Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is directed to Senator Minchin, representing the Prime Minister. Can the minister confirm reports that former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld called for a change of strategy in Iraq two days before he resigned? Didn’t Mr Rumsfeld tell President Bush that the US strategy in Iraq ‘is not working well enough’ and that it was time for a major adjustment to US policy, including the possible withdrawal of American troops? Doesn’t this admission follow President Bush’s statement on 11 October: ‘Don’t do what you are doing if it is not working—change’? Will the government, like Donald Rumsfeld, finally concede that its rhetoric about ‘staying the course’ in Iraq is unsustainable and that the growing civil war makes it more urgent than ever to develop a new strategy and goals for the exit of our troops?

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have seen press reports referring to assertions that Mr Rumsfeld, the former defence secretary of the United States, had sent a memo to the White House expressing some views about the course of the campaign in Iraq. We note them with interest. Obviously, the US, in the context of the Baker led review of its position with respect to Iraq, is considering its position. Just as Mr Rudd himself was always of the view that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, it is well known that the government, on that basis, was prepared to join with the coalition of the willing, in effect doing the job of the UN itself in seeking to ensure the end of the Saddam Hussein regime, after its period of barbarity against its own people and its refusal to comply with UN sanctions. Indeed, in the widespread view, shared by the new Leader of the Opposition, Mr Rudd, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, we did join with the United States, albeit in a modest fashion, in seeking to remove the Hussein regime.

It is a fact that, since the removal of that regime, bringing peace, order and good government to the people of Iraq has been extremely difficult with the terrorism that has been waged against both the coalition forces and the new government of Iraq and its military forces. Of course the US, with obviously the most massive commitment of all to the cause in Iraq, is reconsidering its position, presumably on a daily basis, in consultation with the government of Iraq, as to what is the best course of action that should be followed.

I noted last week that the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Iraq had met and discussed the situation. The Prime Minister of Iraq indicated his desire to retain coalition forces in Iraq at least until the Iraqi security forces are able to ensure the security of the people of Iraq. He gave an indication as to when he thought it would be possible for the Iraqi forces to assume full responsibility. Obviously, from our point of view—while I stress that our commitment is relatively modest compared to the commitment of the United States forces—our forces are doing a great job assisting the people of Iraq to bring about peace, order and good government in their country.

We are committed to remaining in Iraq while we believe that (a) we are welcome there at the invitation of the government of Iraq and while they profess the need for our modest forces to remain and (b) we are making a contribution. We continue to believe that we are making a contribution, particularly with the training of Iraqi security forces to assist them in ensuring that they can take full responsibility for the security of the country. Of course, it is indeed the case that the Prime Minister of Iraq has that objective. What we will not do, which apparently is the Labor policy—although we wait to see if Mr Rudd brings any new dimension to this—is simply exit. The worst thing we could possibly do would be to walk away from the people of Iraq, and it would be handing the terrorists and thugs a massive victory.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question which goes to the core of my first question. Given that the Americans are, as the minister says, reconsidering their position, is Australia reviewing its strategy on Iraq? What process have we got in place that addresses the seriously deteriorating situation in Iraq and the future of our involvement in that country? While the minister says, ‘We will stay while we are welcome and have a job to do,’ that almost implies that we will stay even if America leaves. The point is: what are we doing to reconsider our strategy of engagement in Iraq?

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Obviously, we keep our position under review but, at the moment, we are working closely with our coalition partners and the Iraqi government to ensure that our contribution is the most appropriate to support the transition of security responsibility to the Iraqis. Our forces are currently performing a security and training role in Al Muthanna and Dhi Qar provinces. Our ADF personnel are actively involved, with some 30 providing training support to the Iraqi army at the basic training centre in Tallil. Australia remains committed to Iraq. We continue to monitor and assess the situation. We are working towards the day when the Iraqi security forces will be able to manage on their own, but we will not cut and run and we will not leave the Iraqi people to the hands of the terrorists.