Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Hansard source

I'd like to speak tonight about Australia's strategic engagement in the Middle East. Last week, Prime Minister Morrison was one of the few world leaders to defend US President Trump over the unilateral and contentious withdrawal of US troops from northern Syria. Whilst others were accusing the President of leaving the United States' Kurdish allies exposed to an imminent attack from Turkish forces, Mr Morrison preferred to underline the consistency of President Trump's oft-stated desire to pull US troops out of Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq. The Prime Minister said:

I think it would be wrong to not draw an element of consistency between those statements almost a year ago and the action the United States has been taking, including most recently.

In subsequent statements, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne, have rightly condemned Turkey's military offensive into northern Syria but have studiously avoided any criticism of President Trump's green-lighting of that assault. Asked if the US President had abandoned the Kurds, Senator Payne simply said, 'Countries are able to make decisions in their own national interest.' We are now seeing the consequences of President Trump's decision regarding Syria and the Kurds. As a very important aside, today I learned that there are 40 Australian children in the Al-Hawl camp in Syria—a Kurdish controlled camp. They are obviously in a most dangerous situation. They have an option to be moved to safe ground without endangering Australian officials, but it isn't being exercised. If the worst happens to these Aussie kids—and it is a possibility that I fear—then obviously some serious questions will follow.

In question time yesterday the Minister for Foreign Affairs revealed that, over the weekend, she and the Prime Minister both spoke with the US Secretary of State about developments in Syria. However, when asked about what representations were made to the United States about the impact of its decision to withdraw its forces from Syria, the Minister for Foreign Affairs blandly observed that she won't go into the contents of private conversations. One can well understand the government's reluctance to say anything critical of President Trump. After all, just one word can potentially bring down a barrage of presidential tweets and unpredictable decisions potentially harmful to our national interests. However, it's also abundantly clear that, for all the Prime Minister's efforts to build a personal relationship with the US President, Mr Morrison and Senator Payne simply weren't in the loop. The Australian government appears to have first learned of the latest developments in US policy from twitter and media reports.

The truth is that US policy towards the Middle East is in an extraordinarily volatile state. US policy and actions are erratic, confused and driven by short-term political considerations. US allies such as Australia cannot rely on the normal processes of consultation to influence policy made in President Trump's White House. That is the present reality. There is no surprise in this, but it doesn't augur well for the management of Australia's defence deployments in the Middle East.

The Australian Defence Force has, at present, more than 1,300 personnel deployed in the Middle East region. We have major commitments including Operation Okra, with some 450 personnel deployed in Iraq; Operation Highroad, with 350 personnel deployed in Afghanistan; Operation Accordion, with 500 personnel deployed with the ADF's Middle East logistic base; and Operation Manitou and the deployment of a Royal Australian Navy frigate to support maritime security operations in the region. The Defence budget papers for 2019-20 show that the net additional cost of these operations to 2022-23 amounts to nearly $4 billion.

In August the government announced an additional commitment of naval and air capability to support a US commanded effort to police the Strait of Hormuz. Given the current state of flux in American policy and the erratic character in decision-making in Washington, there is an urgent need for Australia to look closely at current Middle East deployments and ask them very searching questions about the risks involved and our long-term strategic interests. Arguably the greatest danger lies in the Persian Gulf, with the stand-off between the United States and Iran, rather than the situation in Syria. Prime Minister Morrison has appeared rather sanguine about this, observing last week that President Trump had shown restraint on the subject of Iran in their talks in the White House last month. The Prime Minister said:

… the President made it very clear that his natural instinct actually is restraint. This is his natural disposition that's something that I think is a bit misunderstood.

That may be so, but who would really rely on the consistency of the President's actions or, indeed, his good judgement? In June, we saw President Trump go to the brink of a military strike against Iran, apparently with planes ordered into the air, only to pull back at the very last minute. The overall situation remains fraught with tension. We've seen oil tankers seized, a US Navy drone shot down, and a missile and drone strike on a major oil facility in Saudi Arabia. Support for freedom of navigation is important, especially in strategic waterways such as the Strait of Hormuz, but there's a real danger that Australia's new naval and air commitments may amount to a blank cheque for Australian entanglement in a war with Iran.

Beyond that issue, we also need to look very carefully at Australia's commitments in Afghanistan. As the Trump administration moves to draw down on American forces, we need to ask ourselves a couple of questions: (1) whether Australia's job is done; and (2) whether continued deployments in those countries are the optimum use of our finite defence capabilities. The answer to the first question is yes. International terrorists have been greatly diminished, and such commitments cannot be open-ended. The answer to the second question is no, as our strategic circumstances are changing, and changing rapidly. We are unquestionably entering a new era of competition between major powers focused on East Asia and the Pacific. In these circumstances, Australia may face significant strategic challenges closer to home. The development of maritime and air capabilities for the defence of Australia and the projection of military power in Australia's immediate region are already key priorities. A rapid wind-down of Australia's Iraq and Afghanistan deployments and the associated support operations would allow the reallocation of financial and other resources to help build up naval and air capabilities much more relevant to the defence of Australia and our immediate strategic interests in the Pacific and East Asia regions.

In circumstances in which US policymaking is highly uncertain and difficult to influence, we should also carefully circumscribe any continuing Australian naval deployment to avoid Australia being drawn into an unwanted war with Iran. I might point out that that's not a criticism of our naval officers; they are most professional. I've always been impressed by the way that principal warfare officers, captains of our warships and those the US Navy who are sailing around in well-armed vessels in a very professional capacity don't use the weapons that they have available to them. At all costs, they avoid doing that, and they are highly professional, but you can have a strategic direction from above that can unravel that professionalism.

As the foreign minister has said of the United States, countries are able to make decisions in their own national interest. Well, that applies to Australia as well. We need to focus firmly on Australia's primary strategic interests, the defence of Australia and supporting peace and security in our immediate region. That's where our national interest now lies.