Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Nearly 2½ thousand years ago Aristotle wrote about war:

We make war that we may live in peace.

It is a sentiment which guides my thoughts today whenever our nation considers committing the vitality of our youth, of sacrificing the lives of our brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, sons and daughters, to war.

Indeed, it is on the shoulders of all of us privileged to stand in this place to decide whether we endorse the executive in their decision when we enter war and, to a limited extent perhaps—even with delusion—the conditions on which we engage. As difficult as that responsibility is, however, it pales in comparison to the burden borne by those we commit to armed conflict: Australia’s men and women in uniform who, through gritted teeth and a steely resolve, brave conditions I cannot pretend to truly understand. They do the real work and pay the true price. Families are permanently scarred, and they pay the true price. Veterans are scarred, physically and emotionally, and they pay the true price. This parliament, as the physical manifestation of the will of the Australian people, is charged with the most solemn duty of determining whether that price needs to be paid so that our people may live in peace.

In considering this question in relation to Afghanistan, I turn my mind to the events which were, of course, the precursors to this conflict. I reflect on the fact of the attacks on the United States on 11 September 2001. These were coordinated suicide attacks by 19 al-Qaeda terrorists who hijacked four commercial airline flights and murdered nearly 3,000 people. There were 2,752 victims who died in the attacks on the World Trade Centre and some 836 responders, including police and fire fighters, were killed. One hundred and eighty-four people were killed in the attack on the Pentagon and all those aboard United Airlines flight 93 perished while attempting to retake that aircraft when it crashed in a field in Shanksville in rural Pennsylvania.

The overwhelming majority of the victims were civilians, including nationals from over 70 countries, including from our country Australia. I personally recall receiving, together with my wife, a message from friends who lived in London late in the evening. They questioned whether or not my sister-in-law was okay. That was the first notice that we had of the attacks unfolding. My wife’s sister was a flight attendant with United Airlines in the United States. Whilst she was not on those flights—thankfully, I say, of course—the reality is that that is when it was borne to us, as we switched on the television and saw the true horror unfolding. At the time, I recall my wife, who is an American, literally on her knees and crying as we saw the collapse of the two World Trade Centre buildings.

Indirectly, terrorism has also reached out to me with the Bali bombings on 12 October 2002. These bombings, of course, occurred in the tourist district of Kuta on the Indonesian island of Bali. The attack has been the deadliest act of terrorism in the history of Indonesia, killing 202 people of whom 88 were Australians and 38 were Indonesian citizens. A further 240 people were injured.

We know that the attack involved the detonation of three bombs: a backpack-mounted device carried by a suicide bomber and a large car bomb, both of which were detonated in or near popular night clubs in Kuta; and a third small explosive device detonated near the United States consulate in Denpasar which, thankfully, caused only limited damage. In this instance, the terrorists who perpetrated this crime were members of Jemaah Islamiyah, a violent extremist group based in Indonesia.

I remember receiving a phone call—I think it was early on a Sunday morning—from the mother of a friend of mine who rang to inquire what services may be made available. When I received the phone call that morning, it was the first I had heard of it. Her son had been a victim of the attacks. At that stage it still was not known whether or not it was a gas tank explosion, as some had thought it may have been, or was in fact a terrorist attack. As the true horror unfolded over ensuing days I discovered just how many of my friends were affected: Glenn Cosman, Andrew—or Andy, as he is known to his mates—Csabi and Glen Forster. There were others from the Gold Coast that I grew to know, such as Ben Tullipan. They were all victims of the indiscriminate warfare and attacks that come from terrorists. I also got to meet the father of Robert Thwaites, who was murdered in the attacks in Bali. Robert’s father commenced the Zero to One Foundation on the Gold Coast and has committed his life to humanitarian projects in Indonesia not only as a way of committing to the memory of his son but also because he views it as a meaningful way in which to change the lives of those in Indonesia who might otherwise be prone to the kind of ideological blindness that comes through terrorism philosophy. He now has humanitarian projects in, for example, Palau Aceh, where the Zero to One Foundation has provided housing—in this case, up to 25 new homes.

These were the precursors that led to Australia’s and, indeed, initially the United States decision to declare war in Afghanistan on the Taliban. These attacks, referred to as asymmetric warfare, were the precursor that led to the then executive decision to commit Australian troops alongside our very strong alliance partner, the United States, in their operations in Afghanistan. We must deal with these questions in determining whether or not we can truly ask of young Australian men and women the sacrifice that we do in determining whether or not to commit troops. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, in its 2004 publication Transnational terrorism: the threat to Australia, defined what we are up against. In reference to asymmetric warfare it says:

Terrorism is a form of asymmetric warfare: an approach that uses non-traditional methods to counter an opponent’s conventional military superiority. It uses unconventional means to attack unexpected targets. It turns perceived strengths into weaknesses and exploits vulnerabilities to deadly effect. It may also involve the capability to attack an adversary with means for which they are unprepared or incapable of responding in kind.

The new transnational terrorists have adopted a strategy that responds to the unprecedented dominance of the United States and other highly developed Western countries in all aspects of conventional military power. The terrorists therefore seek means other than conventional warfare with which to confront the West.

Terrorism pits clandestine methods against open societies. It uses small teams whose operations are cheap, but demands a response that is enormous in scale and expensive in resources. It exploits the foundations of civil society, such as principles of human rights, efforts to avoid civilian casualties, and adherence to the rule of law—including the laws of armed conflict.

The terrorists’ asymmetric approach demands a sustained, comprehensive and coordinated response at national and international levels, incorporating a wide range of Australia’s assets.

In many respects this is the foundation that I think best summarises the battle that this nation has—and indeed that other Western democracies have—in the conflict in Afghanistan, and we must be mindful that this is a decision that lies at the very heart of whether or not we continue our mission in Afghanistan.

Now, some nine years into the conflict in Afghanistan, though, many are questioning whether or not we are actually winning the war. Many are questioning whether or not we have the ability, if we do win the war, to also then win the peace. I simply put on the record that we can only judge this based on the information we receive from those in the field—from those who actually put their lives on the line so that we may live in peace. The advice from them is clear. That is that we are, as a direct consequence of the surge in numbers, now also starting to see real progress being made with respect to our humanitarian mission, alongside the mission that we have of armed conflict. It is not lost on me that two former ministers who sat around the cabinet table when the executive took this decision, Senator Nick Minchin and the Hon. Alexander Downer, have both made remarks in this debate with the view that in some way, shape or form, Australia’s role needs to be reconsidered. It is my mind on which their views weigh heavily in determining whether or not we should stay the course. I think that these matters are not static. They change as time passes, as strategies change, as countries evolve and as the people on the ground, both the civilians of Afghanistan and our troops, experience the fatigue of war. But I would hope that they experience some excitement about the potential that can come through peace. Knowing that we are making real progress, as has been reported, I believe Australia must remain committed. Notwithstanding that, it is fundamental that we at all times inform our strategy on the basis of national interest. And I do not believe that Australia’s national interest is well served through, for example, the United Nations having overarching responsibility for what is taking place in Afghanistan.

More fundamentally, Australia must assess and evaluate its decisions with respect to the commitment of troops by its own measures, by its own considerations and by its own reference to whether or not the lives of Australians are buying peace. It simply is not acceptable to me that we would attempt to outsource the determination of our national interest to a body like the United Nations. Certainly, multilateral approaches in war zones and in armed conflict are crucial, but that sits alongside rather than in the place of national determinations of whether our national interest is being served. So, nine years in, my charge as I see it is simply to keep a watchful eye on whether our national interest continues to be served on the basis of the advice provided by those on the ground.

At this point we absolutely must ensure that we put, for lack of a better term, key performance indicators in place when it comes to the training of Afghan national troops, Afghan national police and the transition to those authorities from those troops wearing uniform in Afghanistan. Failure to do this will see us caught in what effectively will be a quagmire. We as parliamentarians and, through us, the executive must ensure that we have in place clear delineations that demonstrate to all of us that we are making progress with respect to the handover to Afghan nationals so that they themselves can control their nation.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

See this speech in context