Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Hansard source

In rising to support the Prime Minister’s statement to the parliament on the Australian Defence Force commitment to Afghanistan, I want to address, firstly, the global challenge that we have to face during the course of our lifetimes and our time of responsibility in this parliament—most particularly in relation to radical Islam and the civil war which is raging within the Islamic world, a radicalism which some in the Islamic community would seek to spread. Secondly, I want to deal with the core strategic points within the Middle East and the areas where we have to address these problems. Thirdly, I want to deal specifically with Afghanistan and the expanded and renewed commitment which the Prime Minister outlined to the House last week.

The challenge we face at a global level is derived from a notion within certain streams of Islam—Wahhabism and related elements—which seek to bring forth an Islamic caliphate. Their perception is a long-term one. Their objective is an Islamic based, extremist world. But it is to be achieved over 100 years. It is a patient, considered and utterly ruthless approach to bring about a particular concept of how they believe life should be lived. Their primary target, firstly, is the conversion of mainstream Islam to this radicalised version. Their base for much of the last 15 years has been the hills, the mountains and the villages of Afghanistan. When the Taliban was in power in Kabul what we saw was that Afghanistan was a cradle and a nurturing ground for much of this radical Islam. The strategic objective en route to this notion of an Islamic caliphate was to establish a base in one of the primary Islamic countries. That means the destabilisation and the collapse of society as we know it—whether it is in Saudi Arabia or Egypt; whether it is in Pakistan or Indonesia.

The method used to bring about this is twofold: firstly, it is a direct process of destabilisation in these countries themselves, and, secondly, it is about causing the West to disengage—making sure that, from their perspective, whether it is al-Qaeda or associated groups within the tradition of Wahhabism, the West finds it simply too painful to engage with the Islamic world, the West withdraws, the economies of these countries collapse, there is a collapse in the stability of the governments, and, as a result of that, there is a vacuum and that vacuum is filled through a Taliban style regime. That is the mechanism, the process, which they are seeking to use to bring about, firstly, a beachhead. They had one in Afghanistan. It has been lost, but there is still a significant and profoundly important battle being carried out. Secondly, that is the staging point which they wish to achieve en route to a much more dramatic and much more global conflict.

The nature of the conflict is of a civil war within the Islamic world. It is a minority; it is an extreme and absolutely fearless—and I say that unfortunately in the worst sense of the word—minority who have no sense of the meaning of life and who place no value in many cases on their own lives, on those of people of their own faith or on those of people of other faiths. It represents the continuation of a tradition dating back to the most extreme ‘isms’ to have populated our world over the last few centuries, where life can simply be expended.

Having said that, and recognising that some members on the other side understand this—the member for Melbourne Ports has been quite a strong advocate in this fight against global extremism—I think it is incumbent on us to look at what are the strategic battlegrounds that we have to address. In the Middle East today, we range across at least four critical fronts where we have to deal with the support for pluralism, the support for those Arab societies which seek either a secular state or which practise a moderate Islam—in essence, support for mainstream Islam, a religion which has so many positive elements but which allows people of all different persuasions to live life as it should be lived.

The first of those areas is Iraq. I briefly mention Iraq, noting that there have been other debates on this topic, but that has been an inextricable element in the campaign—that to walk away from the battleground there, as some would preach, to disengage, would simply be to allow precisely those forces that are seeking to gain control in Afghanistan to gain control in Iraq. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the original rationale for the conflict in Iraq, I think it is an entirely separate question as to whether that now means that we should disengage as an international society, because my view is that that would be simply disastrous. It is a tough, brutal and long task that we are engaged in. The same people who led an unforgiving regime of human rights atrocities have teamed with those linked with al-Qaeda. So the affiliates of Saddam Hussein have linked with the affiliates of al-Qaeda and together they are seeking to destroy stability, they are seeking to destroy progress towards democracy and they are seeking to make their own people victims as a means of achieving that destabilisation in Iraq. So it would be a human rights nightmare and an abomination to walk away, and it would be a strategic catastrophe, I say with great respect to the House.

I respect the views of those who do not believe that it was appropriate or the right thing to do to topple Saddam Hussein. I respectfully disagree with that view. I think he was the leader of perhaps the worst and most abusive regime with regard to human rights of any in the world over the last 25 years—although he had some stiff competition, I would have to say. That is my view in relation to Iraq.

The second area is in relation to Palestine and the Palestinian Authority. We have deep reservations as a nation about the role played by Hamas—that it fails to recognise Israel’s right to exist. I think it is profoundly important as a key to resolution of the conflict that there is a recognition of Israel’s right to exist. I also think, and I have said publicly, that the only guarantee of security for Israel in the long term is the creation of a two-state solution. I think that is fundamental as we go forward. I think there must be a two-state solution—that it is the right thing for people under the Palestinian Authority and it is the right thing as a long-term, critical and indispensable element of guaranteeing Israel’s security. As somebody who has lived in that country, who speaks the language, I have a deep belief in and support for Israel, but I also disagree profoundly with those who would deny the Palestinian people a homeland in the long term, because that is not a solution. That is simply neither right in principle nor is it a solution to the problem there.

Moving forwards, I note that the third area is the tragedy in southern Lebanon at the moment. Lebanon was the great hope for the spread of democracy in the Middle East and the colonisation of the southern parts of Lebanon by Hezbollah, which have preyed upon a weak state, has meant that area has become a catalyst for conflict. My hope is that it can be stabilised and that the Hezbollah militia can be disarmed. I think that is a critical element in dealing with a solution towards stability in that area. We have to disengage Syria and Iran from support for this militia, but that is a long-term practice. It is a critical part of the fight.

Against all of that background, the crucible for this conflict in many ways has been Afghanistan. That is because that is where the Taliban and al-Qaeda found their roots over the last 15 years, flowing out of—and I confess this—the work of the mujaheddin. They became an illegitimate child thereof. In that context there has been significant progress in terms of the democracy of Afghanistan. What we have seen is real GDP growth of over 12 per cent in the current year. Critically, what we also see is the development of democratic infrastructure. The elements of democratic infrastructure are fundamentally important to giving that country a chance to go forward in the fight to establish its own future.

The role of women, particularly the entry of women into Afghanistan’s parliament and councils, is tremendously important. My understanding is that 68 women were elected to the lower house of the Afghanistani parliament and that they took 27 per cent of available seats, with 121 women in elected provincial councils—all of which was once unthinkable. It was simply unthinkable five years ago that perhaps the most oppressive country in its treatment of women would now be a country with a quarter of its representation coming from women. Similarly, since 2001 2.3 million children under the age of five have been vaccinated against polio, almost eradicating that disease.

These are elements of real progress, but there is a profound fight. That fight comes from the challenge of al-Qaeda and those linked with the former Taliban regime who have a role in much of rural Afghanistan. They are continuing to try—and in some cases they have had success—to take on the international coalition forces, to take on the work of the United Nations and to take on those people who would seek to improve the quality of life there, to establish democracy and ultimately leave Afghanistan to itself. That is our goal: to have a free and functioning Afghanistan. These people who have used, I absolutely acknowledge, in many cases the proceeds of opium and other drug related products to bolster their finances must be stopped.

So against that background Australia plays a critical role. We are a small number in terms of presence on the ground, but there is no doubt that our impact has been significant. There have been many conflicts in which we have been directly engaged. Against that background, what this statement has done is commit Australia to provide 150 additional ADF troops to reinforce the reconstruction task force and provide enhanced force protection on the ground. At present the reconstruction task force is working in Oruzgan province, in southern Afghanistan, on reconstruction and community based projects. Its aim is to build the long-term viability of Afghan communities. It is part of winning the war on the ground, not just through military conflict but, much more importantly, through constructive community development. The reconstruction task force will receive an additional 30 members—and these members will include command, security and protection, engineering, administrative support, and tactical and intelligence services personnel—as well as Bushmaster infantry mobility vehicles and Australian light armoured vehicles, or ASLAVs. They will be bolstered by an additional contingent, an infantry company of 120 personnel to provide enhanced force protection—and I have no doubt that some of them will be drawn from your own electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker Lindsay, from the military bases at Townsville.

They put their lives on the line. They serve for a greater cause. I could not express more strongly my profound respect for the work and courage of the Australian Defence Force. Ultimately, they are engaged in a great global mission. It is a mission that is not without controversy—and that is the beauty of our democracy. But I believe that what occurs in Afghanistan is of profound significance to the four conflicts I have outlined in the Middle East. It is of profound significance in helping to lay the foundations for democracy and openness. Nothing is more important in giving the world a chance to defeat the spectre of radical terrorism—radical Islam—and that is how we truly give ourselves an open way forward.

See this speech in context