Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Before I begin on the substance of Australia's involvement in Syria, I will refer directly to Senator Siewert's motion, which talks about the need for parliamentary approval before there is any intervention in Syria. The question is whether we should be having a full, frank and open debate in parliament and whether we should require parliamentary approval before there is any intervention.

I reflect on the time I have spent in this place and on some of the debates we have had. I think about the narrow, partisan debates; I think about the 'matter of public importance' debates that are nothing more than an opportunity for one side of politics to attack the other; and I think about question time and the time wasted with dorothy dixers and non-answers. I think about all that enormous waste of time in this parliament—and then I think how now we have an opportunity to discuss something of huge importance, something that involves risking the lives of Australian men and women in the name of an intervention that might make Australia itself a target. In the words of Clive Williams, adjunct professor at Macquarie University:

In the words of Clive Williams, adjunct professor at Macquarie University:

The more we do militarily in the Middle East against IS and announce it publicly, the more likely it is that its acolytes will try to mount attacks in Australia or against Australians in Muslim countries.

So let us be clear about what is at stake here. What is at stake are the lives of Australian service men and women, and there is the potential to increase the likelihood of all of us in Australia being targets, not to mention the countless civilian deaths that may be sacrificed as a result of Australia's involvement, and yet we are denying the Australian people an opportunity to hear debate in this the Australian parliament. It is remarkable that we would prioritise some of those inconsequential issues that take up our time in this parliament and yet deny parliamentarians elected here to represent the people an opportunity to hear about why it is so critical that we put those lives at risk and why we potentially make Australia a target for terrorists. It is utterly remarkable. Making a decision like this is subject to all sorts of influences. It is always difficult to be clear about the motives of people in this place and I do not for a moment intend to contribute specific motives to anyone, but the mere fact that it is possible that a Prime Minister could use a conflict like this in order to further their own political self-interest—just the fact that it is possible—is reason alone for us to ensure that this is a debate of the parliament and are not a captain's call.

So far we have heard that this is a conflict of questionable legal basis. We understand that in fact it may be possible that what we are witnessing here is an illegal intervention. A number of people have indicated that there is no sound legal basis for our involvement. What we may see is that ultimately Australians who are involved in this conflict are forced before the International Criminal Court to justify their actions. Michael Cornish, the Australian academic and former lecturer in peace at the University of Adelaide, says:

Any Australian intervention in Syria would clearly be illegal under international law. The practical benefits of bombing Syria are limited, if any.

He then goes on to talk about the moral debate. So we have academics and people who have had experience in international law questioning the mere legality of this conflict. When we look at what we do know about what the government has indicated about its strategy, we realise that we know very little. We do not know about the numbers of people involved or the time that will be involved. We have heard conflicting accounts—we hear two or three years on the one hand, from the defence minister, and we hear a commitment that is open-ended from the Prime Minister—as long as it takes. It is scary because we have heard those words before and we know where they have taken us. We have not had any discussion about the costs of this conflict. We have had no discussion about the alternatives and whether alternatives have been considered. We do not know what success looks like. It has been argued that success looks like an end to the genocide, but what does that mean? What is an end to the genocide? The Prime Minister says that success looks like an end to terrorism being exported overseas. What does that mean? How on earth do we judge whether we have had success when we do not know what success really looks like? There is no exit strategy. There is no strategy overall. It does bring back memories of the debate we had on the intervention in the Iraq War, and it feels very much like we are going into another conflict with no plan and no clear exit strategy, potentially making a bad situation much worse. We only have to look at what other parliaments around the world do. In the UK parliament—a democracy not unlike ours—the Canadian parliament and the French parliament there has been frank and open debate before any commitment has been made to sacrifice service men and women in the name of this sort of conflict.

Let us talk about the substance of what we do know, let us talk about the substance of this military intervention, and let us look at what a number of people who have been contributing to the public debate have said. My colleague Senator Ludlam has said already that former foreign minister Gareth Evans has made it very clear that he believes, in a way that only he could frame it, that 'trying to drain the Middle East swamps through military action is, we should know by now, more likely than not to be counterproductive.'

So what are the alternatives? We do know that there have been a number of commentators and groups who are turning to the notion of de-escalation through local ceasefires, and we have seen some progress in that area. That progress is moving slowly, but what we are seeing now is that as that occurs and as we move towards a potential freeze the potential for political reconciliation has increased. Only last month Turkey and Iran were involved in negotiating a 48-hour ceasefire in Zabadani, which was a rebel-held a town near the Lebanese border. So the most realistic short-term policy goal in Syria is to find ways to limit the areas of that country that are in direct conflict, with the aim of containing extremist violence and ultimately finding a path towards stability in those regions.

It needs to be reinforced by a number of other measures. We need to ensure that there is international economic assistance. That is absolutely critical. And of course we have to redouble our efforts towards a political solution in Syria. The only way, in the words of one commentator, to wind down the conflict, is through an negotiated settlement involving all the regional powers. And let us not kid ourselves: what is going on here right now is a global power play. This is a proxy war for much bigger actors. We have the Assad regime, which is backed by Russia and Iran. We have them against the Gulf dictatorships. And we have Turkey and Western powers, which have backed myriad rebel groups. It is absolutely critical that we negotiate a settlement between those actors before we contemplate military intervention that is doomed to fail. We need to ensure that we strengthen our multilateral institutions. We need to look at a regional arms embargo to prevent weapons from going into the wrong hands. Why is it that there has been so little focus on penalties for purchasing the illicit oil that funds Islamic State? It is ironic, too, that in these conflicts it is harder to get your hands on food than on guns. We absolutely need to focus on those international borders.

We need to strengthen our international law. It would be wonderful if instead of having a coalition of the willing bearing arms we had a coalition of the willing prepared to rebuild international legal and democratic institutions. It is just so critical. We could do that without adding to civilian casualties, which will be a result of this intervention, further destabilising the Middle East. Let us have a United Nations arms embargo. Let us ensure that military supplies and logistical support for both Damascus and opposition forces are restricted. We have to stop the flow of weapons. There is cause for hope. The nuclear deal in Iran came out of the blue, unexpectedly. It shows that the United States, Russia and the Iranians, despite their conflict, despite the tension, can work together to achieve an outcome if they all believe that it is in their own national interest.

We have to work towards a political resolution within Iraq. One of the great mistakes within Iraq was to ensure the exclusion of the Sunnis from the political structures. An inclusive government means ensuring that all groups within that society are represented. The real question about the strategy of Iraq is not about defeating ISIS. That is an important outcome, but to get there we need to build an Iraqi society and politics that is inclusive of all groups, not just the Shiites but also the Sunnis and Kurds. We absolutely need to do that. We need political reform in that nation. And we have to empower the Sunni community to engage with their government rather than push them away into the arms of IS.

The definition of insanity is going the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. The Global Terrorism Index 2014 found that despite all of our efforts, despite the focus on counter-terrorism and on military intervention, the level of global terrorist activity has greatly increased in the last decade. We are making things worse. Now is the time to pause, to reflect and to change tack. We have to ensure that we do not simply respond with more indiscriminate violence, which has the tendency to worsen conflict rather than to ameliorate it. Our responses typically neglect those long-term sustainable solutions that involve and respond to the concerns, priorities, and potential of the conflict-affected population.

I mentioned earlier the flow of arms. One concrete thing we can do is focus on the Turkish border. Turkey, which is a NATO member, has to do more to stop jihadists who cross into Syria. The Turkish border is now known as the jihadist highway. It is the only way to smuggle oil, to smuggle weapons and to smuggle foreign fighters into Iraq and Syria. It is absolutely critical that we use our influence and the influence of our major ally, the US, to ensure that we stem the flow of weapons and fighters across the Turkish border. IS supplies are largely being funded by the sale of captured oil. We need to ensure that we focus on that border. In Kuwait the terrorism financing that has occurred because there are very weak financial controls has resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars being funded to various Syrian rebel groups, including ISIS. We should be focusing on that and ensuring that we do something about Kuwait's banking system and financial system, because its money changers have long been a huge issue and a major conduit for money to extremist groups. That is absolutely critical.

I will finish by talking about our relationship with our major ally, the US. There are serious questions here about whether we invited this intervention—that is, requested of the US that we become involved. We still do not know that. That is why a frank and open debate is so necessary. Why would we invite our participation in a conflict where we know there are alternatives and where we know the costs are so high?

It does bring into question what the role of an ally is. What is it about the relationship that we have with the US that makes Australians safer and that makes the world a safer place? It does not mean following the US blindly into conflict simply because they ask us to, and it does not mean asking them to be involved in a conflict because potentially it provides some political dividend. There are significant political, financial and military costs associated with that relationship. The role of an ally is to ensure that when you think they are making a mistake you let them know. To be an equal partner in a relationship means attempting to use your power and influence in that relationship to stop people from making mistakes, rather than simply following people blindly into conflicts that have the potential to exacerbate what is an already significant unfolding humanitarian catastrophe. And we do need to recognise that it is time that we played a more constructive role in the world through a more independent, non-aligned foreign policy that puts the national interest and the global interest ahead of the interests of one of our major allies.

There are few things more important than committing men and women to a conflict where they risk their lives and the lives of others. There could be no more important thing to be debating in the nation's parliament than that very question, and that is precisely why this nation sits before the parliament. It is to the great shame of both the government and the opposition that they have prevented this motion from taking effect and not ensuring that this is a debate and a decision that is made by the Australian parliament rather than by a captain's call made by a besieged Prime Minister on the back of limited information, with no plan and no strategy.