Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 1 Hansard (19 February) . . Page.. 230 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Secondly, Australians are not convinced because they believe this attack on Iraq will actually give more power and support to terrorist groups. Bin Laden has already exploited the situation in Iraq by linking it with his cause. I know from my own personal conversations with people from Muslim countries that they are concerned about John Howard's fear campaign because it can drive people to seek protection and support from terrorist and extremist groups.

Thirdly, it represents the abandonment of 50 years commitment to the rule of law at an international level. This is because unilateral action by the United States contravenes the intention and role of the United Nations. Even existing Security Council support is the result of the United States pressure.

We see the United States using its exceptional economic and military power to ride roughshod over carefully structured and agreed to processes which are aimed at preventing global war. It is putting at risk, in a serious way, global security. The United States, United Kingdom and, shamefully, Australia have manipulated the debate to the farcical point where they now tell us the United Nations will be undermined if we do not support the US position. To the contrary, the United Nations is being undermined by these countries.

Australians are also not convinced that this attack on Iraq will not create ongoing civil war in Iraq and destabilise the whole Middle East. It is also obvious that it has the potential to damage Australia's relations within our immediate region. Indeed, it has already done so. We should be, instead, focusing on our immediate region in a respectful, collegiate and diplomatic way, not provoking our neighbours by uncritically supporting the United States in all its military commitments.

I think it also needs to be pointed out that war creates terrible environmental problems-the loss of land, the toxic load, pollution of water, the firing of oil wells creating spills and toxic smoke, and desert ecologies destroyed. This has long-term and devastating impacts. It creates scarcity and that creates misery and more refugees. You cannot separate the issue of displaced peoples and refugees from this war or any other war.

So what is it we should be doing instead? In the words of General Peter Gration, who was chief of the Australian Defence Force during the 1991 Gulf War:

Australia has no good reason for war and many against. There are better ways. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator heading an unsavoury regime that probably does possess weapons of mass destruction and the world would be a better place if they were removed. Nevertheless there are insufficient grounds for war that is unnecessary and may lead to unpredictable and potentially dangerous consequences.

It is not in Australia's interest to take part in such a war ... I stress that this is not a call for inaction since better alternatives are available ... The war would be the first practical implementation of recently announced changes in US national security policy. This has moved from containment and deterrence to an open ended doctrine of the right to pre-emptive strike if the US perceives a threat to its global supremacy. In my view this is bad policy that strikes at the very heart of efforts to create a rules based international order and can only lead to a less stable security and a marginalised UN.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .