Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

Nine years have passed since al-Qaeda launched its murderous 11 September attack on the United States, killing 3,000 people, including 10 Australians. It is also nine years since coalition military forces, including Australian special forces, began operations against the Taliban regime which openly harboured al-Qaeda and allowed it to recruit, train and plot terrorist attacks like that of 11 September 2001. So it is an appropriate time for the parliament to discuss the rationale behind Australia’s military commitment to the coalition forces in Afghanistan.

Joining with my colleagues in the government, especially the Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Defence, I welcome the opportunity to outline in the parliament the arguments—the overwhelming arguments—for why Australia must stay the course to prevent Afghanistan from again becoming a safe haven for terrorists and to build the capacity for the Afghan national security forces to take responsibility for managing Afghanistan’s security and protecting its people. We are also supporting activities which increase the capacity of the government to govern and to deliver essential services to the people, promoting development and helping to build civil institutions.

Our commitment to the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan is in our national interest. As the Prime Minister and others have said, it is also part of our enduring commitment to our alliance with the United States. For generations now, the commitment to the US alliance has been fundamental to Australia’s overall national security. The alliance relationship is very strong, mature and based on shared commitments of democratic values and deep mutual respect between the peoples of Australia and the United States. It is something that I think the vast majority of Australians should, and do, place great value in. It has been reaffirmed by Labor in government in the 2009 defence white paper and in the government’s National Security Statement to the Australian Parliament.

Australia’s key ally and close friend was viciously attacked by terrorists supported by the Taliban regime in September 2001. Ten Australians were murdered in the attack. On 17 September 2001, the Australian parliament passed a unanimous resolution of the House of Representatives formally invoking articles IV and V of the ANZUS treaty and the commitment of Australian forces in support of United States led action against those responsible for these terrorist attacks.

Australia’s contribution in Afghanistan is also an expression of the common interest we share not just with the United States but with the other 45 countries of NATO and the International Security Assistance Force in countering international terrorism. The UN Security Council Resolution 1386 of December 2001 authorised the establishment of an international security force in Afghanistan and called upon ‘member states to contribute personnel, equipment and other resources to the International Security Assistance Force’. It also authorised member states participating in the International Security Assistance Force to ‘take all necessary measures to fulfil its mandate’. I note that this resolution has been renewed a number of times, including most recently earlier this month. So in my view the argument in favour of Australian forces joining the international effort in Afghanistan was overwhelming according to any sober assessment.

Unfortunately, not all assessments have been altogether sober. I note that just last week, the Australianwhich I find myself referring to quite a lot these days—published a claim by Mr Kevin Bracken, the secretary of the Victorian branch of the Maritime Union of Australia and President of the Victorian Trades Hall, that the ‘official story’ of the September 11 attack ‘doesn’t stand up to scientific scrutiny’. The article states that Mr Bracken claims that ‘the United States government, the military and the security services were involved in the attacks’. Mr Bracken’s commentary is hardly supportive of the efforts that Australian forces are making in very dangerous circumstances working with our US allies and our international partners to counter terrorism.

Mr Bracken has a powerful friend for his cause. This is of course Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, who recently made similar claims at a speech to the United Nations. While I can understand the motivations for the propagation of such fiction by the leader of a regime which is regularly accused of sponsoring international terrorism, I struggle to see why Mr Bracken should associate himself with such bizarre lies.

I note that there are others in the community, indeed some of my parliamentary colleagues, who raise questions in relation to the continued role of Australian forces in Afghanistan in a more considered manner. And I do think it important that the government explains the importance of our continued military involvement—after all, the decision to send ADF and AFP personnel into difficult conflict situations can never be made lightly. However, I would say to those who are opposed to our continued military commitment that the case for remaining a strong contributor to the coalition forces in Afghanistan is just as clear now as ever before. Coalition forces have had significant success against al-Qaeda. They have disrupted its operations and neutralised some of its leadership. But Al-Qaeda remains a persistent terrorist network with global links to violent extremist and terrorist organisations.

Terrorists have killed some 100 Australians since 11 September 2001. Ninety-two were killed in the two Bali bombings. Many were also horribly injured. In these bombings and the attack on our embassy in Jakarta, the terrorist groups involved had links to Afghanistan. I think it is likely to be the case that deployment of coalition military forces to combat the insurgency has significantly disrupted and dismantled al-Qaeda’s capability in Afghanistan.

But Afghanistan remains vulnerable. If the international community were to withdraw from Afghanistan, then the current insurgency might succeed in destabilising the Afghan regime. There would be a heightened risk that Afghanistan would again fall to Taliban control and al-Qaeda could then regain a safe haven for its operations, re-establish its terrorist ‘boot camps’ and regain a place from which to transact its criminal operations. More importantly, terrorists worldwide would be emboldened and would seek to expand their plans to kill innocent people. So a significant rationale for staying the course in Afghanistan is to help protect innocent people, including Australians, from the threat of terrorism. In addition, the costs to the Afghan people of a reinvigorated Taliban would be enormous.

The international force in Afghanistan was originally focused on a stabilisation mission. However, insurgent violence started to increase in 2005 and the security situation started to deteriorate. Military efforts then focused more on counterinsurgency. In December 2009, President Obama announced a revised strategy for Afghanistan and a surge of 30,000 US troops. NATO has contributed more, and so has Australia. From these and other nations we now have a combined coalition force in the field of some 120,000 troops from 47 nations—including: some 80,000 Americans; nearly 10,000 British; 4,500 from Germany; 4,000 from France; 3,500 from Italy; 2,500 from both Canada and Poland; and approximately 1,500 from Turkey; Spain and Australia. The coalition also has an experienced commander in General Petraeus. He has the resources needed to deliver the new strategy.

In addition to direct counterinsurgency operations, the new strategy is focused on preparing the government of Afghanistan for managing its own security. This strategy involves protecting the civilian population, conducting operations together with the Afghan National Security Forces to reduce the capability and will of the insurgency. This means training, mentoring and equipping the Afghan National Security Forces to enable them to provide their own security and to facilitate improvements in governance and socioeconomic development by working with the Afghan authorities and the United Nations to strengthen institutions and deliver basic services.

There is progress being made already. The Afghan National Security Forces are being mentored and trained. The Afghan National Army reached its objective level of 134,000 and the Afghan National Police met its target of 109,000 members by October. The Afghan National Army is becoming increasingly capable and supporting coalition operations more effectively. The majority of the Afghan National Army is now fully partnered with ISAF forces for field operations. Afghan forces have already assumed leadership of security arrangements in Kabul.

The situation remains difficult. There will be hard days ahead. But there are signs of progress and Australia needs to stand with its allies, especially the United States, in this important phase of the fight. Australia cannot allow its commitment to Afghanistan to wane. Australian troops and personnel are making a difference. Our mentoring task force is on track in its core mission of training the 4th Brigade of the Afghan National Army within the next two so that it is able to manage security in the province. Our AFP contingent has trained almost 700 Afghan National Police. Our special operations task force is assisting the broader ISAF mission of disrupting and dismantling insurgent groups. In Uruzgan province Australian foreign aid has increased to $20 million but our aid workers require significant force protection in order to do their job, which is currently provided by the ADF and our US allies.

The very serious decision to go to war is a decision of the government of the day. It is probably the most fundamental executive decision a government can make, so it should ultimately be a matter for the executive—the cabinet—not the parliament. Having said that, decisions by the government of the day are always tested, or able to be tested, on the floor of the House of Representatives, which of course determines who forms government. Parliaments are rightly able to consider and debate important matters of state, as parliament has done on Afghanistan these last two weeks. But it is for elected governments to exercise responsibility for—and be held to account for—the decisions they make, including going to war.

It is in Australia’s national interests to continue to combat the insurgency in Afghanistan by standing firmly with our ally the United States, by standing firmly behind our troops and supporting them in their brave endeavours and by standing beside the Afghan people and supporting them in their continued efforts to build a nation that is free from the evil and destructive influence of the Taliban and al-Qaeda.