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

by leave—I move:

That the speaking times in relation to the ministerial statement relating to Afghanistan be as follows:

(a)

that a senator speaking to the motion shall not speak for more than 20 minutes; and

(b)

no time limit apply to the conclusion of the debate on the motion.

Question agreed to.

On behalf of the Prime Minister (Ms Gillard), I table a statement on Australia’s commitment to Afghanistan, and seek leave to incorporate the statement in Hansard.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

The statement read as follows

A national government has no more important task than defending the nation, its people and their interests. That is why we take so seriously any decision to go to war. The war in Afghanistan is no different. Today I will answer five questions Australians are asking about the war:

• why Australia is involved in Afghanistan;
• what the international community is seeking to achieve and how;
• what Australia’s contribution is to this international effort – our mission;
• what progress is being made; and
• what the future is of our commitment in Afghanistan.

Of course, while our troops remain in the field, I must be responsible in how much I say. But in answering those questions, I want to be as frank as I can be with the Australian people. I want to paint a very honest picture of the difficulties and challenges facing our mission in Afghanistan. The new international strategy and the surge in international troops responded to a deterioriating security situation. This means more fighting; more violence. It risks more casualties. There will be many hard days ahead.

1. Why Australia is Involved in Afghanistan

Australia has two vital national interests in Afghanistan. One, to make sure that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists, a place where attacks on us and our allies begin. Two, to stand firmly by our alliance commitment to the United States, formally invoked following the attacks on New York and Washington in 2001.

Last month we marked the ninth anniversary ofaAl-Qaeda’s September 11 attacks. Before September 11 al-Qaeda had a safe haven in Afghanistan under the Taliban government, a safe haven where they could recruit, indoctrinate, train, plan, finance and conspire to kill. On September 11, al-Qaeda murdered more than 3,000 people—thousands of Americans, citizens of our ally the United States, people from many other countries and 10 Australians, 10 of our own, never forgotten. And millions of people were terrified.

So we went to Afghanistan to make sure it would never again be a safe haven for al-Qaeda. We went with our friends and allies, as part of the international community. We went with the support of the United Nations. The war has put pressure on al-Qaeda’s core leadership—killed some, captured others, forced many into hiding and forced them all on the defensive. Al-Qaeda has been dealt a severe blow.

But al-Qaeda remains a resilient and persistent network. Our successes against it in Afghanistan are only part of our effort against terrorism. We are working to counter the rise of affiliated groups in new areas such as Somalia and Yemen, and violent extremism and terrorist groups in Pakistan. That is why we support efforts in those countries, with those governments, to target terrorist groups there as well.

The terror did not end on September 11. Since 2001, some 100 Australians have been killed in extremists’ attacks overseas. Among them: 88 Australians were killed in the Bali bombing in 2002 and four Australians were killed in the second Bali bombing in 2005. Our embassy has been bombed in Jakarta. In each of these cases, the terrorist groups involved had links to Afghanistan. If the insurgency in Afghanistan were to succeed, if the international community were to withdraw, then Afghanistan could once again become a safe haven for terrorists. Al-Qaeda’s ability to recruit, indoctrinate, train, plan, finance and conspire to kill would be far greater than it is today. And the propaganda victory for terrorists worldwide would be enormous. So the goal of Australia and the international community is clear: to deny terrorist networks a safe haven in Afghanistan.

2. What the international community is seeking to achieve: the new international strategy

The international community has been in Afghanistan a long time—nine years. The Australian people are entitled to know what we are trying to achieve and when our troops can come home. Removing the Taliban government in 2001 and pursuing al-Qaeda in the years since has made a crucial difference in preventing terrorist attacks. From 2001 to mid-2006, US and Coalition forces and Afghan troops fought relatively low levels of insurgent violence. The international force in Afghanistan was focussed on a stabilisation mission. And there were no Australian units deployed in Afghanistan between December 2002 and September 2005. Through this period, few would now argue, US and international attention turned heavily to Iraq.

Australia’s substantial military involvement in Afghanistan resumed when the Special Forces Task Force was redeployed there for twelve months from September 2005 in support of international efforts to target key insurgents. Violence increased further in mid-2006, particularly in the east and the south. Due to significant intimidation and the absence of effective governance in many rural areas, some Afghans turned to the Taliban at this time.

The mission moved to a counter-insurgency focus. Australia’s contribution increased from October 2008 on as we took a growing role in training and mentoring in the southern Afghanistan province of Uruzgan. However the international counter-insurgency mission was not adequately resourced until 2009. In December 2009 President Obama announced a revised strategy for Afghanistan and a surge of 30 000 US troops. NATO has contributed more. So has Australia. I believe we now have the right strategy, an experienced commander in General Petraeus, and the resources needed to deliver the strategy. The overarching goal of the new strategy is to enable transition. That is, to prepare the government of Afghanistan to take lead responsibility for its own security.

But our vital national interests, in preventing Afghanistan being a safe haven for terrorists who attack us and in supporting our ally, do not end with transition. Our aim is that the new international strategy sees a functioning Afghan state become able to assume responsibility for preventing the country from being a safe haven for terrorists. Australia’s key role in that mission, training and mentoring the 4th Brigade of the Afghan National Army in Uruzgan, is expected to take 2 to 4 years. And President Karzai has said the Afghan Government expects the transition process to be complete by the end of 2014.

But let me be clear—this refers to the Afghan government taking lead responsibility for security. The international community will remain engaged in Afghanistan beyond 2014. And Australia will remain engaged. There will still be a need for Australians in a supporting role. There will still be a role for training and other defence cooperation. The civilian-led aid and development effort will continue. And we will continue to promote Afghan-led re-integration of former insurgents who are willing to lay down their arms, turn their backs on terrorism and accept the Afghan constitution. We expect this support, training and development task to continue in some form through this decade at least.

Our mission in Afghanistan is not nation building. That is the task of the Afghan government and people. With international aid and development, we will continue to help were we can, but entrenching a functioning democratic Afghan state could be the work of a generation of Afghan people.

The new international strategy is comprehensive.

It is focussed on:

• Protecting the civilian population—conducting operations together with the Afghan National Security Forces to reduce the capability and will of the insurgency.
• Training, mentoring and equipping the Afghan National Security Forces – to enable them to assume a lead role in providing security.
• And facilitating improvements in governance and socio-economic development – working with the Afghan authorities and the United Nations to strengthen institutions and deliver basic services.

The new strategy promotes efforts towards political reconciliation. It also includes a greater focus on partnership with Pakistan to address violent extremism in the border regions that threatens both Pakistan and Afghanistan. And the new international strategy is well resourced.

The international strategy is implemented by a combined civilian and military effort under the International Security Assistance Force. This involves 47 troop-contributing nations, working alongside a host of international bodies and aid agencies, with and at the invitation of the Afghan government, and under a United Nations Security Council mandate—a mandate renewed unanimously just this month.

This coalition includes many longstanding friends and allies of Australia, including the United States and New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Canada and France. Singapore and Korea, among other Asian countries, contribute. And several Muslim countries are involved, including Turkey, Jordan and Malaysia.

At the Asia-Europe meeting, I spent some time with Malaysia’s Prime Minister Najib. I was particularly struck by what he said was one of Malaysia’s most important contributions to Afghanistan: doctors—doctors who are Islamic women. They are able to work with Afghan women as few foreign medical professionals can.

We are part of a truly international effort in Afghanistan. To ensure the new international strategy can be delivered, last December the United States committed to a military and civilian surge in Afghanistan. The elements of this surge are now reaching full-strength. Once fully deployed, this will take coalition force numbers to roughly 140,000. US forces on the ground have tripled since early 2009. The total force now has the resources required to deliver a comprehensive international strategy focussed on counter-insurgency and designed to deliver transition.

3. Australia’s Contribution to the International Effort

Australia’s involvement makes a real difference in Afghanistan. The government supports the new international strategy and we have supported the surge. Australia has increased our troop contribution to Afghanistan by around 40 per cent in the past 18 months. We now have around 1,550 military personnel deployed in Afghanistan. Our military force is complemented by around 50 Australian civilians.

Earlier this year we took over leadership of the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Uruzgan to spearhead our civilian efforts, and increased our civilian commitment to Afghanistan by 50 per cent. In fact since 2001 we have committed over $740 million in development assistance to Afghanistan.

The main focus of the Australian effort in Afghanistan is directed towards Uruzgan province. It is a difficult job. Uruzgan province lies in southern Afghanistan. Around 500,000 people live there—roughly the population of Tasmania, across an area about one third the size of that state. Nearly three-quarters of the land is dry and mountainous. Most of the people live in a few major valleys alongside the rivers. Subsistence agriculture and poppy farming are the main ways to earn a living. Water is a precious and highly contested resource and overall economic prospects are poor. School attendance is low, and illiteracy is high. In fact, the female literacy rate in Uruzgan is less than one per cent. For men it is only 10 per cent.

In Uruzgan, Australia’s soldiers and civilians are part of Combined Team-Uruzgan. Combined Team-Uruzgan is a new structure that brings the military, policing, political and development elements of our assistance under a single command. The team is commanded by a senior United States military officer, Colonel Creighton, and the senior civilian official is an Australian diplomat, Mr Bernard Philip. I met them both during my visit. We are lucky to have them.

The team is built around an Australian-US partnership, with contributions from a number of countries including New Zealand, Singapore and Slovakia. Combined Team-Uruzgan was established following the Dutch drawdown in August. We appointed our senior civilian representative to lead the Uruzgan Provincial Reconstruction Team and coordinate all ISAF civilian activities in the province.

The government has worked closely with the Dutch and US governments to ensure Australian soldiers and civilians have every support they need through the period of this handover. I welcome the Dutch government’s decision to extend their attack helicopter support. This is part of a broader ISAF contribution from which Australia and all contributing nations benefit. Australia’s contribution of two Chinook helicopters is part of this.

While in Afghanistan and Europe I met with: Colonel Creighton, commanding Combined Team-Uruzgan; General Petraeus, commanding the International Security Assistance Force; NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen; and the then caretaker Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Jan Balkenende. In each of these meetings, I emphasised the strength of my view, my government’s view, that continuing this support was necessary. So I was glad to receive confirmation of the Dutch decision after my return.

Our advice is that the planned arrangements for support following the full Dutch draw-down will see equivalent support to Australian forces. While lighter in absolute numbers, the American support available to our forces is agile and highly effective in pursuing our common mission. In addition, Afghan forces in Uruzgan have increased from around 3,000 to 4,000 in the past 18 months, meaning total troop numbers are larger now than when Dutch forces were present. As Prime Minister, I am satisfied that our troops have the right support. And, of course, this is a matter we keep under constant review.

In Uruzgan, Australia’s substantial military, civilian and development assistance focuses on:

training and mentoring the Afghan National Army 4th Brigade to assume responsibility for the province’s security;

building the capacity of the Afghan National Police to assist with civil policing functions;

helping improve the Afghan government’s capacity to deliver core services and generate income-earning opportunities for its people.

As well as our efforts supporting transition in Uruzgan, Australia’s special forces are targeting the insurgent network in and around the province, disrupting insurgent operations and supply routes. While not part of Combined Team-Uruzgan, the Special Operations Task Group contributes to the province’s security. Our Special Air Service Regiment and our commando regiments are the equal of any special forces in the world. They will make a difference to the outcome of the war.

I know all this is very dangerous work for our soldiers and civilians. I give you my firm assurance that this government will listen to the professional advice and provide every necessary protection and support for our soldiers and civilians in Afghanistan. Over the past 12 months the government has announced more than $1.1 billion for additional force protection measures for Australian personnel. This includes upgraded body armour and rocket, artillery and mortar protection. The continuing and evolving threat posed to our troops by improvised explosive devices has seen us pursuing the right technologies to ensure our troops can detect these devices. Our troops are protected through hardened vehicles and other protective equipment. And, of course, we will keep these force protection measures under constant review.

I have spoken to Air Chief Marshal Houston, the Chief of the Defence Force. I have spoken to Major General Cantwell, our national commander on the ground. Their advice to the government is that, as we stand today, our force structure—the number of troops on the ground and the capabilities they have—is right for our mission in Afghanistan. As Prime Minister, I want to be very clear. The government receives the advice on this decision. But we take the responsibility for this decision.

There has also been some debate about the rules of engagement for our soldiers in Afghanistan. Of course I will not comment on the particular case which is subject to current proceedings. I do, however, want to respond to some of the public comments on the rules of engagement generally. Those rules of engagement are properly decided by the government. They are consistent with the guidance provided by General Petraeus. They are consistent with the International Security Assistance Force’s rules of engagement. They are consistent with the international law of armed conflict. As with troop levels, we take the advice, but we take the responsibility.

As Prime Minister, let me say I believe the rules of engagement are robust and sufficient for the mission in Uruzgan. The Australian Defence Force is a professional military force, respected in Australia and around the world. They operate under strict rules of engagement. That is what they do. Rules of engagement are central to the mission of the ADF. Strict rules of engagement are in the long-term interests of our troops in the field. But, more than that, they are the difference between us and our enemy. As much as anything, what marks us from them is precisely this. We respect innocent civilian life. I believe Australians would not have it any other way.

4. What progress is being made nationally

The new international strategy is in place. The elements of the surge to support the strategy are now reaching full strength. The hard work is underway. We will monitor events closely. The NATO Lisbon summit in November will assess further progress against the International Security Assistance Force’s strategy. Mapping out that strategy will be a key focus of the summit. Afghanistan is a war-ravaged country that faces immense development challenges.

While the challenges are huge, I can report tentative signs of progress to date. The Afghan National Security Forces are being mentored and trained. The Afghan National Army reached its October 2010 growth objective of 134,000 ahead of schedule, and the Afghan National Police is also ahead of its October 2010 goal of 109,000. The Afghan National Army is becoming increasingly capable and supporting coalition operations more effectively. Nearly 85 per cent of the army is now fully partnered with ISAF forces for operations in the field. Afghan forces are now in the lead in Kabul.

The ability of the Afghan government to provide services to its people is being built. In primary education, enrolments have increased from one million in 2001 to approximately six million today. Some two million of these enrolments are girls. There were none in 2001. Nothing better symbolises the fall of the Taliban than these two million Afghan girls learning to read. In basic health services, infant mortality decreased by 22 per cent between 2002 and 2008 and immunisation rates for children are now in the range of 70 to 90 per cent. In vital economic infrastructure, almost 10,000 kilometres of road has been rehabilitated and 10 million Afghans now have access to telecommunications, compared to only 20,000 in 2001.

With the increase in troop levels, the fight is being taken to the insurgency. Insurgents are being challenged in areas, particularly in the south and east of the country, where they previously operated with near-impunity. Indeed, much of the increase in violence this year is attributable to the fact that there is a larger international and Afghan presence pursuing the insurgency more aggressively.

In Afghan politics, efforts are being made to convince elements amongst the insurgents to put down their arms, to renounce violence and adopt a path back to constructive and purposeful civilian life. And although we know democracy remains rudimentary and fragile, Afghanistan has a free press and a functioning parliament. Last month parliamentary elections took place—elections with real and widely publicised problems—but elections did take place. And the international community is working closely with Pakistan. Stability in Pakistan, and the uprooting of extremist networks that have established themselves in the border regions and terrorised both countries, is essential to stability in Afghanistan.

Let me turn more specifically to the progress of Australia’s mission in Uruzgan. Our Mentoring Task Force is training the 4th Brigade of the Afghan national army. The 4th Brigade, as our commanders on the ground told me during my visit, is proving to be an increasingly professional force, fighting better and becoming more capable at conducting complex operations. The brigade’s recent efforts in successfully completing a series of resupply missions between Tarin Kot and Kandahar has demonstrated improving capability. Since late last year, they have moved from observing and participating, to planning and leading these activities. The brigade also recently provided security for parliamentary elections in the province.

Our civilians are making a difference in Uruzgan. Our AFP contingent has trained almost 700 Afghan national police at the police training centre for the province. It has also contributed to the successful targeting of corrupt officials and the tackling of major crimes. We are helping build local services. In Tarin Kot township, business is flourishing at the local bazaar. There are two bank branches, crime is down, and the town is becoming a genuine provincial trading hub. I visited our trade training school on the Tarin Kot base, which is turning out 60 graduates each quarter in basic trades such as plumbing and carpentry, most of whom then contribute to reconstruction and development in the province.

Our aid to Uruzgan is increasing to $20 million in 2010-11. Already we have supported 78 school reconstruction projects and the disbursal of over 950 microfinance loans. We have helped refurbish the Tarin Kot hospital and assisted the rehabilitation and operation of 11 health centres and 165 health posts. We are constructing a new building for the Department of Energy and Water, and building a bridge crossing to connect to the Tarin Kot-Chora Road. Our civilians are working to build capacity within the provincial administration and support the reach of central government programs into Uruzgan.

We are taking the fight to the insurgency. On the C130 flight into Afghanistan, a map of Uruzgan spread out on his knees, our national commander Major General John Cantwell briefed me on our work in the field. Valley by valley, we are gradually making a difference to security. He told me about the agriculture-rich Mirabad Valley, a strategically important region with a history of violence in recent years, just to the east of the provincial capital Tarin Kot. Mirabad was dominated by the Taliban for the last seven years. It was a place where the provincial government had no influence. But over the last two years the Afghan security forces, in partnership with the Australian, Dutch and now US forces, have methodically expanded their permanent presence into the valley with the establishment of three patrol bases. Insurgents, clearly threatened by the growing reach of the Afghan national army, attacked the bases unsuccessfully a number of times during construction. Now the bases, combined with two nearby outposts, will allow the Afghan national army to better protect Mirabad’s communities. Mirabad is far from a success story yet. Progress in development, education and democracy is yet to begin. But in the specific mission we have given our forces in Uruzgan—to train the Afghan national army to take the lead in security—we see progress being made. That is the beginning of transition.

General Cantwell also told me about Gizab. It is an isolated township in the far north of Uruzgan province that had long been a Taliban safe haven, and one which the Taliban used as a base to launch attacks against the Chora district. Earlier this year, in April, the local community rose in revolt against the Taliban and, with the assistance of Afghan and Australian forces, captured the local Taliban commander and expelled the insurgents. Gizab now has a local police force and a new district governor, and the provincial government is beginning to make its presence felt. Again, it is a place where progress is painstaking and incremental, where there will be new setbacks and where consolidation is needed. Again though, it is a place where the seeds of transition are being sewn.

I have shared some positive stories about the beginnings of transition. There are many stories which are not so positive. We should be realistic about the situation. Progress, even in security, is highly variable across the province. Any gains come off a low base. Any advances made are fragile. The challenges that face Uruzgan, and Afghanistan, are immense. But I do believe we should be cautiously encouraged.

5. The future of our commitment to Afghanistan

Australia’s national interests in Afghanistan are clear. There must be no safe haven for terrorists. We must stand firmly by our ally, the United States. There is a new international strategy in place—focused on counterinsurgency, designed to enable transition. Australia’s commitment to Afghanistan is not open-ended. We, along with the rest of ur partners in the International Security Assistance Force, want to bring our people home as soon as possible. The Afghan people want to stand on their own. But achieving our mission is critical to achieving both these things.

The international community and the Afghan government are agreed on a clear pathway forward. The Kabul conference in July welcomed the Afghan government’s determination that the Afghan National Security Forces should lead and conduct military operations in all provinces by the end of 2014. At the upcoming NATO/ISAF Summit in Lisbon the international community and the Afghan government will assess progress against the international strategy. Mapping out the strategy for transition to Afghan leadership and responsibility will be a key focus of the summit.

Transition will not be a one-size-fits-all approach. It will be conditions based. It will happen faster in some places and slower in others. It will be a graduated process, not an event or a date. There is no ‘transition day’. International forces will be thinned out as Afghan forces step up and assume responsibility. In some places the transition process will be subject to setbacks. We need to be prepared for this. My firm view is that for transition to occur in an area the ability of Afghan forces to take the lead in security in that area must be irreversible. Our government will state this as a simple fact in discussions before and at Lisbon. We must not transition out, only to transition back in.

In conclusion

Australia will do everything in our power to ensure Afghanistan is never again a safe haven for terrorists. Australia will stand firm in our commitment to our alliance with the United States. The international community understands this. Our enemies understand this too. I believe that the new international strategy, backed by the surge in military and civilian forces, is sound. Protecting the Afghan people, training the Afghan security forces, building the Afghan government’s capacity, working with the international community, Australia is making a real difference in Afghanistan. Delivering on the international strategy in Uruzgan province—and supporting transition in the country as a whole.

Australia will not abandon Afghanistan but we must be very realistic about the future. Transition will take some years. We will be engaged through this decade at least. Good government in the country may be the work of an Afghan generation. There will be many hard days ahead, but I am cautiously encouraged by what I have seen.

I believe this debate is an important one for our people and our parliament. That is why today I announce as Prime Minister that I will make a statement like this one to the House each year that our Afghanistan involvement continues. This will be in addition to the continuing ministerial statements by the Minister for Defence in each session of the parliament.

Attending funerals for Australian soldiers is the hardest thing I have ever done. And it is nowhere near as hard for me as it is for the families. There is nothing I can say to change their long walk through life without a loved one. A loved one, lost for our sake. In the ultimate, I can promise them only this: we will remember them. Their names are written on the walls of the War Memorial in Canberra. Their names are written in the walls of our hearts. When I think of these Australians we have lost in Afghanistan, I think of the Australian poet James McAuley’s words:

I never shrank with fear

But fought the monsters of the lower world

Clearing a little space, and time, and light

For men to live in peace.

I know the professional soldiers of the Australian Defence Force are proud people. They offer their lives for us. They embrace wartime sacrifice as their highest duty. In return, we owe them our wisdom. Our highest duty is to make wise decisions about war. I look forward to the deliberations of this parliamentary debate on Afghanistan. I hope we do our duty as well as they do theirs.

I welcome this debate on Afghanistan. In the months since June we have lost 10 of our finest soldiers. In total we have now lost 21 brave individuals and suffered more than 150 soldiers wounded as a result of our involvement in this war. I, as all senators, have been deeply saddened, as has the rest of Australia, by these losses. Our thoughts and sympathies are with their families, friends and loved ones. Each time we mark the loss of a soldier this Senate has felt very deeply that loss and felt very deeply the burden we carry in committing our troops to war.

We owe it to them to have a serious national debate about our involvement in Afghanistan. I am greatly encouraged by what I have heard of the debate in the House of Representatives so far. I see the debate as a testimony to the strength of our community and the power of our democracy: even in times of war we can deliberate and have an honest discussion about what is best for Australia and our people. The families and loved ones of these Australian soldiers and the nation as a whole rightly demand to know the purpose for which such great sacrifices have been made and naturally seek reass

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President:

It’s not the time to get the wobbles, it’s not the time to lose faith, it’s not the time to forsake the loss and the sacrifice and expense and the heartache that’s gone into [Afghanistan].

The coalition, in joining this debate to take note of the Prime Minister’s statement on Afghanistan, say ‘Amen’ to those wise and succinct sentiments uttered by Major General Cantwell in recent days. Let us be clear: the commitment to armed conflict is one of the most soul wrenching or soul searching decisions any Prime Minister or government could ever make. Those that have gone before us, and those that follow us, have made and will need to make these chilling calls—calls which all of us so passionately wish had not been part of our history or indeed part of our future, let alone the present. Nevertheless, we recognise the need to make such calls—calls which are made without perfect and full knowledge of all the situations and likelihoods, calls which need to be made without knowing the full consequences of inaction or action. They are, in brief, the matters which leadership requires to sift, to distil and to analyse before our bravest and best are requested to engage in theatres where they know they will be called upon to make a commitment which might require the ultimate sacrifice.

We have over 1,500 personnel in Afghanistan. We have lost 21 of our own and seen more than 150 suffer injuries. I say ‘we’ because I have no doubt that all Australians personally feel the loss of and injuries to our personnel. I am sure Prime Ministers Howard, Rudd and Gillard and their defence ministers similarly felt or feel the pain. But there is no doubting that the wives, sons, daughters, parents, siblings and all those close to our fallen or wounded service personnel feel that pain 100-fold compared to the rest of us. Theirs will be the legacy of a father they never knew, of a lover they never married or of a lifelong dedication to the long, hard journey of rehabilitation or the nursing of a permanently injured loved one either physically or mentally, if not both. War is a terrible thing. And that is why no Australian Prime Minister or government has ever wantonly committed our armed forces without a full appreciation of the truly awesome responsibility which they shoulder. But nor have they shirked Australia’s responsibility.

Despite its moral ambiguities and its cost, conflict and war can be justified under certain circumstances. Self-defence has always been the most compelling reason. Assistance to an ally acting in self-defence is also a compelling reason. Protection of a third country or group experiencing a threat from an aggressor is also a reason. Our commitment to Afghanistan meets all three criteria. Australia has always answered the call in the preservation of civilised society, be it against imperialism, fascism, communism or, today, extremist Islamic terrorism. One hundred and eleven of our fellow Australians, along with thousands of others, have become the victims of the callous, random, senseless terrorist attacks orchestrated by extremist Islamic terrorists. Remembering that each number was an innocent human life cut short, on top of those murders are the many more thousands who were injured or maimed. Australians have been killed and wounded in Bali, in the World Trade Centre and elsewhere at the hands of terrorism. There is no doubt that Afghanistan—and I use the term in its geographic sense, not to describe its citizenry—was the hub from which the perpetrators of these evil acts were organised, counselled and encouraged. Indeed, let us be clear, and with apologies to Woodrow Wilson: we have no quarrel with the Afghani people; we have no feeling toward them but one of sympathy and friendship. It was for the reason that Afghanistan was such a hub that United Nations resolution 1386 was adopted to create ISAF, the International Security Assistance Force, a force which has the support of over 130 countries and the active assistance of over 40 nations.

The timeless truth of that old proverb is as appropriate today as it was when first thought of, before it was even uttered: for evil to triumph, all that is required is for good men to do nothing. Today, in the face of this evil of terrorism, which could strike again anywhere, anytime in the world, good men—and, for our modern era, I hasten to add good women as well—have been found willing from all over the world to ensure this evil scourge will not triumph. For them, doing nothing is not an option, and the coalition salutes them. We will remember them. Their sacrifice and service is our security.

It is proper that Australia should step up to take its share of responsibility. In shouldering our military responsibility, however, we should never close our mind to the option of negotiated peace in Afghanistan. Our responsibility as a nation is as much to be vigilant to possibilities for peace as to the potential for acts of terrorism against our citizens and our allies. There have been reports that the Karzai government is now discussing a political settlement with the Taliban. As the US commander, General David Petraeus, said weeks ago of the negotiations: ‘This is how you end these kinds of insurgencies.’ We all want the discussions to bear fruit, but we also need to remember that our joint purpose in Afghanistan is clear. It is to remove the safe havens for terrorists; it is to disrupt the planning and activities of terrorists; it is to disrupt the training of terrorists; it is to disrupt access to the radical mullahs, whose homilies of hate turn to acts of atrocity; and it is to help rebuild a functional society and system of governance for the freedom-loving people of Afghanistan, who should not be required to live in fear of the oppressive Taliban.

The threat of radical Islam is real. It is not some ‘Western, bourgeois’ type of construct, as some would have us believe. There are about 1,800 separate terrorist attacks each year courtesy of Islamic extremists, a lot of them directed at fellow followers of Islam. And Afghanistan remains, albeit less so, one of the hotbeds from which this evil is delivered succour. Ours is a worthy cause—it is just, although it is heart-rending.

Pursuing justice does not have artificial time frames imposed on it, so our withdrawal should come with success. Complete success will not be achieved overnight, as it clearly has not, although some success has been achieved in all areas but especially in our area of engagement. In Kandahar the military efforts and the simultaneous civil efforts are winning not only the security but also the public’s hearts and minds. If General Carter’s report from locals is right, that ‘if you have a peaceful Kandahar you will have a peaceful Afghanistan’, then things are looking up. In Arghandab, where there has been heavy insurgent activity, attacks have collapsed from 50 a week to 15 a week in a space of eight weeks. This is progress—success—in anybody’s language, but of course not complete success. Panjwai is also witnessing a demoralisation of the Taliban, with reports of suicide bombers failing to turn up for attacks and senior officers questioning Mullah Omar.

Peter Hartcher’s poignant account of his recent visit to Afghanistan is inspiring. He catalogues the successes and the achievements, such as bazaars being full again, girls going to school and the increased size of the Afghan National Army and police force. But the best by far is the following extract:

… it was at the town of Gizab, about 150 kilometres from Tarin Kowt, that the ultimate success story took place. In April a group of 15 villagers decided they’d had enough of Taliban demands for payment. In the middle of the night, they set up a roadblock and called for US back-up. Hundreds of local youths joined in the revolt. The Taliban fought back. The Americans were delayed by floods. Australian SAS troopers arrived, tied strips of reflective orange cloth around the barrels of the guns of the so-called Gizab Good Guys to mark friends from foe, and the battle was joined. And won.

The success led 14 nearby villages to stage their own uprisings against the Taliban. This is the beginning of how Afghanistan can be won; its people standing up, supported by the rest of the world.

There is enough of a glimmer of success here for the world to begin to dare to hope.

These accomplishments are things of which our Australian personnel can be very proud and we, vicariously, with them.

The history of humankind has shown that lasting peace will only be achieved from a position of strength. Yes, military and hardware strength is a vital part of it. But might I say that, in the long term, even more importantly part of it is the moral strength that accompanies our endeavours, the strength that allows local villages to rise up against the Taliban and the evil for which they stand.

No-one wishes our troops and personnel to stay in Afghanistan one second longer than necessary. As we are securing areas, rebuilding schools and creating infrastructure, NATO needs to turn its attention to providing mentors or institutional trainers to develop a military and civil service capable of being run by Afghans for Afghans. This is a great and urgent task. Some estimates place the shortage of mentors at 2,000. Without these 2,000 mentors or institutional trainers, the transitioning of Afghanistan will be commensurately delayed, which in turn delays the return of our troops.

Whilst the government and the CDF tell us Australia is doing our bit—something I fully accept—it might be opportune at the Lisbon summit next month to plead with the ISAF partners to do their bit in this regard. Without that mentoring and that institutional training, the future wellbeing and self-determinative capacity of Afghanistan will be prejudiced. Here is a real opportunity for those countries not willing to make a military contribution to show that their support is not just idle lip-service.

Specifically, for our Australian operation, the coalition wishes all our personnel success, safety and godspeed as they set about establishing: a capable and independent 4th Afghan brigade able to secure the provincial population centres; secure population centres where reconstruction teams have freedom of action; a well-trained and active provincial response company of the Afghan National Police to deal with insurgency; and better governance, security and infrastructure. On current estimates that will take years rather than days, weeks or months to achieve. But they are worthy goals. They are just goals. They are goals that will see the threat of extremist Islamic terrorism diminished, providing greater security for not only Australians but also all the peoples of the world. They are goals that will see our friends in Afghanistan have the burden of oppression and repression removed.

As I said, they are worthy goals; just goals; goals that are being achieved with the cooperation of over 40 countries in the world; goals that are being achieved with the bipartisan support of the government and the coalition in this country; and, most importantly, goals that are being achieved with the on-ground support, help and goodwill of the vast bulk of the Afghan population.

For those advocating no military action, let us examine what the results of such a policy would have been. Under such a policy, Osama bin Laden would still be hatching successful plots against the West, including against Australia; al-Qaeda would still be operating with impunity in Afghanistan; and the Taliban would still be conducting mass executions of women in Kabul. I finish as I started with the words of Major General Cantwell:

It’s not the time to get the wobbles, it’s not the time to lose faith, it’s not the time to forsake the loss and the sacrifice and expense and the heartache that’s gone into [Afghanistan]. Now is the time to stay firm. Now is the time to strengthen our resolve. Now is the time to honour the sacrifice, heartache and expense that has already gone before by completing our task.

In saying that, I reconfirm the opposition’s bipartisan support for the government’s endeavours in Afghanistan as we enjoyed their support whilst in government.

Finally, let us all remember in our prayers the fallen, the wounded and the currently serving personnel. They have fought and are fighting for world freedom, Afghanistan’s freedom and our freedom. Surely, there is no nobler task. We wish them strength, courage and God’s blessing as they pursue to success this task for all humanity.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome this debate, which is the direct outcome of the increased vote Australians accorded the Greens in the August election. It should not have waited nine years. But already out of this first parliamentary debate on Australia’s involvement in the war in Afghanistan comes one uniting and unanimous opinion. As I reassured Defence Chief Angus Houston at estimates last week, we senators and all members of the House of Representatives stand in total support of our troops in Afghanistan. The 1,550 members of the Australian Defence Force contingent and our 28 police trainers in Afghanistan can be reassured that this nation is with each and every one of them all the way back to these homely shores. Regardless of political allegiance, this body politic gives the Australians in Afghanistan our thanks and our congratulations for their brave service at the behest of the government and in the cause of the nation.

Yet the question which should have been regularly raised and debated in this parliament, as it has been in other parliaments around the world, is this: does it remain in our nation’s best interests to keep our armed service men and women in harm’s way in Afghanistan? We owe it to our people there to justify the growing toll of death and injury and their exposure to the increasing ugliness and violence of this protracted civil war. Safely in this parliament, we are required to move out of our comfort zone to much better and more demonstrably understand and relate to those events in Afghanistan. It is our responsibility to ensure we get our service men and women out of harm’s way as soon as possible, as soon as it is prudent and feasible to do so.

For the Greens, this justified time of withdrawal has arrived. This belated debate has drawn out the commitment of Prime Minister Gillard and Opposition Leader Abbott to years more—the Prime Minister flagged as many as 10 years more—for Australian personnel in Afghanistan. Yet the Netherlands, after a much more detailed and engaged parliamentary debate and a change of government at their national election, has now taken its troops home. Canada is to follow suit. The Greens believe Australia should also bring its troops home.

Twenty-one Australian diggers have already died. How many more will die? Hundreds more have come home physically or mentally scarred by this war. I again ask the Senate, this government and this Prime Minister: how many hundreds more will come back injured because we did not return them safely home now? Is that predictable toll justified? I do not think so. In a moment I will turn to the prospects for Afghanistan, but first I ask another salient question. Our troops remain in Afghanistan, but where are the men who began the war in 2001 with the objective, achieved years ago, of expelling al-Qaeda?

I remember those dark, post 9-11 days very well. The arch-criminal Osama bin Laden was in Afghanistan and, with the invasion, fled, as did the medieval Taliban leader, Mullah Omar. Both are still alive, but they are not in Afghanistan; nor is al-Qaeda. They are in Pakistan, the latter in Quetta. Let no-one forget there remains well-founded conjecture that, had President George W Bush continued negotiating with Mullah Omar back in 2001, Omar would still be in Kabul but would have captured and delivered Osama bin Laden to America at that time; or, had the Americans been willing, bin Laden reportedly could have been delivered to a third country for trial even earlier. That would have made this whole bloody conflict unnecessary.

There is no question that the Bush administration bungled its war strategy when, having gained control of Afghanistan in 2002, President Bush invaded Iraq under the totally false premise of Saddam Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction. The bellicose president withheld troops, military assets and attention from Afghanistan, while Australia, under John Howard, withdrew completely until 2005. Meanwhile, the Taliban regrouped and began to ingrain itself within Afghanistan once more. Should Australian troops, seven years later, have their lives threatened daily because of a strategic stuff-up by George Bush and John Howard? John Howard’s role of deputy sheriff or, as George Bush put it in this parliament in 2003, ‘a man of steel’—President Bush said that was the Texan equivalent of fair dinkum, whatever that meant—cannot be forgotten or disregarded. Our troops are fighting in Afghanistan in 2010 because Bush, Howard and others, like Tony Blair, grossly mismanaged their international ascendency in 2001-03.

While Australian and other allied forces and the Afghan civil population face an accelerating toll of death and injury this year, where are these leaders who have safely exited the stage? ‘I will run them down and smoke them out,’ President George W Bush said. But he failed and, leaving that task to others, he is now comfortably retired at his ranch in Texas. His deputy, Dick Cheney, gives speeches to right-wing think tanks in America, but not in Afghanistan or Iraq. Then Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld infamously summed up his strategic nous with this piece of philosophical gobbledegook:

“There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns; there are things we do not know we don’t know.”

Well, we all know that thousands of people have died in Afghanistan this year while Rumsfeld is comfortably at home. In Australia this very week, former Prime Minister Howard is publishing his memoirs—they will be launched in Canberra.

In Kabul, the war goes on. In fact, it is getting worse. The death toll of civilians and ISAF personnel is rising and, extraordinarily but sensibly, the new Obama administration is now openly backing talks with moderate factions of the Taliban and other insurgent groups. I, and many other Australians, wish those talks success. I acknowledge the complexity of the Afghan situation and the dangers of leaving this war-torn country to sort out its own affairs. But surely our job is to help Afghanistan reshape its future through civil aid rather than force. I am advised that current American expenditure on the war in Afghanistan is 10 times Afghanistan’s gross domestic product. There should be a commitment to reverse that spending imbalance.

None of us can canvass all the arguments on Australia’s commitment in Afghanistan in a 20-minute parliamentary speech. However, the Greens’ overriding strategy is to have Australia’s civil aid help build Afghanistan’s economy and wellbeing, not least its schools, hospitals and transport system.

Reconciliation of Afghanistan’s diverse tribal, cultural and political groupings is not assured with either the carrot or the stick. But the Prime Minister’s flagging of an ongoing intervention, possibly military, possibly for 10 years, is no substitute for her government’s responsibility to give Australia a clear exit strategy for its service men and women. All the more so when President Obama’s very different view, quoted in Obama’s Wars, is taken into account:

I’m not doing ten years—

Obama said—

I’m not doing long-term nation-building. I am not spending a trillion dollars.

So President Obama is not doing 10 years. He has said that in 2011—next year—a withdrawal will begin. But Prime Minister Gillard has got another 10 years on the table.

I welcome her commitment to an annual debate in this parliament, but I challenge the Prime Minister to have a defined exit strategy for the next debate, if not sooner. I remind her that the Karzai government is not only imperfect; it is corrupt. General Petraeus himself has called it a ‘criminal syndicate’. I also refer some recent recommendations from the Australian Council for International Development to the Prime Minister’s attention. The council has urged the government to embrace a few eminently sensible suggestions with respect to our ongoing involvement in Afghanistan. For example, it calls for an inquiry into all aspects of our work in Afghanistan by a committee of independent experts, resulting in recommendations to parliament, as has occurred in Canada. It further recommends quarterly reports to parliament, as again is the case in Canada, detailing progress in Afghanistan, particularly in the delivery of aid. These reports should outline all of our projects and expenditure, including overseas development assistance and eligible expenditure spent outside AusAID, how they connect with our overarching strategy and how their success measures up against key performance indicators. Again, this mechanism is drawn from the Canadian experience. A third recommendation is the decoupling of development and military projects to protect the impartiality and security of the former and to ensure that development work targets the most pressing development needs.

I also draw the attention of the Senate to the assessment of the former Deputy Director of the CIA’s Counterterrorist Centre, Mr Paul Pillar, that the withdrawal of foreign forces from Afghanistan will not significantly increase the risk of terrorist attacks against Western countries. That, of course, includes Australia. And when asked what difference it would make if terrorist training grounds did re-emerge in Afghanistan, this former CIA counterterrorism expert said:

… not nearly as much as unstated assumptions underlying the current debate seem to propose. When a group has a haven, it will use it for such purposes as basic training of recruits. But the operations most important to future terrorist attacks do not need such a home, and few recruits are required for even very deadly terrorism. Consider: The preparations most important to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks took place not in training camps in Afghanistan but, rather, in apartments in Germany, hotel rooms in Spain and flight schools in the United States.

Mr Pillar has called for a timetable for troop withdrawal.

I ask why, given these realities, should Australia’s good and courageous service men and women be kept in such increasing hardship, hostility and danger? Some tell me there is now a change of mission: we must uphold human rights by force and we must ensure that the women, children and illiterate men of Afghanistan have their interests upheld. These are compelling matters. And what of the threatened Hazaras in this Pashtun dominated country? Some sterling members of that community have fled Afghanistan and come here on boats, to become excellent citizens of Australia. What of the domino effect on Pakistan if we leave Afghanistan? In Pakistan, we are told, the nation’s intelligence agencies are covertly backing the Taliban!

The answer is twofold. Firstly, this war was entered by the Howard government to stymie al-Qaeda’s threat of terrorism to the US and Australia. While CIA analysts tell us al-Qaeda is not in Afghanistan, it is ensconced elsewhere. Let me cite Somalia. This failed state in East Africa is now a hotbed of Islamist violence and al-Qaeda operations, including the bombing attack in Uganda after the World Cup final. It is perhaps now the focus, globally, for terrorist training. That includes allegations of the training of young men who are Australian or who have lived in and returned from Somalia to Australia. Our own intelligence agencies are alert to this direct threat to Australia.

To the extent that humanitarian concerns motivate our involvement in Afghanistan, they also apply to the situation in Somalia. Human Rights Watch reports:

… the population is subject to targeted killings and assaults, repressive forms of social control, and brutal punishments under its draconian interpretation of Sharia …

Perceived transgressions are punished with beheadings, amputations, stonings and floggings. Around 3.2 million people require humanitarian assistance, and a camp near Mogadishu that shelters half a million people is now the world’s densest concentration of displaced people. Yet there is not the faintest impulse by the Australian government or opposition to join the small contingent of troops from African countries trying to return order and safety and to rid Somalia of Islamist terrorists.

Recently, I helped an Australian photographer and a Canadian journalist escape from being shackled to the floor in Somalia, where they faced death at the hands of a criminal gang. Despite having employed their own guards, they were kidnapped on their way to visit a vast, ugly slum or refugee camp outside Somalia’s capital, Mogadishu, where life and safety are daily at stake for up to half a million women, children and men. The world has left them to the sharia law of the Islamist extremists controlling Somalia. Nor has it invaded other countries, like Yemen or Algeria, where, these days, al-Qaeda or parallel terrorist groups are openly active. Should we? How can we?

The answer is that Australia, a small to moderate nation in terms of international clout, should secure its own region while offering aid through the United Nations to solve greater global problems. Except in very extraordinary cases—and Afghanistan in 2010 is not one of them—our troops should be available for Australia’s immediate regional security, stability and welfare. We do not underestimate the need for armed services to defend this nation and its neighbourhood. The Greens urged military intervention to stop the bloodshed in Timor-Leste before the Howard government decided on that justifiable deployment.

This parliament should recall that, faced with no prospect of clear victory, the ANZACs were withdrawn from Gallipoli in World War I precisely because the justification for them remaining in Gallipoli had become less persuasive than the justification for them leaving. We honour those ANZACs no less than had they conquered the Dardanelles. So will we honour Australia’s troops, brought home sooner, no less than if they had stayed a decade longer, accruing casualties in the unwinnable mountains and valleys of Afghanistan. The opinion polls show that most Australians believe our troops should come home. The Greens agree. While noting the government and opposition’s determination, I call on the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, to bring our Defence Force contingent back home to Australia.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is extremely important and pertinent that this debate clearly express what is on this occasion the bipartisan support for our efforts in Afghanistan. I will quickly refute some of the issues brought up by Senator Brown and I will start at the end. The Gallipoli campaign, as you know, was not a case of removing ourselves from that field of engagement; it was reallocating our resources to another part of that engagement. Senator Brown used Somalia as an example of a reason not to stay in Afghanistan. I think Somalia is a brilliant example of why we should stay in Afghanistan. Somalia is an example of what happens when you remove yourself from the field of contact and the anarchy that was so ably displayed by Senator Brown is an example of what we would see in Afghanistan if we were to remove ourselves from that area of engagement.

If we talk about the rights, equalities and other things that have been subverted by an oppressive regime, we are not going to go any further in upholding those rights by removing ourselves from Afghanistan. In fact, it would just be an entree for the Islamist extremists to come back in and completely subjugate the rights of women and of minority groups. It may not be a perfect situation now, but it is far and away a better situation than it would be if we were to return that territory to the Taliban.

Senator Brown talked about an exit strategy, but it is not so much a matter of when you leave but when you lose. If we leave when the situation has not been completely settled down, we will have lost and, therefore, we will have let down the 21 Australians who have lost their lives and the 150 or so who have been maimed. This would be the biggest letdown because, in essence, we would be saying that there was possibly no point to their being there, and that is an area we must never go into. If you want to negotiate, as Senator Brown suggested, then you should negotiate from a position of strength, not from a position of weakness, and you should negotiate with a position on the ground, not try to negotiate over the hope of a telephone line.

I do not know whether a vitriolic narrative against former Prime Minister Howard and former US President Bush does anything much to help the current problems or explain the current situation. We have to look at exactly where we are now, the exact form of the politics of this area and the threats to Australia, because there would be immediate threats to Australia if we get this wrong. I was interested when Senator Brown said that Osama bin Laden is not in Afghanistan. How would we know? That is an unknown, and I think it is a little bit naive to start suggesting that we know where Osama bin Laden is because, if we did, I am sure that there would be a concerted effort to strike that area and to deal with one section of a problem.

Senator Brown said that al-Qaeda are no longer in Afghanistan. That is entirely incorrect because they certainly are. He also talked about going out of our comfort zone by removing the troops. In fact, removing the troops would be going into our comfort zone. That is far and away the easier decision financially, emotionally and for a whole range of reasons, but it is not the right decision. Removing the troops may put you in your comfort zone, but it is also very naive in the long term.

I think that this battle is incredibly important. Just the other day in flying back from Europe I flew over Afghanistan. I went to a section of the plane where I could stare out of a window at the countryside that was beneath me. What a wild, rugged and diverse place Afghanistan is. The next country I flew over was Pakistan. I know that it is presumed that Pakistan holds between 80 and 100 nuclear warheads in its arsenal. I also know that Pakistan has nuclear power plants and that Afghanistan is right next door to Pakistan. There is certainly turmoil on the perimeters of Afghanistan in an area that includes Pakistan. If we were to remove ourselves from engagement in Afghanistan and we went from fighting a dispersed enemy through rugged countryside—where they at times attack us and have victory over us but in the majority of cases we are in the ascendancy and have control over them—to the collapse of Pakistan, as would be the goal of the insurgents, then we really would have a problem on our hands. This shows how clearly and quickly the results of a naive decision to remove ourselves from this field of engagement would be delivered back to us.

How would we feel in our discussions if we had the knowledge that a group of people who were quite willing to fly planes into the World Trade Center had taken over or controlled Pakistan and had the capacity to deliver a nuclear warhead? What would we then say? Would we look back and think, ‘If only we had that time again, if only we had that capacity again, we would have potentially saved the lives of so many’? No-one suggests for one moment that engagement in Afghanistan is easy. Historically, it has been one of the hardest areas for any nation to be a part of. If you go right back to 326 BC, I think, when Alexander the Great was going through Afghanistan, it was a problem for him by reason of the topography and the tribalism, one of the reasons he ended up with his arrangement with Roxane. There was the evacuation of Kabul in 1842 by the British with the loss of 16,000 lives. Then there was the demise of the Soviets in 1989 after they had been 10 years in that area.

No-one is for one moment suggesting that this area is easy—it is excessively hard—but it is excessively important that we remain in this field of engagement because we know that this is an area where Islamic extremism has taken a foothold, and it is personified in no better way than in the Taliban. The Taliban are not interested in keeping their area of influence just to the rugged hills and valleys, the topography of Afghanistan. They have moved their sphere of influence and have shown their desire in the past to reach over the horizon to affect those around them in the most virulent ways, with terrorism attacks in Africa and India. September 11 is of course a classic example of one of their attacks, but only one of many; Bali is another. It is absolutely beyond question that their capacity to deliver dissent, hurt and death to the edges of our country and to involve Australian people is without question. They have done it before. Their motivation is inspired in such a way that it will not be placated by us removing ourselves from Afghanistan.

I agree with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Kevin Rudd, that, although the decision based on our comfort zone might be to remove ourselves from Afghanistan, it would not be the responsible thing to do. In a fashion, it would be a selfish thing for us as a nation to do, because we would merely be asking other people to shoulder our burden. That burden, if not shouldered by others at the moment of our extraction from Afghanistan, would definitely be shouldered by others down the track. It would be shouldered by our children, by our sons and daughters, by our peers—by people other than us. We have a responsibility to act now so as to save hurt and harm to others later on. Leaving because of our comfort zone is merely a message to those who come after us that they will have to deal with this issue. It is right to say that if we can instil a better sense of government—even if it is not a perfect government—a better sense of law, a better sense of order and a better sense of the rights of women, children and minorities, we have a better chance, not a perfect chance, to bring a sense of stability. No-one is expecting perfection. We are just expecting to lessen the risk that is quite clearly evident.

It is without a shadow of a doubt that if we remove ourselves from Afghanistan al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants would move back into that area as it would provide them sanctuary. It would also be taken as a clarion call to all those who hold extremist views that you can win, you can prevail and you can succeed. That will give them inspiration to go into other areas and do the same. Once they know that we will relent, that we will remove ourselves, that we will exit an area of hostility by reason that they are there and that the battle is protracted then no doubt it is in their form of tactics that they will extend the process of engagement. This fight is right. This fight is just. This fight is essential. This fight is one that ties up their resources. This fight will be protracted—and it is most certainly in our sphere of engagement.

What we need to show our nation is that this parliament has a bipartisan view of this. In a bipartisan way we are not taking the easy way out. We may not be reflecting the polls, but a poll-driven society is not always a reflection of what is just and what is proper, nor is there the knowledge in the polls that there may be in this building as to the long-term consequences of extraction from Afghanistan. We also have to acknowledge, whether we like it or not, the relationship with our major allies, unless we wish to extend our budget in defence spending by multiples of tens of billions of dollars a year. There is an expectation by allies that we will act as allies, that we too will put our shoulder to the wheel. That is a fair expectation to have. It is only by reason of allies that we are sitting in this parliament at the moment. Australia must never forget its own history—that if we did not have allies such as the United States we would have succumbed to the Japanese, most definitely. It is an historical fact and it is the reason we have the life and liberty expressed in this parliament today. When people talk about protracted battles and say that Vietnam was a failure, I do not believe that; I think Vietnam was a success. We tied up the resources of the Communist insurgents in such a way over such a long period of time that it exhausted them of their energy and of their capacity to continue. What we are doing now, carried out by the most gallant of Australian men and women, is something that will never show dividends but the cost will be absolutely evident if we are selfish enough to remove ourselves from that position.

If there were an easier process, if it were not necessary, there is not one reason why this parliament, this government, would be part of the engagement in Afghanistan. There is no pecuniary benefit for Australia to have an involvement in Afghanistan. There is no right to the quarries, the rocks, the minerals. There is no real gain in our involvement in Afghanistan except for a selfish reason: our own security. If we are not engaged in that context then we will become engaged in a later context in an area closer to our own nation. It has always been the aim of the infantry to seek out and close with the enemy—that is always the purpose—to kill or capture him, by day or by night, regardless of season, weather or terrain. But the whole purpose of seeking out and closing with the enemy—and this is the most important part—is that if you do not go out and seek and close with those who wish to do you harm then they, naturally enough, will seek out and close with you. It is the unfortunate reality of thousands of years of human history.

As we strive for a higher goal—the high aspiration that the future of humankind will be that conflicts will become a thing of the past—we can only do that from a position of strength. We cannot go with a begging bowl of aspirations. We must deal from a position of strength. When the strength is held by people who are moral, right and just, the world goes to a better place. But it is neither moral, right nor just to hand over that power to people who have exercised it in such ways as al-Qaeda, other Islamic extremist groups and Osama bin Laden, as the grand architect, have exercised it. We should acknowledge that these organisations and these people are still in existence; they are still there. In fact, they are proximate to the field of engagement where the Australians are right now.

We will have this debate that the Greens have insisted on, but let it not be taken as the loss of one iota of Australia’s resolute desire to obtain success in this field of engagement or as diminishing by one iota the purpose of the conduct of our troops on the ground at the moment. Each one of them is doing an amazing job. They are protecting our nation as we speak. They are engaging with the enemy so we do not have to engage with them here. They are protecting future Australians from having to do the work that they are doing at the moment. They are protecting the capacity of this nation’s liberties and rights to be exercised in other countries. They are making a statement that it is not just for Australians, New Zealanders, Americans, British, Singaporeans or Taiwanese to have the rights of democracy, the rule of law and the protection of women, children and minority groups. Just as we can transfuse blood from one human being to another and have transplants, these rights are also absolutely indivisible. They exist. Surely it is right for us to try to give other people the capacity to live and enjoy their lives with at least a portion or a semblance of the rights that we have in this nation—or are we, on another field, just going to become a selfish nation that says, ‘As long as we look after ourselves, that’s all we need to do; as long as we’re all right, that’s all we have to worry about’? I think Australia is a better nation than that as well.

But the primary reason we are in Afghanistan is our own protection. In closing, there is an argument put forward by the Greens as to whether we should be in Afghanistan or not with, I believe, a simplistic view of how you extract yourself and somehow leave the place in some semblance of the rule of law. It is an argument we can have from a position which is quite selfish, because we cannot have that debate if we extract ourselves and get this wrong. If we extract ourselves then the insurgents, al-Qaeda and Islamic extremism will once more take hold, grow and use the weakness at their peripheries to extend their reach, power and control. In extending their peripheries and their capacity for control and power in that region, they will over time gain the capacity to dominate Pakistan and other areas around them and to dominate sea channels. Then we will not have the capacity in the future to have engagement in a limited form, as we are doing now. Our engagement will be absolutely massive and we will have a fundamental change in how we deal with the world and fight for our future liberties. It would definitely put at risk our future liberties and freedoms. How would we as a nation deal with an Islamic extremist group that gets its hands on Pakistan’s arsenal? We would look back with regret at a time when it was within our control and our capacity to deal with the enemy. So that is the task that we are performing and that we must maintain our purpose for. We must seek out and close with this enemy, kill or capture him and destroy him, because it is the only way that we will survive in the long term.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the first time I have had the privilege of speaking in this Senate on defence matters since my appointment to my current position. It is hard to think of a more important occasion upon which to make my first contribution here on defence issues than this debate. It is quite right that our national parliament should have a wide-ranging national debate about what we are doing in Afghanistan. The parliament, the press and the public have every right to ask searching questions about our commitment there.

It is a great honour to become part of the defence ministerial team, but it is also a heavy responsibility, and never is the responsibility of a defence minister or parliamentary secretary heavier than when discussing the commitment of our defence forces to the battlefield. Defence has been a department at war for the best part of a decade—in Iraq, in East Timor, in the Solomon Islands and, of course, in Afghanistan. I am acutely conscious that the war in Afghanistan has cost the lives of 21 of our service personnel since 2002, 10 of them just this year, the youngest of them just 21 years old. Each of those deaths is a tragedy for their families, for their friends, for their Defence Force comrades and, of course, for the nation as a whole. We in government, and indeed all of us in this parliament, need to be absolutely clear that, in asking our ADF personnel to run these risks and make these sacrifices, we do so in order to support a cause which we believe to be just and in pursuit of clear and achievable objectives. We also have an obligation to give the ADF the equipment and support they need to carry out the tasks that we assign to them. We as civilians have no moral right to ask our young men and women in uniform to put themselves in harm’s way unless these preconditions are met. In the time available to me, I want to address each of these questions.

What is the basis for our presence in Afghanistan? We, of course, are not in Afghanistan on a military offensive to gain territory, as some others have tried to do in the past. We are there in partnership with the Afghan government and under a United Nations mandate as part of a 47-member International Security Assistance Force to prevent Afghanistan from again being used as a safe haven for terrorists to recruit, train and sustain and plot attacks against us and our allies, and to enable the country to look after its own security in these important respects.

In 2009, the defence white paper set out the tasks that our defence forces may be asked to carry out. They include:

… to contribute to military contingencies in the rest of the world, in support of efforts by the international community to uphold global security and a rules-based international order, where our interests align and where we have the capacity to do so.

The key phrase here is ‘where our interests align’. We cannot take on ourselves the duty of liberating all the people in the world who live under oppressive regimes. Sadly, such a task is impossible. But when participation in an operation such as this contributes directly to the security of Australia and Australian citizens, it is indeed in our interests to take part. It is my strong view that our role in Afghanistan does make such a contribution.

Since 2001 over 100 Australians have died in terrorist attacks: on 9/11 in New York, in the 2002 and 2005 Bali bombings, in the 2005 London bombings and, of course, in the 2009 Jakarta bombings. All of these attacks can be traced back to the international jihadist network loosely labelled as al-Qaeda, which in 2001 had control of Afghanistan and was using its territory to train semi-military formations—indeed, formations up to brigade strength. History now teaches us it is critically important that we deny terrorist organisations state capabilities; that we deny them the capacity to occupy failed states and thereby gain financial, diplomatic and procurement capabilities that are otherwise denied them.

Jemaah Islamiyah, responsible for the Bali and Jakarta bombings, was the Southeast Asian affiliate of al-Qaeda, and scores of JI operatives were trained in Afghanistan. Stamping out the al-Qaeda infrastructure in Afghanistan, which armed, funded, trained and sustained so many terrorist networks in our own region, is thus a vital part of the defence of Australia and protecting the lives of Australians. The jihadist network cannot be allowed to regain control of Afghanistan. The best way to prevent that is, of course, to create a stable Afghan state and army based upon the support of the Afghan people.

No one pretends that this will be an easy task. Afghanistan has now endured more than 30 years of continuous war, revolution, foreign invasion, persecution, religious fanaticism and mass immigration. Its infrastructure and economy were largely destroyed. In 2001 it was in the grip of one of the most oppressive regimes in the world; a regime that openly harboured terrorists and enabled them to use Afghanistan as a base to train and to plot attacks—most famously, of course, the attack of 11 September 2001. Despite setbacks, I am confident that we are now pursuing a sound strategy and possess the right resources to implement that strategy.

So what are our concrete objectives in Afghanistan? We are there as part of an International Security Assistance Force—ISAF—a NATO-led security mission which has a mandate from the United Nations Security Council. The legal basis for our presence is thus clear in a way that was not the case with the government’s war in Iraq. That is why 47 nations have contributed to the ISAF’s work in Afghanistan.

Within ISAF’s overall mission Australia’s task is training and mentoring the 4th brigade of the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police in Oruzgan province. Australian personnel undertake a range of other activities as part of the ISAF strategy. These include the work of the Special Operations Task Group in disrupting and dismantling the insurgency, the work of the Rotary Wing Group based in Kandahar, our work with the National Army’s artillery school in Kabul and other specialist tasks which time does not permit me to go into. Our objective is, of course, to train the Afghan National Army and its security forces so that it can take over the security of the province as soon as is possible and practicable.

It is a pity that more Australians cannot see the work that our personnel are doing in Afghanistan: the new classrooms at the Tarin Kowt primary school, the construction of the girls school in Malalai, the Dorafshan basic health centre or the 116-metre long all-weather Kotwal crossing. This work that our personnel are doing in Afghanistan is something that all Australians should and will be very proud of.

Since my portfolio responsibilities include the ADF Reserves, I want to particularly commend the work that our reservists have done in Afghanistan. This government believes in the closest possible integration of our part-time and full-time forces. They give us a surge capacity in times of stress, and give us access to a range of specialist skills which we are able to deploy as required. There are currently some 65 reservists serving in Afghanistan, including medical and legal specialists as well as personnel in operational units. These are men and women who voluntarily leave their civilian lives and who expose themselves to considerable risk in the service of their country and to help the people of Afghanistan. They deserve recognition.

Many are pessimistic about our prospects for Afghanistan. Defeating insurgencies is always difficult, but it is not impossible and it has been achieved successfully elsewhere. To support the task, the international security assistance force is undertaking a range of activities to build up the capacity of the Afghan government to govern, supporting the development of civil society and institutions and the provision of essential services. We are also working with the Pakistani government to counter serious problems of violent extremism in neighbouring Pakistan. More needs to be done.

But we need to remember that our objectives are limited: we are not trying to turn Afghanistan into Switzerland. We are trying to help the Afghan people to build a state and an army capable of preventing it from once again being turned into the base camp for international terrorism and the world’s extremists. This is a realistic goal, and we have made a great deal of progress towards achieving it. If we withdraw from Afghanistan before it is in a position to defend itself we will pay a price in terms of our own security and the safety of our own citizenry. The speeches of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives last week were an impressive display of bipartisan commitment to sustaining our mission in Afghanistan until it is complete. It would be very unfortunate if our mission were to become the subject of partisan bickering.

That is why I was disappointed by some of the comments made over the past few weeks about the level of support which we are supplying to our forces in Afghanistan. We are guided in these important matters by the advice drawn from the Chief of the Defence Force, in whom we have the greatest confidence.

Debate interrupted.