Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

When Australians hear their government talk of involvement in Iraq again, they have good reason to be cautious. The disaster of the 2003 invasion colours every debate—and we should never forget its lessons. As I said back in 2003, in a letter presented to the then US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, the Bush administration, the Blair administration, and our own Howard government rushed in to Iraq. They went in on the basis of false claims about weapons of mass destruction, and before weapons inspectors had been given time to do their work. They went in without international support, and without the support of the majority of the Iraqi population or of neighbouring countries. Australia went in despite hundreds of thousands of Australians marching against that involvement—and the result? Nearly a decade of conflict, hundreds of thousands of deaths, and significant instability in the region. In the context of that history, it is right that people are cautious now.

While history should inform our actions, it should not cloud a sober assessment of the facts of the current situation. Islamic State is an abhorrent, brutal force. It is an organisation that will kill anyone who opposes it. There are confirmed instances of IS engaging in widespread ethnic and religious cleansing, targeted killings, forced conversions, abductions, trafficking, slavery, sexual abuse, destruction of places of religious and cultural significance, and the besieging of entire communities. There are reports of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths, and thousands injured. These reports are so serious that on Monday the United Nations Human Rights Council authorised an investigation into mass atrocity crimes in Iraq. And journalists like Steven Sotloff and James Foley have been brutally killed for propaganda purposes. The UN refugee agency says around 1.2 million Iraqis have been forced to flee their homes. A humanitarian disaster already exists in Iraq.

The scale of the crisis has led to calls for the international community to assist. The United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, has said:

The international community must ensure solidarity. Not a single country or organisation can handle this international terrorism. This has global concerns, so I appreciate some countries who have been showing very decisive and determined actions without addressing this issue through certain means, including some military and counter terrorist actions, we will just end up allowing these terrorist activities to continue.

That is from the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The Iraqi government has asked for help in pushing back IS, and Iraqi communities here in Australia have called for support too, including Kurds, Yazidis, Christians, and other minorities. Labor MPs have met with some of these groups, as I myself have done, and understand their fears for families and communities left behind in Iraq.

I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has ruled out sending Australian combat troops to Iraq. That, indeed, would be a very serious step. Labor have said clearly that we do not want Australia's regular forces on the ground in Iraq, but Labor have clearly backed Australia's involvement in the current humanitarian mission. Australia should act because, as a decent international citizen, we respect the doctrine of responsibility to protect. Responsibility to protect is engaged when national authorities are unwilling or unable to protect their citizens from genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity.

Former Labor Foreign Minister Gareth Evans championed the idea of the responsibility to protect. Gareth is the driver of the adoption of responsibility to protect by the United Nations and is the leading international authority on it. He uses a set of criteria to judge when responsibility to protect should be engaged. On the current question of Iraq, these principles have provided Labor with a very useful framework to help guide our decision making around supporting Australian involvement both now and in the future.

Some of the criteria that Gareth has set out include, firstly, just cause—is the threat serious and is irreparable harm occurring to human beings? News reports and briefings provided to the opposition by Australian security agencies make clear that communities in northern Iraq face very serious threats from IS and that thousands have already been killed. Representatives of Kurdish, Assyrian Christian and other communities in Australia have argued strongly that their communities in Iraq face genocide from Islamic State, which is highly intolerant of people and communities who do not subscribe to their own extreme version of Sunni Islam or, indeed, of Sunnis who oppose their violent jihad.

Secondly, we ask: is there the right intention? Is the main intention of the military action to prevent human suffering, or are there other motives? Unlike in 2003, there is no intention for regime change of the government of Iraq by the US, Australia or other countries. Nor is there any attempt by countries to gain access to Iraq's natural resources.

Thirdly, we ask: is this the final resort? Has every other measure besides military intervention been taken into account? This does not mean that every other measure has to have been applied and failed. It means that there must be reasonable grounds to believe that only military action will work in this situation. The Iraqi security forces have proven incapable of protecting the communities in northern Iraq. Islamic State has shown it will not negotiate or follow the rules of war. The advice of security agencies is that the Peshmerga, the armed forces of the Kurdistan regional government in the semi-autonomous Kurdistan region of Iraq, are the major effective armed force currently in the northern region capable of resisting Islamic State. They are effective and they are bearing the brunt of the fighting. Because the fighting is worst in the north, that is where our help should primarily be directed.

Fourthly, we ask: is there legitimate authority? The Abbott government has advised the opposition that current proposed actions have been authorised by the government of Iraq. That was confirmed yesterday by the Iraqi Ambassador to Australia. The support of the United Nations Secretary-General is also very significant. We see that countries such as Canada, which did not participate in the invasion in 2003, have agreed to be part of this humanitarian mission.

Fifthly, we ask: are the means proportional? Are the minimum necessary means applied to secure human protection? This criterion is readily met for humanitarian air drops that include food, water and medicine. I congratulate our Air Force and other personnel who have already completed these vital missions, saving thousands of lives on Mount Sinjar.

As for re-arming the Peshmerga, the alternative is to watch IS, using sophisticated weapons it has captured in its forward march, outgun the only effective force protecting civilians in the north. We are supporting Iraqis to defend themselves against a merciless enemy. The Peshmerga have for many years provided the Kurdish region of Iraq with a degree of security much better than in other parts of Iraq.

Sixthly, we ask: is there a reasonable prospect? Is it likely that action will protect human life, and are the consequences of this action sure not to be worse than the consequences of no action at all?

This is perhaps the most difficult question, because the history of Western influence in the Middle East is so fraught with complexity. It is hard to point to too many examples in which intervention has left a country clearly better off, and unfortunately there are too many instances where the opposite could be said. We are rightly cautious, especially after Australia's previous involvement in Iraq, which saw our brave service men and women sent to fight in the wrong place for the wrong reasons. But I believe the humanitarian missions we are currently involved in do meet this criteria. Allowing IS to slaughter whole communities cannot be allowed, so we must respond to the Iraqi call for assistance.

Of course, responsibility to protect really seeks to answer one question: that is, in the face of mass atrocity crimes—genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity—at what point can the international community no longer stand by and do nothing? It is Labor's belief, based on the assessments of the facts that I have just provided, that Australia and the world have a responsibility to protect, and thus an obligation to act. To borrow a phrase made famous by our Chief of Army: 'The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.' Australia could no longer walk past. We had to do something in response to such unspeakable horror. (Extension of time granted)

But just as important as our own action is making sure that Iraq's neighbours do something in response, too. That means that countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar and others should be encouraged to stand up and say very clearly: 'The actions of IS are beyond the pale, and we will join international efforts to defeat them.'

The conflict in Syria has been an important factor underpinning the rise of IS. The spread of IS from Iraq to Syria and then back again, returning much stronger and more brutal, underscores how critical it is for nations in the region to acknowledge this problem is bigger than any one of them. More than 191,000 Syrians have already lost their lives. The scale of the humanitarian disaster in Syria has seen impacts spill all over the region. More than nine million displaced Syrians have to go somewhere, and that has seen both Lebanon and Jordan take millions of refugees. The legal authority does not currently exist for similar support to Syria, but we should be doing a great deal more to support Syria in any case. The UN has called for a $6½ billion aid fund for the Syrian crisis. It is the largest-ever appeal for funds, and it reflects the scale of the humanitarian disaster in Syria. In Australia under the coalition government, we have pledged just $30 million or so, a very sad response to an enormous humanitarian need. And we have agreed to take just 2,200 refugees from Syria and 2,200 from Iraq as part of our regular intake, when millions are displaced and at risk.

As the opposition leader said earlier in the week, every action of IS is a betrayal of millions of good people of good conscience who follow Islam. Islamic State does not represent the Islamic faith. This cannot be repeated often enough. Likewise, action taken against IS is not action against Islam, and we must not allow any misrepresentation that this is the case. By working with the international community, including countries with large Islamic populations like Indonesia and Malaysia, we can mobilise the power of mainstream Islam against minority extremism. In fact, I note a group of British imams and scholars recently issued a fatwa condemning Islamic State as a: 'tyrannical, extremist, heretical organisation committing abhorrent massacres and persecution.' The fatwa calls on Muslims to oppose IS and follow the law of their homeland—in this case, Britain. Our own security chief, David Irvine, has stressed again and again that Australian Muslims are ASIO's best partners against violent extremists, and I acknowledge the hard work and personal cost that many Australians have borne in order to speak out against extremism.

I conclude with this: what I have laid out today is Labor's assessment of the situation in Iraq at this point in time. I have explained why we have offered the government our support for Australia's humanitarian involvement thus far. I have outlined the principles that will guide how Labor responds to any proposed further involvement by Australia. Labor believes that there are circumstances where Australia has a responsibility to protect, but as an opposition we also have a responsibility to question and to carefully scrutinise the approach put forward by the government.

Labor will work constructively with the government, but we are no rubber stamp. We will look at the facts, and we will make sensible judgements. National security is above politics, but such important decisions are never beyond question, interrogation or criticism.

The decision to send Australian men and women into harm's way should never be taken lightly, and we will never take that decision lightly. Our responsibility to the people of Iraq is to ensure any action Australia is involved in leaves the place better, not worse. President Obama's careful, considered response to this matter shows that maybe the international community has learnt some very hard lessons from the disastrous 2003 invasion of Iraq.

See this speech in context