David Van (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

History is littered with unfathomable acts of evil, acts so vile, when reflected upon, that one is forced to consider the moral deficiencies of mankind. If we do not stand against those who act in the most egregious and abhorrent manner, their disease will infect many nations across the globe. It is why I rise today, once more, to raise the plight of the people of Ukraine.

Since the Russian invasion began 160 days ago there have been 5,200 Ukrainian deaths, 7,000 injured and over 17 million people displaced. Ukraine is currently on the front line of a renewed great power rivalry, one that the West has not had to contend with since the Iron Curtain fell in 1991. The absence of continued support for Ukraine would not only be a moral failure of the highest order but a strategic and security failure on a magnitude not seen since the policies of appeasement pursued some 85 years ago. On 24 February, when the Russian invasion began and Russia sent tanks across the border and rockets hurtling across the sky, it had the aim of denying Ukraine's right to self-determination. But it also threatened the order, with whatever its faults, which the world is supposed to be based on: the viability of this right.

Unable so far to achieve outright success on the battlefield against the Ukrainian military, Russian war doctrine has once again gone to siege warfare, a tactic which has brought about death and destruction to the civilian population. In doing so, they have signalled clearly that they intend to terrorise the civilian population of Ukraine as a means of compelling the government to give ground at the negotiating table. Nothing is clearer in both international law and the ethics of war than the absolute prohibition on precisely what Russia is doing: directly targeting civilians.

This is not the first time that the international community has been faced with such belligerent acts against human rights, and I'm pretty sure it won't be the last. But how we respond to these acts now will shape the future, and may prevent violations from occurring again in the future. After the failures of the 1990s to prevent the atrocities that unfolded in the Balkans and Rwanda, the international community engaged in a debate on how to react to gross and systemic violations of human rights. The result was 138 countries agreeing in 2005 to the Responsibility to Protect principle. Responsibility to Protect, or R2P, as it is known, gives the international community a mandate to act against gross injustices such as genocide and crimes against humanity. To quote Plato in The Republic:

… of all the things of a man's soul which he has within him, justice is the greatest good, and injustice the greatest evil.

It is therefore incumbent on the world to look within and to seek justice for the people of Ukraine.

The trials and tribulations mankind suffers from are great, and will continue to burden the globe unless we stand against the injustice being perpetuated by tyrants and dictators such as President Putin. English philosopher Thomas Hobbes famously argued in his book Leviathan that without government life would be 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short'. If Russia gets its way and removes the Ukrainian government this will be the reality of all in Ukraine, not just on the battlefield. As foreign minister Wong argued first in 2017, foreign policy must be based not just on national interests or transactional diplomacy but on the values that define the country. Freedom, democracy and justice are all values that define Australia. If the government believes so, then our policy towards Ukraine should reflect such commitment.

The changed geopolitical conditions and the pressure that Russia now places on the rules based order is undeniable. Australia must call on all 138 signatories that their Responsibility to Protect exists right now. NATO's most recent Strategic Concept states that the Russian Federation is the most significant and direct threat to security, peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area, and that it seeks to establish spheres of influence and direct controls through coercion, subversion, aggression and annexation. While it is clear that NATO and many other global leaders understand the threat that Russia poses to global peace and security, it begs the question: why more is not being done to help the people of Ukraine? Europe's—and, in fact, global human—security is linked intimately to the survival of Ukraine. We are already experiencing higher fuel costs and their flow-on inflationary effects around the globe. However, this is only the beginning. As Russia is a major exporter of critical food supplies, we will likely see an increasingly more volatile and unstable world as food shortages increase. One has only to look to Sri Lanka to see the effects that poor economic conditions and food shortages have on a nation's stability. If Putin's war is to continue, economic decline will spread to other poor and vulnerable countries, risking further unrest and violence.

The world must act and act now. It's incumbent upon those who believe in the inalienable rights of mankind to stand against the injustice being perpetuated. The most immediate action required is to convince Russia to allow further grain, seed and fertiliser shipments from Ukrainian ports. There has been one this week, and that's it. If the blockade cannot be kept open to food trade at a minimum then the international community should take appropriate military action. While to many this sounds unpalatable, the cost of inaction now will result in far more disastrous consequences in the future. I make it very clear that I am not proposing boots on the ground. However, humanitarian no-fly zones established by EU or NATO states could be a powerful response to this problem. Such zones could offer greater protection to civilians fleeing a city under siege, and could also further weaken Russia's military advantage by depriving them of what is now their best negotiating tool—dead and injured Ukrainian civilians.

Despite what many say, I believe this is possible. In the first instance, NATO UAVs or drones should be used to knock out air defences in command and control centres. This would provide a much safer theatre for NATO air forces to create air superiority if not air supremacy. If enough nations contributed aircraft and hosted forward bases, using traditional formation of strike fighters, airborne early warning and control planes, and refuelling tankers, enough pressure could be applied to exclude Russia's air force from almost all Ukrainian air space and to hold off Russia's S-400 long-range missiles. This would change the risk calculation for Russia and provide Ukraine with an effective, enforceable no-fly zone. This, along with continued supply of NATO weapons, munition, training and maintenance, would provide Ukraine's military with a fighting chance. It would also contain the conflict to Ukraine, reducing the risk of death and destruction in other EU and NATO nations if Putin decides to continue down this path.

I recognise this option is not risk-free, and that lives may be lost, but what is the alternative? The now depleted military—as we know it is—means a much lower-risk environment than it would be if Russia captures Ukraine and has all its resources in its use. Neither Europe nor the world can have a do-nothing policy. The costs will increasingly amass, more lives will be lost and dictators around the globe will continue to be emboldened to act out against the rights of the most vulnerable. The risk of nuclear escalation is the reason given for not taking this action. However, I contend that nothing other than the loss of Ukraine to Russia will reduce this risk. I think we all agree that this cannot be allowed to occur. The best calculation for the EU, NATO, Ukraine and the world is to take a stand now, before the even more unthinkable happens. Europe and the rest of the international community simply cannot bide their time and wait to pick up the pieces down the road. Slava Ukraini!