Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will continue my remarks from where I left off before the debate was interrupted. As Prime Minister Gillard said last week, there are two vital reasons for our ongoing involvement in Afghanistan. The first is to make sure that Afghanistan is never again a safe haven for terrorists and the second is to stand by our incredibly valuable alliance with the United States. As the Prime Minister also said, like other counterinsurgency operations, Afghanistan is proving to be a protracted and intensive process. Success in Afghanistan will be dependent on ensuring that the local population is protected and separated from the insurgence, that economic and social reconstruction occurs, that indigenous security capacity is strengthened, that insurgence networks are disrupted and the prospects for a long-term political solution are enhanced.

Australia’s commitment to assisting Afghanistan to become a more stable, independent and successful nation is demonstrated not just by our military operations but also by our commitments to development assistance. Our military personnel are mainly based in the province of Oruzgan. Oruzgan is a province of immense development needs. It is one of the least developed provinces in Afghanistan, with a literacy rate of zero per cent for women, and just 10 per cent for men. The national literacy rate in Afghanistan is 12.6 per cent for women, and 43 per cent for men. It is a country in need of a lot of help.

As we know, poverty and lack of opportunity provide the ideal breeding ground for terrorism, and we in Australia are focused on addressing those factors. Since 2001, Australia has committed over $740 million in development assistance to the whole of Afghanistan. We are committed to ensuring that once the coalition forces leave the country, the government of Afghanistan will be able to take full responsibility for its own nation. In January this year, we contributed further funds to the nation to assist Afghanistan’s road to stability. Those funds included: $50 million over three years for the Afghan Reconstruction Trust Fund, $25 million for the Peace and Reintegration Trust Fund, $20 million for mine clearance activity, $4 million for capacity building in the agriculture sector, and $1 million for the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission in the Oruzgan province.

As I said, Afghanistan is facing immense developmental challenges, particularly in the area where our troops are based. Our development assistance to the Oruzgan province alone is expected to reach almost $20 million in 2010-11. The development assistance that we have provided so far is already having an impact in the region, including: providing 1,780 primary school students with basic health and hygiene education; clearing over 132,000 square metres of land contaminated by mines, and educating 100 local people in how to do that important task; and improving food security through the distribution of wheat, including take-home rations for female students. Australia is working to rebuild capacity within the administration of the province while encouraging stronger links with the central government. Key elements, including supporting the reach of the central government programs into Oruzgan, delivering basic services, and supporting the legitimacy of the Afghan government, are the focus of the development assistance in the province.

Australia’s efforts in Afghanistan remain difficult and dangerous, but we do not want to see a repeat of any terrorist attacks such as the 9/11 attacks, the Bali bombings or the London bombings. In each of those events, Australians were murdered or injured. We have a responsibility to Afghanistan, to our allies and partners, and ultimately to Australians to remain committed to the task. We have an obligation as a wealthy, stable country to do what we can to assist impoverished nations like Afghanistan to become stable and economically self-sufficient. That is the only way, in the long term, to defeat terrorism.

I welcomed the opportunity to speak in this debate today and it would be remiss of me not to conclude by joining with other senators in acknowledging the 21 people who have lost their lives in the war in Afghanistan so far. My condolences go to their families and their friends. I would also like to acknowledge the willingness of the Prime Minister to allow both chambers of the parliament to engage in this important debate and I look forward to contributing on an ongoing basis to the parliamentary debate about why Australia’s defence forces are deployed where they are and what we are doing with our deployment and the success or otherwise of that deployment. The Australian people deserve that information, they deserve to have their elected representatives engage in this debate.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The gravity of the debate about our ongoing commitment to Afghanistan is given added significance by its life or death context for those who wear the Australian defence uniform. At present there are 1,550 Australians serving in Afghanistan, an important contribution to the mission of the International Security Assistance Force. The Australian government and parliament should, and I am sure do, hold each of those lives very precious. Our mission in Afghanistan has already cost 21 precious lives. That loss is keenly felt by everybody in this place, of that I have no doubt.

But to say that the loss of 21 lives means that Australia should withdraw from this mission, that the price is too high, as the Greens have certainly asserted, is to measure only one part of this equation. It is important for us, as elected representatives, to clearly lay out before the Australian people the reasons why we are involved in Afghanistan and, more critically perhaps, why we need to continue to be involved in Afghanistan. We owe it to the families of those who have lost loved ones and to those who are currently deployed to do that.

At the outset I note the coalition’s ongoing and unwavering support for this mission and for our troops in this conflict who have performed admirably in dangerous and challenging circumstances. It is worth remembering that as well as the 21 lost lives, 156 have been wounded in our name. There is no greater sacrifice that a nation can ask of its people, and their bravery will be remembered.

In that context, I would like to address some key issues in this debate: the threat of terrorism, the Australian commitment to Afghanistan and why our commitment is in the national interest, and, finally, the challenges we face in the future.

Since the attacks on the United States in September 2001, Australia and the rest of the world have lived in the shadow of a larger, more ominous terrorism than we had previously seen, perpetrated by the network of extremists who have hijacked Islam for their own ideological and murderous ends. Nine years on, this is not a threat we can take lightly. Countless thousands have been murdered in attacks across the globe, with New York, Madrid, London, Casablanca, Istanbul and Bali amongst them. According to the Worldwide Incidents Tracking System, 17,833 separate terrorist attacks globally are thought to have been perpetrated by Islamic extremists since September 2001. The US National Counterterrorism Center’s 2009 report indicates that, in that year alone, 50,000 people were killed or wounded in terrorist attacks, of which, interestingly, half were themselves Muslim. This very real and present threat has resulted in the deaths of 111 Australians and an attack upon our embassy in Indonesia.

But, of course, this begs the question: what is the link between those deaths and Afghanistan? The ideologically extreme Taliban, which took power in Afghanistan, ran what can only be described as a theocratic dictatorship, founded on the most extreme interpretations of Islam, funded by opium and the narcotics trade and ruthlessly enforced by stonings, beheadings and the most horrific human rights abuses. The savage fundamentalism at work here can be seen symbolically in the destruction of the Buddhist statues at Bamiyan in 2001, an act of blind ideological purity if ever there were one. It was from this safe haven in Afghanistan that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were able to train terrorists as well as orchestrate and execute attacks upon foreign nationals, culminating in the attacks of September 11. Indeed, the lawless nature of Afghanistan proved a magnet for other extremist organisations such as Jemaah Islamiah, Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan and other al-Qaeda affiliates. Whilst these groups were not indigenous to Afghanistan, the safe haven created by the Taliban allowed them to develop the capacity to commit crimes against targets in their respective countries.

The deaths of 88 Australians in 2002, and four more in 2005, in Bali at the hands of those trained in Afghanistan demonstrates, I think, very graphically that we have a real and immediate—a seminal—interest in addressing the activities of terrorists in Afghanistan itself. It is undoubtedly in Australia’s national interest to be involved in that country to prevent it from serving as a safe haven for terrorists into the future.

Australia’s commitment to Afghanistan began in 2001, when the Prime Minister at the time, Mr Howard, invoked article IV of the ANZUS treaty. I believe this was the right action to take in support of our most important ally and friend. It is fanciful to imagine that Australia can protect its national interests, especially when they are under threat at the global level in the form of international terrorism, without extensive and close cooperation with and, support for, other nations sharing a similar need to protect their parallel national interests. The rapid collapse of Taliban and al-Qaeda power in Afghanistan pursuant to a UN mandate demonstrated the tenuous hold that the Taliban had on power and political legitimacy within that country. The swift strike against those organisations crippled both groups in Afghanistan and created breathing space in Kabul and other coalition held towns and villages to begin the process of rebuilding. Indeed, it provided the necessary stability for the recreation of the Afghan state, supported by the international community in the 2001 Bonn agreement, which drafted a new Afghan constitution, adopted in 2004.

I want to quote part of the preamble to that constitution to see what is at stake in that country. The constitution states that its aim is to:

Strengthen national unity, safeguard independence, national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country;

Establish an order based on the peoples’ will and democracy;

Form a civil society void of oppression, atrocity, discrimination as well as violence, based on rule of law, social justice, protecting integrity and human rights, and attaining peoples’ freedoms and fundamental rights;

Strengthen political, social, economic as well as defense institutions;

Attain a prosperous life and sound living environment for all inhabitants of this land;

I ask those who have in effect defended the Taliban regime by virtue of their support for Australia withdrawing from that country to consider the aspirations of the Afghan people in those words. I do not pretend that Afghanistan has attained those goals at this point and I have to say I do not necessarily suggest that we can be certain that it will one day attain those goals. Afghanistan’s democratic institutions are fragile and many of the steps it is taking in the direction of these things might not be completed. Indeed, steps backwards are quite possible in these circumstances. But I think that should be expected. We ought to acknowledge the size of the challenge that country faces, in concert with other nations, to achieve the sorts of goals that it has set itself through its constitution.

Some senators have criticised the deficiencies in the Afghan national institutions; they are right to do so, but not as the basis for suggesting that we abandon this attempt for a better society in that country. What is there is not perfect, but it is a step in the right direction, one Australia should defend until it becomes clear that such action is futile. An Afghanistan that is secure enough to pursue these goals—to ensure domestic stability, to secure the rights of women and girls and to assume a place as a responsible actor on the global stage—is absolutely, unquestionably in Australia’s national interest.

The Howard government committed a Reconstruction Task Force in Oruzgan province in coordination with the Dutch Provincial Reconstruction Team. Since 2008 that mission has focused on a mentoring task force to train the Afghan National Army’s 4th Brigade. That task has continued with the Dutch withdrawal from Oruzgan in August this year. In addition, our Special Forces Task Group continues to operate in the province and neighbouring province of Kandahar to eliminate or capture Taliban elements in coordination with our allies. This important activity provides the necessary environment in which the ANA’s 4th Brigade can be adequately trained and governance and infrastructure in the province can be improved. The calibre and capability of Australian Special Forces is recognised by our alliance partners and, indeed, our foes, and I pay tribute to their ongoing dedication and professionalism.

Australia’s contribution to the rebuilding of a civil society in Afghanistan can be said to be, in one sense, modest. But, like every stone in a bridge, it is a vital contribution to stability and growth in the whole edifice. The goal of training the ANA 4th Brigade to the extent to which they are able to secure and stabilise Oruzgan is important to the broader goal of an Afghanistan that never again serves as a haven for Islamic extremism. It is a challenging goal and the risks are by no means few, but this goal is clearly in our national interest. Australia and its ISAF partners have made significant achievements in this regard. According to a report in 2010 issued by an independent non-government organisation in Afghanistan, since 2006 there has been an increase in the availability and diversity of crops and seeds, reducing the reliability on opium as a cash crop; an increase in health services and health posts from 130 to 300, including a midwifery school; an increase in health facilities from nine to 17; an increase in schools from 34 to 159, including 29 schools for girls—remembering that there were no such things in the past; an increase in media outlets from three to 8; an increase in mobile phone coverage; and an increase in security forces for the Afghan National Police and the Afghan National Army.

These developments in civil society and governance in Oruzgan reinforce the broader strategic Australian and ISAF goal. The solution in Oruzgan and across Afghanistan was never going to be a purely military one. It is, of course, impossible to simply kill one’s way to victory. Winning hearts and minds in the villages in a counterinsurgency operation is as important as the ability to defeat the Taliban in the field and convince them to give up their arms and embrace the constitution.

What if we were to withdraw tomorrow? If we were to follow the advice of those who say that this is not our problem and not in our national interest to continue risking blood and treasure, we risk a very real possibility of Afghanistan once more being a safe haven for terrorism. It would also pose risks, I think, to Pakistan’s domestic security, which of course has implications for the rest of South Asia. It would very likely increase the flow of asylum seekers to Australia’s shores. It would, I think, have an impact on Australia’s relations with the US and our other alliance partners. Australia has never been a fair-weather friend, and now is not the time to start. Nor would it appear wise or in our strategic interests to give succour to extremists in the Yemen, Somalia, North Africa, Chechnya, Pakistan or, indeed, to those within our own society who might contemplate the value of extremism.

I believe that taking ourselves out of Afghanistan would also betray the commitment and the sacrifice of those who have already made an important contribution to our mission. General Cantwell, the Australian commander in Afghanistan, says the hard work of the ADF in Oruzgan is beginning to yield results. He said recently, ‘We have finally got the thing in our grasp or near our hands to start to exploit the advantages we have won with so much hard effort.’

I want to make reference to the position of the Greens in this debate. I want to say at the outset that I welcome the Greens’ decision to push for this debate to be brought on. I think that it is timely and necessary. It is important for Australians, particularly those in uniform, to hear their elected members’ justification for Australian involvement in this conflict. That however is where I part company with the Australian Greens. I listened carefully to Senator Bob Brown’s speech on Monday. It was a sort of keynote speech in this debate, because it was his party that caused this issue to be brought forward in this way. I thought that speech was a disgrace. It was meandering and it spent most of its allotted time hitting the Left’s favourite hot buttons on this war. Reference to Donald Rumsfeld’s speech about what we know and what we do not know was utterly out of place in a debate as important as this—about Australians and their role in a place like Afghanistan.

This was the speech where Australians ought to have expected to hear the cool, rational, statesmanlike case for Australian withdrawal; instead, they heard a diatribe, a ramble that glossed over the obvious weaknesses in the Greens’ case. I was to refer to some of those weaknesses quite specifically. In his speech, Senator Brown asserted that there was another option to involvement in securing peace in Afghanistan through the use of our military forces. He suggested that we ought to be providing more aid. He said in a speech on 18 March 2010:

We think the best way for that to happen is for Australia to replace its troop involvement with greater civilian aid and for there to be greater effort internationally, to give the Afghani people the increase in standard of living that will enable their nation to prosper into the future.

How do the Greens expect aid workers, in very difficult circumstances, to be kept safe if there are no troops on the ground? How do the Greens expect Afghans to prosper if the country is little more than a narcostate and the plaything of extremists, providing safe haven to those who would threaten not just our but also their sense of security? The naivety of saying that aid money could do the job without the security of arms around that aid exercise simply knocks you over with its lack of realism. The deaths of aid workers recently in parts of Afghanistan—I think in the north of Afghanistan—illustrate how dangerous aid work is in that country. Paul Kelly, in the Australian of 6 October, described the Greens’ policy in this area as:

... a world view, documented point by point, stunning in its isolationist utopian pacifist philosophy, unsuitable for the responsibility of nationhood. Long ignored, it needs to see sunlight.

I expected that we would get something of that in Senator Brown’s speech and the speech of other Greens in the course of this debate this week. But all too often the issues that underpin their argument that we can do without assisting the allied force in Afghanistan were simply not there—they were missing.

Wars are not, of course, without risk. They are not entered into lightly and it would be only the truly naive who enter into them expecting to avoid hardship or knowing exactly how they will end. The 19th century military strategist Clausewitz argued that ‘war is an extension of politics but by other means.’ If this is the case, then war should only be entertained in order to advance the interest of the state. I believe that Australia’s commitment in Afghanistan is, at the present time, right and in the national interest.

I read recently in Tony Blair’s autobiography, A Journey, the following interesting quotes:

But here is the point: if a system is malfunctioning, it does need to change, whether that change be gradual or abrupt.

In some cases of regimes that are oppressive and dictatorial, there is nonetheless a process of evolution that is discernible in the right direction. The reforms may be slow, but there is a direction and it’s benign; or at least it is not threatening.

In other cases, the regime’s very nature lies in its oppression. It has chosen to be what it is. It will not change, not by evolution, not by the exercise of its own will—because that will is directed towards oppression—and for a long time, at least, it will not change by the will of the people who, because they are oppressed, lack the means to overthrow the regime. Its malign nature will deepen.

If those words were to apply to any regime at any time in the lifetime of people in this chamber, surely it would apply to the regime operated by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Suggesting that we can somehow deal with the obvious and serious breaches of human rights inherent in the operation of terrorism generally and the Taliban specifically in Afghanistan demonstrates a great lack of historic knowledge. I wonder what the Greens would have said had they been around at the time when Australia entered into the Second World War—what they would have said about Australians going off to fight on distant shores against Hitler. I cannot help but wonder whether they would have echoed the sorts of lines that they are using today with respect to Afghanistan.

I want to finish by quoting Dr Brendan Nelson, former Minister for Defence:

To those Australians who question our deployment to Afghanistan, please understand that our generation is engaged in an epic struggle against resurgent totalitarianism. This is a global insurgency driven by disparate groups. They have hijacked the good name of Islam to build a violent political utopia. More than 100 innocent Australians have already been murdered in Bali, Jakarta and New York at the hands of these people. They were murdered by people whose attitude to religious freedom, the rights of women and the liberating power of education violates everything for which this country has stood in its short history. We cannot leave our children held hostage to a force that they may never control.

I can only concur with those remarks and commend those Australian men and women who are taking forward that vision that he outlined to ensure Australia’s effort continues in Afghanistan.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I had the opportunity in April this year, along with three colleagues from the House of Representatives, to meet members of our armed forces, members of the Australian Federal Police and Australian public servants in both Kandahar and Tarin Kowt. In fact, we met three young men who were killed subsequently to our visit to Afghanistan. Their deaths were very sad for their comrades, families and friends, and very sad for this nation. The soliloquies by the leadership of the nation and the parliament for those men have been heartfelt, solemn and respectful. Their names are etched in the earth in Afghanistan. They were proud men dedicated to the cause of freedom and liberty.

Some fine contributions have been made to this debate over the last few days. I take nothing away from those who have spoken, but of the contributions I have heard I think Senator Mason’s was by far the best. Senator Mason eloquently stated the savage oppression conducted by the Taliban against their own countrymen. He outlined their pursuit of what we may see as a nihilistic, social and cultural agenda unleashed against all levels of Afghan society: the destruction of cultural symbols of other faiths, the overwhelming denial of individual and human rights, and what looks to those outside as a pursuit to turn back the clock and savagely close the door to the modern world.

Too many people in the Third World see globalisation, the modern world, as some sort of US or Western project—that it provides for the hegemony of the West in both politics and the economy. That is one of the significant factors that we must recognise when we think of where the Taliban has come from—also, as we have heard articulated in the parliament, where opposition within our nation has come from. There is only one party in this parliament that is antiglobalisation, and that is the Greens. Despite them being a secular force, the Greens are probably today’s mediaeval monks and nuns who are forever warning us about impending gloom and doom, that Armageddon is just around the corner and that we should prepare ourselves for the next life because this one is so onerous. We have heard that articulated by all their spokespeople in the last few days. I am not comparing them to those with the nihilistic approach that has been taken by other people around the world, but, indeed, their raison d’etre is almost the same.

The Taliban have ruthlessly hijacked one of the great monotheistic faiths, Islam, and I want to talk about that briefly in my contribution. I think it was President Bush who, in speaking about one of the conflicts in the Middle East, suggested that it was a ‘crusade’. There are many conflicts in the Middle East, and it is too simplistic to put them all into one box. But we can identify the Taliban, because the actions of the Taliban have been to turn Islam into an ideology. They have used that gentle religion to justify murder, mutilation and the denial of individual and human rights. That is a distortion of religion, because the Koran does not advocate fear, rage, hatred or murder. The Koran condemns warfare as abhorrent. The Koran is adamantly opposed to the use of force in religious matters. The Koran recognises all rightly guided religions, and the Koran says, ‘There shall be no coercion in matters of faith’. This exploitation of religious identity is not unique to Islam; it also occurs in both Christianity and Judaism. The background to this exploitation of faith is the same, and the way it is dealt with is the same. I want to talk briefly about why one needs to identify where these people have come from.

Jean-Paul Sartre referred to the situation that we are confronting as a ‘God-shaped hole’. I want to refer to that for three reasons. The first is that we should never confuse the conflicts in the Middle East by saying that they are all of the same background. The second is that we should not lump together all followers of the Islamic faith, because we have unfortunately seen too many examples of intolerance displayed to practitioners of that faith. Thirdly, we must understand the phenomenon so that we may contain or even annihilate it. As I said, we must understand the motive.

When I talked about what Sartre called the situation, it is what a number of commentators have observed about the motives of the Taliban and others: it is a quest to fill a void left by the victory of reason in the modern world, because the modern world is godless and meaningless and the sacred has been denigrated and disregarded. So we have to do something about this feeling of helplessness. To find succour and comfort, we need to resort to the domain of the sacred. This action would limit the advance of the secular ethos, so we can erect barriers and establish within our faiths a segregation so that we can ensure the survival of our wonderful sacred enclave. I know that sounds a bit airy-fairy, but that is in essence, from what I have read, a large part of the motive of the fundamentalists who have been in action in some parts of the world over the last 20 or so years. They have a rejection of the modern world. For them the Enlightenment was a great defeat for the sacred and the only way to reinstate that is to withdraw and put up barriers to make the world safe for the God-fearing. And with these fundamentalists, they believe that whatever they do is justified, because they believe that their interpretation of either the Koran or the Bible is justified in the actions that they take.

I do not think that we will be able to identify a clear victory in Afghanistan. We have not seen any major land battles, and we have known for many years now that there will be no modern warfare as we have known it for the millennia. We may never know in our lifetimes whether we will have a clear victory. Mao Zedong was reportedly once asked what he thought the outcome of the French Revolution was, and he said that it was ‘too early to tell’. That why I say: we may not know now just how effective our operations will be and have been in Afghanistan, because we will only know in the fullness of time. But it is pleasing to know that there have been talks and that there may be, at some point, a preparedness by those psychotics to enter into some arrangement with the legitimate government in Kabul. But we should never expect to walk away from that conflict. We have lost a number of Australian servicemen there, all volunteers, and they, like their country, are prepared to do what is just and right in a cause that I think is correct.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in this debate on Afghanistan. Can I first record my thanks to this place, those in the other place and the Prime Minister for this debate. I think it is a worthy debate. It is an important debate that is occurring not just in Australia but also in other robust democracies. There can be no graver decision of a government than to send Australian troops to a war. Once this decision has been made, diligent consideration of our progress and or our objectives should continue. The debate we have been having this fortnight entails the parliament doing precisely that.

We have lost 21 Australians soldiers in Afghanistan, and many more have been injured. These fatalities, these casualties, weigh upon the nation. Our soldiers and deployed Australian personnel face difficult challenges in a dangerous environment in the course of carrying out their duty. We know this. We also know that Afghan civilians have also suffered immense loss. It is an awful thing to hear of any casualty or any fatality from a mission like this. It is awful to hear about the loss of a young soldier’s life and to think about the impact this will have on that person’s family and friends—on children who will grow up without a parent and on parents who farewell a child. It is legitimate for Australians to keep asking questions, to ask: ‘Why are we in Afghanistan? Is this in our national interest? Are there other ways to achieve the same objectives?’ The government believes we must continue our mission in Afghanistan and that it is a mission firmly in our national and broader global interests. Given the gravity of the effects of this conflict, it is however understandable that there are a range of views and that some Australians have voiced concerns about this position.

Australia joined the international mission in Afghanistan following the al-Qaeda attacks on the United States of September 2001. We did so under a UN mandate, which has been renewed many times since, including unanimously by the Security Council in October of this year. Australia also formally invoked the ANZUS treaty after this attack on our longstanding alliance partner the United States. This decision and its international context is critical. Let us recall that this is a mission involving a diverse coalition of 47 nations in the International Security Assistance Force taking place under a UN mandate.

If we want to benefit from international rules and international resolutions renounce terrorism and violent extremism which adversely affect our national security and which mandate international action to combat them, then Australia must play our part. While we need to acknowledge our original reasons for engaging in this conflict, we also know we cannot pretend that we are back at square one, because the debate that is currently occurring is not a theoretical one. It is not an abstract debate. It is not a debate about entering into a conflict in Afghanistan; we are in Afghanistan and we have been there for some time. We must assess in this discussion our ongoing engagement recognising that fact and on that basis. In doing so, we must consider the alternative. Those who oppose Australia’s involvement in this mission may cite the long list of challenges in Afghanistan as a justification to leave, but that is not good enough. We must always consider the alternative and what impact it would have. If we are concerned about security, if we are concerned about governance, if we are concerned about development in Afghanistan, as imperfect as these might be currently, the question is: would they be better served by Australia’s departure?

The coalition mission in Afghanistan aims to enable the Afghan government and people to take responsibility for their security and their economic and social development in a way which does not provide safe haven to terrorists and which reduces the risks of Afghanistan ever doing that again. For Australia, our efforts are focussed on doing this in Oruzgan province. The strategy in Afghanistan is both civilian and military. Australia’s military, civilian and development efforts contribute to this. But we know that the solution in Afghanistan cannot be simply a military one. It also requires an ongoing political solution, with reconciliation between the peoples of Afghanistan. The international community, including Afghanistan’s neighbours, such as Pakistan, have key roles to play in supporting such efforts.

Many have spoken about why this mission is in our national interests. There are three reasons I believe it is in our interests. It is clearly in our national interests to minimise the risks to Australians and to our allies from terrorism, and Afghanistan is an important element in countering the threat of terrorism. We know that Afghanistan remains vulnerable to reverting to being a safe haven for terrorists. The international community’s efforts in Afghanistan are of course not the only activities in the global challenge of countering violent extremism and terrorism. This nation and the international community recognise that this is a major long-term problem on a global scale and it needs to be addressed recognising the scale of that challenge. It is a problem being tackled differently in different locations as circumstances dictate. No-one pretends that a threat as complex as terrorism can be overcome through one conflict or in one country alone. Our strategy in Afghanistan and our policies in relation to counterterrorism acknowledge this fact, because we have an extensive and comprehensive approach to countering terrorism. In Afghanistan the fact remains that Australia and the ISAF coalition’s efforts to support stability and security in that country will help reduce the risk from terrorism more so than would our departure.

The second key national interest for Australia is to stand firm in our alliance with the United States. As others have said, this government, nor this party, have ever regarded this alliance as a blank cheque for our dealings with the United States, but our alliance is a fundamental part of Australia’s national security and of critical strategic importance. It is a legitimate and important element in our consideration of Australia’s continued involvement in the Afghanistan mission.

The third reason is that this mission reflects a broader collective approach to global security that is important for our nation. We are a middle power. We benefit from collective approaches to issues which cannot be managed solely by one country. Whether those issues be climate change, transnational crime, people smuggling or counterterrorism, we understand that any tenable approach to such issues will only come through the countries of the world working together to establish and maintain an international order which does not tolerate these threats and which actively combats them. We have long recognised this and the Australian Labor Party has a proud history of support for multilateralism and for broad international solutions. This is because we recognise it is a key part of Australia’s national security and an important part of Australia’s global role.

The international community is rightly focused on the transition of security responsibilities to the Afghan government as well as supporting a broader political settlement and economic and social development. Clearly, significant security, governance and development challenges remain for us and for the Afghan government and people. We do not, and we must not, underestimate these challenges. There have been important developments. The Afghan National Army is improving its capability and the Afghan government is building its capacity to provide services to its people. The increase in primary education enrolments and the improvement in infant mortality rates and people’s access to infrastructure are encouraging developments in this context.

As I said earlier, no harder decision can be taken than one which calls upon our young men and women to enter the field of war—in particular, those in our armed forces but also those civilians who now put themselves at risk to support political and development progress and objectives in Afghanistan. No-one in this government takes those decisions lightly. We also know we cannot guarantee particular outcomes in this or in any complex and difficult conflict. But what we can demonstrate is that the government will undertake its considerations and take decisions firmly based on the national interest.

I will close with the words of President Obama which were referenced by my colleague in the other place and which I think remind us again about what we are doing and why. He said:

In many countries there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular but I also know this: the belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This debate on our engagement in Afghanistan is a most important debate. It provides an opportunity for members of the Senate and the House of Representatives to discuss the war in Afghanistan in a single debate. It is an opportunity that many MPs and senators are, of course, taking. However, it should not be assumed that members of parliament have never previously had opportunities to discuss or debate our engagement in the war on terrorism in Afghanistan. Indeed, as a member of various parliamentary committees I have had that opportunity. I refer in particular to my roles as the Chair of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and as a member of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and the joint intelligence committee. I and many other members of those committees have had an opportunity to discuss the progress of the war. We have met with ministers, defence chiefs, other defence personnel, intelligence officials and other experts both locally and from overseas. We have received briefings on the progress of the war. I and many others have had the opportunity to have discussions with diplomatic representatives from the many nations that are involved in the Afghanistan engagement and are represented here. I have had the opportunity to meet with visiting delegations from some of those governments and parliaments as well as meet them when I have travelled overseas. I have met with the Afghan Ambassador here and also with representatives of the Afghan parliament when they have visited Australia. And I, like others, have met with our troops when they have returned from their tour of duty in Afghanistan. So there have been many opportunities for us to discuss the commitment and the progress being made and the difficulties faced in Afghanistan. I compliment the former Minister for Defence, Senator Faulkner, who, whilst he was minister, provided regular statements to the Senate on the conduct of the war and the progress being made.

I mention this only because an impression has been created not only by the very fact that we are having this debate but also by some media commentators that we in this parliament do not really care. Some media have characterised this debate as either insincere, grandstanding or just an apology. I will give one example. An article by Paul Toohey in the Daily Telegraph on 22 October had the headline: ‘Some fine words but do MPs really care?’ He was reflecting on the debate that commenced in the House of Representatives last week. Frankly, I do not really care what Mr Toohey thinks about us members of parliament—that is not important—but I do care what the Australian public think about our engagement. My message to the Australian people is that we do care; we do take our responsibilities seriously. The current Labor government under Prime Minister Julia Gillard, the former Labor government under Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and the previous coalition government under John Howard have all treated our involvement in Afghanistan as the most serious issue facing the government of the day—and it could not be anything but that. The commitment of our armed forces and other personnel to this conflict has, of course, been the gravest decision that has been made by government since 2001 when the decision was first made.

This, as we know, is a long, drawn-out and, unfortunately, at times deadly conflict. It has huge consequences for our nation, for the region and for the world. It has taken the lives of 21 Australian soldiers and had a terrible impact on their families and friends. Those soldiers have made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of our nation. Another 156 personnel have been wounded. Each time a life is lost or a soldier is wounded, we ask ourselves the questions: ‘Are we doing the right thing? Is this cause justified? Should we continue to commit our forces and other personnel, such as the Federal Police, to this engagement?’ Our task as parliamentarians is to answer those questions honestly, and it is also to continue to reflect on them day by day as the war goes on.

In his speech in the House of Representatives last Thursday, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Kevin Rudd, put the argument for our engagement in, I believe, a clear and concise way, and I know that many other members of both houses have also put the arguments. I want to quote what Mr Rudd said:

After nine years into this hard war, and six years of continuous Australian military engagement, what is our national mission in Afghanistan today? Put simply, it is to help protect innocent people, including innocent Australians, from being murdered by terrorists. Put simply, it is to support our friends and our allies in achieving that mission. Put simply, it is to work with them to defend, maintain and strengthen an international order that does not tolerate terrorism. All other purposes associated with our mission in Afghanistan—including, for example, helping the Afghan people to develop a viable Afghan state—flow from these three primary purposes.

As the minister noted and as has been noted by many other speakers—I particularly note the speeches by the Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence, the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of the government and the opposition in the Senate—our decision to commit military forces to Afghanistan is based on sound international legal decisions and principles. Firstly, it is authorised by a resolution of the United Nations Security Council, resolution 1386 of 2001. This resolution authorised action by the international community to establish a security force to remove the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. That regime openly harboured and supported the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation, which was responsible for the devastating terrorist attack on the United States—New York and Washington—on September 11 2001. That regime refused to hand over Osama bin Laden and withdraw its support for al-Qaeda. That original UN resolution has, of course, since been re-endorsed on 10 occasions.

Secondly, our commitment is consistent with our obligations under the ANZUS treaty. Thirdly, our commitment—recognising the UN Security Council resolution and the obligations under ANZUS—is supported by a unanimous resolution of the House of Representatives, carried on 17 September 2001. Finally, I would also argue that our commitment is consistent with the principles which underpin the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect. The Responsibility to Protect doctrine, now adopted in part by the United Nations, essentially means that a state has a duty and an obligation to protect its own citizens, particularly from genocide, and that if it fails to do so then the international community can take action. I believe that this doctrine justifies the commitment that we have made to protect the people of Afghanistan from ever again being subjected to a murderous Taliban regime which would enslave its own people and sponsor international terrorism.

In outlining the legal, moral and human rights obligations which justify the presence of the International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF, in Afghanistan and Australia’s participation in it, I note the inconsistency of the arguments that are advanced by those who state that we should withdraw our forces immediately and without conditions. In particular, there are fundamental inconsistencies in the views expressed by the Greens senators in this debate. The Greens are a party that argues strongly for adherence to the decisions of the United Nations, yet in this case they ignore the specific and repeated decisions of the UN Security Council to support the ISAF in Afghanistan. The Greens are also persistent, of course, in pursuing their own policy objectives. They campaign ceaselessly for action on major international issues such as climate change, saving the rainforests, an end to whaling, the release of political prisoners, protection of human rights and so on. They are all noble objectives. They are causes that the Greens will continue to fight for no matter what the odds, whether they are successful or not. They never give up in espousing and arguing for these causes. Yet, when it comes to protecting the people of Afghanistan from a murderous regime that will, if it ever regains total power, deny its own people, particularly women, basic, fundamental human rights, the Greens wish to abandon the cause. They say we should just walk away. For the Greens, apparently, the future of the lives of the Afghan people is not a cause worth fighting for.

The Greens also argue—and I have listened to the speeches in this place particularly—that we are not improving the lives of the Afghan people. The truth is that we are. As the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, noted in her speech last week, there are a number of significant indicators which demonstrate that the lives of the Afghan people are being improved. The Prime Minister referred to the number of children in primary education, which has increased from one million in 2001 to approximately six million today. Two million of these young people are girls. In 2001 there were none; they were excluded from primary education. The infant mortality rate has been reduced by 22 per cent. Immunisation rates have increased substantially, to between 70 per cent and 90 per cent. Road construction and telecommunications services are improving. The Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police numbers have increased and training of these forces is continuing. Our own Army and AFP are actively engaged in this important endeavour. These are all huge challenges and progress is difficult and slow. Setbacks do occur. But at the end of the day you cannot deliver any of these improvements if there is no security or if there is no protection from the insurgents. To withdraw now would clearly place all of these gains in jeopardy.

There is demonstrable proof that the surge in forces announced by President Obama last year and provided by the United States and NATO is working. The response of those who argue that we should withdraw now is to say that the cause is hopeless and that we will eventually withdraw anyway. It is true that eventually we will withdraw. I agree. There has to be an exit strategy. But an exit strategy is not simply an exit deadline. It is not fixing a date by which time forces should or must be withdrawn. Rather, an exit strategy has to evolve—and is evolving, I would submit—having regard to the actual situation on the ground in Afghanistan.

It also depends on a number of associated issues being addressed and resolved. Those issues include the security situation in the neighbouring Pakistan border areas where the Taliban, al-Qaeda and other terrorist organisations have sanctuary and operate from. An exit strategy ultimately includes what role, if any, elements of the Taliban may have in the future governance of Afghanistan. It includes assessing the ability of the Afghan military and police force to provide adequate security and protection for the population that is currently provided by the ISAF forces.

Finally, for Australia and indeed for those other nations it includes continuing consideration of the views of the Australian people on our engagement. I would also add that it may well involve, whenever the date comes that we withdraw forces, the maintenance of UN-sponsored peacekeeping forces for many years to come. That is not unusual. Since the foundation of the United Nations Australia has been a proud contributor to the funding of UN peacekeeping forces and to the provision of personnel for peacekeeping engagements around the world. The Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade recognised that in its recent report. We have been party to and continue to be participants in UN peacekeeping forces in the Middle East, Cyprus, East Timor, the Solomon Islands and the African continent. Unlike our previous engagements in Vietnam and Iraq, ones which I did not support, I continue to believe that this commitment to Afghanistan is justified on security grounds, both domestic and international, and also for humanitarian reasons.

If we wish to prevent further devastating terrorist attacks such as those that occurred on 11 September 2001 and subsequently the bombings in London and Madrid then we must stay the course. If we are to continue to fight the terrorists who were responsible for the murder of over 100 Australians in Bali in Indonesia then we must stay the course. We cannot walk away now.

We have an obligation to carry out the continuing mandate of the UN through the ISAF commitment in Afghanistan. We have an obligation to help rebuild an Afghanistan where its people can live their lives free from a murderous, totalitarian, genocidal, terrorist regime. At this stage we and the other 47 nations who are members of the International Security Assistance Force are their only hope. We cannot abandon them.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution to the debate on Australia’s involvement in Afghanistan. It will be a brief contribution. I feel it somewhat inappropriate to do so. I have not been to Afghanistan; neither do I have family or friends serving in Afghanistan. However, what I do have is a deep and sincere respect for those that are serving and a strong sense of responsibility that our country has a moral obligation to contribute, to act, to defeat the threat of terrorism.

We all remember September11. It is quite extraordinary that an event of that nature is defined by a date. We all remember the horrific nature of the attacks. In some ways what was even worse was that it changed the world forever. Never before had we seen an attack of that nature. To watch it unfold, as we all did, was to all of us unbelievable and unimaginable. It was right that our response was to contribute to coalition operations against terrorism, joining 23 other nations. As the former Prime Minister John Howard said in his address to the Australian Defence Association on 25 October 2001:

Whilst the destruction of the Al Qaida network must be our first priority, the long-term aim of this war is to demonstrate that organised, international, state-sanctioned terrorism will not be tolerated by the world community.

And the former Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson said in 2002:

The terrorist attacks on New York and Washington last year can only be described as evil. They reminded us of how inhumane man can be to man and awoke in good people everywhere a deep awareness of the need to ensure that the attacks will be proven over time to have been utterly futile and self-defeating.

John Anderson has arguably one of the strongest social consciences of any who have taken their seats in this place. He understood, as did so many others, that we had a moral responsibility to contribute, to act.

I have two sons: Will, who is nearly 18; and Henry, who is nearly 16. Throughout their lives I have tried to instil in them a sense of what is right; a sense of responsibility; a sense that they have an obligation to their society and their fellow man. Imagine if I had had to tell them growing up about those attacks in New York, about the growing emergence of terrorism, and yet that in the face of that our country had done nothing—that we had stood by and chosen not to face the evil but to avert our collective eyes and do nothing.

I am incredibly proud that this country had the courage to make a contribution to the war in Afghanistan. I am incredibly proud that we had the courage to say that in spite of the magnitude of the task we were prepared to be part of a mission with a goal to secure a better future for the world. Up to 17,000 terrorists were in training camps in the late nineties. We cannot forget the history. We cannot forget our obligation. Our role is to ensure that Afghanistan is not a safe haven for terrorists and to do all possible to ensure the future stability of the region and the globe.

To be involved in the mission was not an easy decision for this nation to take. However, we did need to fulfil our responsibilities under the American alliance. Far from being at the beck and call of the United States, as some would like to term it, we had an obligation to the alliance—to show that we believe in what it stands for and to act accordingly. There are some who voice the belief that we should withdraw our troops from Afghanistan. I do not share those views. There will be an appropriate time for our involvement to end. But we should not give up on our contribution to a cause just because we get tired or just because we think we have had enough. The reasons we joined the war in Afghanistan continue to exist. I mentioned my sons earlier and what I have tried to instil in them. I have also tried to teach them not to quit when the going gets tough.

The 21 Australians who have died have made an incredible sacrifice for their country. We cannot honour them highly enough for what they have done, not only for their own country but for global security. It is so important that not only now but in decades to come we understand the magnitude of what they have done. We must give all Australians who are making a contribution in Afghanistan the respect they deserve for their willingness to serve. They do not expect others to do the job for them; they are putting their lives on the line for us and for the security of future generations.

This country made the right decision. We were right to decide to play our part in joining the fight against terrorism. We are right to be in Afghanistan. We have a moral obligation, a moral responsibility as a nation, to play our role to try to ensure a secure future for the world for future generations to come.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I join the many speakers over the last few days in this debate on Australia’s commitment to Afghanistan. I first of all note that in this Senate and in the other house, an overwhelming majority—some 90 per cent—are in support of Australia’s commitment to sending troops to Afghanistan. That is a significant number. There are few issues that get the support of both houses in the Australian parliament to that degree. That ought to be noted.

Australia’s mission with its allies has been defined as ‘to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan and to prevent their return to either county in the future.’ It has been a long and protracted engagement—more than eight years—since we first took up the war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Even so, it is significant, as I said, that the great majority of the parliament continues to support our involvement, however long and protracted it has been.

You could not call it ‘popular’ support—of course you could not. No war is ever popular, but the parliament—this house and the lower house—has a steely determination to stay the course. It is also an acknowledgement that this mission is in Australia’s national interest and in each Australian citizen’s greater interest. As previous speakers have said, we have sent our fighting force as Australia’s contribution to the greater cause of the fight against international terrorism and against extreme Islamic terrorism—a brand of terrorism that Australians, whether overseas or at home, are not immune from.

This is a fight for Australia’s secure way of life and for the personal safety of every citizen of Australia, whether they live here in Australia or overseas. This is as much Australia’s fight as it is for any other ally that has taken up the fight against terrorism, be it the United States, the UK, Spain or Holland—all representing liberal Western democracies—or even Islamic democracies such as Indonesia or Malaysia. This is as much their fight as it is Australia’s fight. This is not something we have joined just to tag along with the United States, although that is a factor. It is not just because of the ANZUS treaty. This is a fight Australia is very much involved in for its own national security here onshore and overseas, and for each individual Australian citizen. Australia has suffered from direct hits by these Islamic terrorists. I seek leave to continue my remarks.