  Minister should be making those representations.  We’ve got to work harder  at it.  And see this is a consistent position, this is saying that the solution lies  through the international body, through the United Nations, to strengthen its  hand.  Underpin its authority, don’t go it alone.  You won’t achieve the results  alone, you’ll only achieve them sensibly and constructively if you do it  collectively through the United Nations.  That’s what we’ve got to get behind,  whether it’s Iraq, whether it’s North Korea or whether, quite frankly, it’s the  issues to deal with environmental sustainability in terms of the planet.



(ends)

