Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Aviation and Transport Security) Share this | Hansard source

I support Australia’s deployment of troops to Afghanistan and the government’s announcement that it will enhance that deployment. I say that as a person who has fiercely opposed the involvement of Australian troops in the invasion of Iraq and, indeed, opposed the decision of the United States and other allies to be involved in that conflict. The situation in Afghanistan is wholly different from that in the Middle East and, in particular, Iraq. Following the 11 September, 2001 attacks in the United States, the evidence clearly identified the involvement of the Taliban and Osama bin Laden’s network, based within the country borders of Afghanistan. It became clear in the months that followed that incident that the Afghani government was not going to take any action whatsoever to restrict or bring to account al-Qaeda and those who were clearly responsible for the organisation and execution of the attacks in the United States.

As events subsequently unfolded, it was difficult to disassemble the network that al-Qaeda had established in Afghanistan and the Taliban government that was operating in Kabul. The decision taken, led by the United States, to invade Afghanistan, to change the regime and to seek to bring al-Qaeda operatives to account was supported by both sides of this parliament, by the Australian people and, most tellingly, by an extremely broad coalition of world opinion. It was not just the traditional allies of the United States who supported that decision to invade Afghanistan; it was a decision supported by most countries of the world, including most Islamic countries, who understood that the al-Qaeda network that was operating within Afghanistan as a terrorist organisation was a threat to the good order of nation states everywhere.

It is a pity that the focus of the response to terrorism was then shifted by an incredibly foolish decision taken by the current American administration, encouraged and supported in part by the current Australian government and the Prime Minister, to divert both resources and attention away from that conflict to an extremely ill-advised invasion of Iraq. That has presented us with a range of other problems that are not the province of this debate, but which I would be happy to have the opportunity to comment on at another time. The decision to scale down the commitment in Afghanistan created a vacuum. The government that was established in Kabul was left very much at the mercy of warlords and interest groups.

In the months and years that followed the relocation of American assets from Afghanistan into Iraq, and our decision to remove all of our troops from Afghanistan, that vacuum was filled by a resurgent Taliban and al-Qaeda network and by drug lords. It is difficult, I think, to separate those two. It is hard to fathom where the line between criminals involved in the poppy trade and terrorists merges or separates. Indeed, I think there is a good deal of overlap. I have no doubt in my own mind that the terrorists are quite happy to finance many of their activities through the poppy trade. Equally, I am quite sure that many of the warlords who operate the poppy fields are more than happy to pay protection money to al-Qaeda to ensure that the authorities are not able to cause them any grief.

As America and Australia turned their eyes off the ball and ignored that problem in Afghanistan, the Europeans stepped up to the mark. In this debate, we should acknowledge the contribution of the NATO allies, in particular in Europe, who provided a substantial number of troops. Rather than be diverted into that foolish conflict in Iraq, countries such as Germany and France committed substantial defence assets to try to maintain peace and order in Afghanistan. Indeed, for a good part of that time, Germany led the mission in Afghanistan. That is not something most newspapers in Australia would report. The general image at the time was that our European colleagues were somehow letting the side down because they did not want to go and invade Iraq. In fact, our European allies were the people who had their eye on the ball when we took ours off. Even our New Zealand friends had their eye on the ball better than we did. They actually maintained a special forces unit in Afghanistan. I believe we maintained one person—a lieutenant colonel. We had one officer in Afghanistan for that period of time, and that was the token gesture by the Australian government.

In April 2004, Kevin Rudd, the shadow minister for foreign affairs, visited Afghanistan. On his return, and as a result of the things he saw and the advice he was given whilst he was in Afghanistan, Labor called for a return of Australian troops to Afghanistan. I am pleased, belatedly, that the Howard government have seen the need to do that and have come on board. This is not the first deployment. We already have a substantial number of SAS troops in Afghanistan. However, this deployment is a substantial boost to that existing deployment.

Afghanistan has had a very troubled history for far too long and the people of Afghanistan have suffered at the hands of a series of repressive and harmful regimes. They deserve to have an opportunity for peace and prosperity, the same as the rest of us on this planet. I hope that the efforts that we are now a part of will help produce that for them, as we endeavour to reduce the influence of the warlords and the terrorists who are camped within that nation.

This deployment has sometimes been referred to as a peacekeeping deployment. Its official title is a reconstruction task force. I think that masks the true situation. Currently, there is not very much that is peaceful about Afghanistan. There is certainly plenty of reconstruction that is needed, but this is not a building site; it is a war zone. It is a war zone that is hot. It is a war zone in which there are, on a daily basis, clashes and killings on both sides of the conflict. We are endorsing an action by the government to send troops to what I think is the most dangerous environment that we currently have people deployed to. There is no doubt that downtown Baghdad and other places in Iraq are dangerous, but I think the deployment we are now committing to in Afghanistan is, without doubt, the most dangerous deployment that we have sent Australian troops to.

The fact that it is dangerous has been recognised by the government in its decision—I think, correctly—to bolster the number of soldiers who are going to protect the engineers. It should be said that the engineers are not civilian engineers. They are army combat engineers. I am sure that they are quite capable of looking after themselves. But the government has correctly decided to increase the number of infantry troops that we will be sending to protect them. I believe that number now stands at 120. I am quite happy to say at this juncture that, if circumstances indicate that that is insufficient to provide the necessary security, we should not hesitate to provide additional troops or additional resources that they may need to ensure their protection.

We already have somewhere in the order of 200 special forces in the country and they have been involved in some of the most difficult conflicts that have been undertaken. Very little is reported about what goes on there, and I think that is a pity. We have a bit of a mushroom treatment within the Australian Defence community, I think, when it comes to these matters. There are good reasons why a whole host of things, when it comes to security, are not made public, but if you compare the cone of silence that is placed over Australian activities with that which applies to either the UK forces or the United States forces you have to wonder what it is that makes so many things so secret for so long when it comes to Australian troops.

I think there is a risk that the defence community and the government run in maintaining that cone of silence for too long and in too many areas. It is a risk of public cynicism or lack of support. I do not think that exists at the moment, and I am not trying to raise that as a concern today, but I would urge the government and the defence community to take the people of Australia into their confidence more on these matters, to explain more fully the role that our troops are performing and, when we have had incidents—and I believe there have been 11 in Afghanistan where Australian soldiers have been wounded—to allow the Australian people to have some idea about what has happened to those Australians, because a lot of Australians are concerned about that and they do not want to be just fobbed off. If you were in the United States, you would actually find out about it. You would find out about it probably because there would be media embedded. But, if not, you would find out about it because the US congressional system would ensure that the hearings on the hill would reveal it. We do not have that process here and I think the government should be less secretive about these things than it is. I think the defence community should be less secretive.

There was a very good article in yesterday’s Sunday Age written by Tom Hyland about this deployment, where he correctly characterised it as a conflict rather than a peacekeeping activity. He made mention of the fact that some of the troops that are being sent to provide protection are coming from 5/7RAR. He quoted from their official website as to what their role is. I think it is worth repeating because it draws into sharp focus the fact that this is a deployment in a difficult situation that is life threatening. This is not simply a peacekeeping activity. Part of the reason we know that is that the 5/7RAR are being sent to provide protection, and this is what their job is, quoted from their website in Tom Hyland’s article:

To seek out and close with the enemy by shock action, fire power and manoeuvre, to kill or capture them, to seize and hold ground by day or night regardless of weather or terrain.

That ain’t peacekeeping, but that is the fact of life in Afghanistan at the moment.

The area to which the Australians have been deployed is one of the more lawless parts of Afghanistan, and it is going to be important that our Australian troops are provided with all of the support they require in materiel as well. I know that the government have a couple of Chinooks in Afghanistan to provide support to the existing contingent. I would urge the government to review the level of support for the expanded contingent to ensure that there is immediate access to airlift capability if needed either to evacuate the injured or to quickly relocate troops if they find themselves in a difficult environment. Equally, there needs to be the necessary support with fire power, with air cover and with artillery. We do not have those assets there. We are relying on other countries to provide that support to our troops. That means we need to make sure, firstly, that our troops will be operating in a theatre where the command structure involves those assets and, secondly, that the protocols are in place so that the Australian troops can call in that support and receive it in a timely manner if they need to.

I assume those things have been put in place. The government have not in fact made statements that I am aware of to reassure the parliament that those matters have been dealt with. I give the commanding officers of the Defence Force more credit than I would the government to be satisfied that those things are in fact in place before we would be involved in deploying our troops to such a dangerous environment. But it is important that we do have that support for those troops who are going to be undertaking a very dangerous activity. Along with every other member of this parliament, I want to also add my best wishes for the speedy and safe return of all of the Australian troops who are being sent on our behalf and in our name to undertake this dangerous exercise.

I said at the outset that I view this as a wholly different conflict to that in Iraq. This is the battle that has to be waged whether we like it or not—and we do not. Sane people do not like going to war, it seems to me, but this is the war that has to be waged as a result of the threat we all now face from non-state terrorism. It is important for all of us, not least the people of Afghanistan, that a stable, democratic government exists in that part of the world, and I wish those Australians involved in this effort a speedy return, a safe journey and, as always, a job well done.

See this speech in context