|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Speech by Tanya Plibersek MHR on impact of the Iraq invasion, July 18, 2004Labor opposed the war on Iraq from day one. The caucus adopted a resolution opposing the war in April 2002, and in March 2003 then leader Simon Crean said in his National Press Club address:
"I believe the troops should not have been sent and should now be brought home." He couldn't have been clearer. He said: As I speak, we are a nation on the brink of war. Mark Latham reiterated Labor's commitment to bringing the troops home when he succeeded Simon Crean as leader. For this he has been roundly condemned by commentators such as Piers Akerman. When President George Bush visited Australia, 45 Labor MPs signed a letter telling him exactly why we were opposed to the war. I gave that to Condoleezza Rice when the President addressed the House of Representatives. We said we opposed the war because of the loss of lives (especially civilians), the international precedent it would set, and because the evidence of Iraq having WMD was not convincing. Peaceful disarmament was still possible. I stand by those reasons. Another reason to oppose the war is the massive amount of money wasted in destroying Iraq, which could, instead, have been used to support health or development initiatives in Iraq or elsewhere. The 2003-04 Australian Budget estimate of the financial cost of the war and occupation duties in Iraq is $553 million.[i] The total cost to Australia will be significantly more. In March 2003 the US Congress approved a budget of US$62.2 billion as emergency funding for Operation Iraqi Freedom, which was the title of the conflict in Iraq. Indicative of what contributed to these financial costs was a list compiled in March 2003 by US commentator Keith Ashdown which disclosed that the US in the first few days of operations had spent US$1 billion dollars on cruise missiles, US$380 million on chemical protective suits, US$100 million for air combat sorties, US$3 million per day for food for the troops and about US$2.9 million a day to operate each of the aircraft carrier groups (there were six of these carrier groups eventually deployed). Since the end of hostilities on 1 May 2003 the US has spent between US$4.4 and US$4.9 billion a month (roughly between AUD $6.2 and 7 billion a month.) According to the BBC, the total financial cost to the United Kingdom of the Iraqi war to date is approximately £1.25 billion (AUD $3.12 billion). Watching the emerging crisis in the Sudan, or the aftermath of the floods in Bangladesh, it is not difficult to think of more constructive ways of using this money to achieve world peace and prosperity. The Australian government has announced its intention to increase Australia's commitment to the Iraqi conflict, ignoring the international trend to withdraw troops and scale down involvement. Labor wants to bring our troops home as soon as possible, while still accepting we have a responsibility to provide humanitarian and civil assistance to Iraq. A Labor government would withdraw the Australian troops operating in Iraq under Operation Catalyst by the end of 2004. We will take advice when in government about how to secure the safety of the Australian diplomatic mission in Baghdad. We continue to support the involvement of the United Nations in returning peace to Iraq as we have from the outset. We supported the dissolution of the occupying authority, we supported the formation of the Iraqi government and we support the UN timetable for full sovereignty. We support Prime Minister Allawi's decision to bring some former Iraqi soldiers back into the armed forces. Prime Minister John Howard wants Iraq to find and train new soldiers, but we believe that the hundreds of thousands of trained service personnel who are currently unemployed and desperate for income would be much better being paid to do their jobs, rather than left join insurgency movements. It is ironic that these troops, low level "grunts", have been thrown on the scrap heap while at the same time the US turned some Iraqi cities over to the Republican Guard to run: the most brutal and loyal of Saddam's forces are used by the US to suppress local uprising, while the vast number of mainly conscripted ordinary army personnel can't be trusted according to the US and our government. My view is that "De-Ba'athification" seems to have gone too far in some cases, compromising the performance of the public service in education and other areas. Of course people who have been guilty of violations of human rights must be dealt with by the Iraqi legal system, but many public servants would have joined the Ba'ath party out of necessity, and a sensible approach needs to be taken to their continued service. There are also a number of laws Labor would like to see changed which were introduced by Saddam Hussein but left in place by the Provisional Authority. The law introduced in 1984 banning strikes should be removed. Paul Bremmer re-introduced this law. Labor opposes it, and so should the Howard government. (Though it is more likely they secretly envy it!) Although Labor wants to bring our troops home, we do believe that as we have been part of creating the difficulties faced by Iraq now, we have to be part of the rebuilding process. The two main areas we mean to be involved in are health and boarder control. We expect to spend $75 million over two years on these initiatives. Iraq's standard of health has declined in recent years, especially since the Gulf War. Obviously the recent enormous stresses put on the health system have been very difficult to cope with. Australia will lead a consortium of international doctors to build a specialist oncology hospital in Baghdad. We will provide training for Iraqi health care providers, including primary care providers. We will support other initiatives to combat high rates of infant, child and maternal mortality. After consultation with Iraqi representatives in the UN, we have also offered support with border control. A Labor government will not send troops or peacekeepers to take part in the UN reconstitution mission, but we will, in consultation with the UN, send staff to assist with logistics planning, strategy and administrative support. We would expect to provide about 20-30 non-combat personnel. There are two additional areas I would like to see Australian involvement in. Firstly I would like the Australian Electoral Commission to help with running the elections due next year. We have a first rate electoral system, recognised as a world leader in electoral roll integrity, with excellent counting and administration systems (especially compared to the United States!). I believe we should also offer training to Iraqi police and medical personnel in methods of collecting forensic evidence and pursuing successful prosecutions for sexual assaults. It has been reported that numbers of sexual assaults have risen so dramatically in Baghdad that some families are for the first time stopping their daughters going to school because they fear they will be abducted and raped. Some of these rapes are considered retaliation for families from their political enemies. Prosecution and conviction is virtually impossible because of poor evidence collection procedures due to inadequate protocols in hospitals and police stations. In conclusion, I wish to offer one caution: in the broad Left's support for Iraqi self-determination, we still have the ability to differentiate and support the type of leadership that will build a secular, democratic society. It is not difficult to understand the reasons for some Iraqis and others fighting US troops, but it is important to realise that just because they are fighting the Americans, "insurgents" are not necessarily freedom fighters to be admired and supported. Some of them are Iraqi nationalists, simply opposed to the invasion of their homeland. Others are religious zealots who think the type of state that Afghanistan was under the Taliban is a good model for how a country should be run. Just as it is wrong to be blindly uncritical of the interim government, it is also wrong to idealise or generalise the armed opposition to the US and its allies. If we support the notion of universal human rights, the rights of women, the right to protest and the free dissemination of information, the right to strike and to challenge governments and religious rulers, the right to religious and cultural expression, then we have to acknowledge and deal intelligently with the diversity of the Iraqi resistance. The majority of Iraqis don't want to live in a theocracy like Iran. Mr Bush, Here is why we oppose the Iraq war Forty-one ALP federal parliamentarians have written an open letter to George Bush. Dear President Bush, The friendship between our countries is longstanding and deeply felt. We have a great deal in common, particularly our commitment to democracy. We retain our commitment to the ANZUS alliance. That's why we feel it's important for you to understand why so many Australians opposed the war on Iraq. Australians have a history of support for international efforts to stop the spread of weapons including weapons of mass destruction and landmines. Weapons inspectors should have been given the time they asked for to peacefully disarm Iraq. No evidence of a massive weapons building program nor capability has emerged since the war. Australia, the US and Britain went to war because of a "clear and present danger" which just did not exist. The ALP firmly believes that international conflict should, wherever possible, be dealt with peacefully and through international co-operation under the auspices of the United Nations. When all attempts for a peaceful resolution have been exhausted, United Nations sanction is vital if force is to be used. What is to prevent other countries from following the example of our attack on Iraq, and arguing the right to preventative self-defence? Why shouldn't North and South Korea attack each other using the template we developed in Iraq? Or India and Pakistan? The precedent we have set is a very dangerous one, and there is every indication that the world will become less safe, not more, because of our actions. Certainly the British Joint Intelligence Committee believes the risk of terrorism will increase due to the war with Iraq. Our own government knew of this increased risk before the war and refused to tell the Australian people. Many Australians have continuing concerns about what will happen in Iraq now. Civil unrest continues. The death toll for Iraqis and US, UK and allied troops mounts. The bombing of the United Nations headquarters shocked the world, and it seems that instead of eradicating terrorism in Iraq the country has become a terrorist magnet. The United States must now redouble its efforts to enlist the help of the world community to bring peace and rebuild Iraq, and then withdraw as soon as practicable. Iraqis must regain control of their destinies -. and their resources as soon as possible. While many of us didn't support the war on Iraq, all Australians welcome the end of Saddam Hussein's brutal regime. Our hope for Iraq is that there will be a strong, stable, democratic government which represents all the people of Iraq, including the ethnic and religious minorities. Our hope is that the people of Iraq will have control over the rich resources of their country and be able to use those resources for their collective benefit. Our hope for the world is that this mistake will lead us to renew our commitment to the United Nations and its processes for promoting and maintaining global peace. Signed by |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
© Walk Against the War Coalition 2003. |
 |
