TRANSCRIPT
SENATOR THE HON ROBERT HILL
Minister for Defence
Leader of the Government in the Senate
_______________________________________________________________________________________
INTERVIEW
Channel 10’s Meet the Press
11:30am, Sunday, 16 February 2003
E&oe____________________________peace rallies, Iraq, anthrax vaccinations, ADF
Paul Bongiorno, Compere:
Hello and welcome to Meet the Press.
This weekend Australia is seeing some of the biggest peace demonstrations since
the Vietnam War, a phenomenon being repeated around the world. The protests
come in the wake of the second Blix Report to the UN Security Council that argues
for more time for the weapons inspectors. It appears to have left the United States,
Britain and Australia in a minority internationally. The battle cry from President
Bush - Saddam will be disarmed one way or another.
So where does that leave our 2,000 Defence Force personnel on their way to the
Gulf or already there? Today Defence Minister Robert Hill meets the press.
Welcome back to the program, Minister.
Senator Robert Hill:
Thank you.
Compere:
Well these big peace rallies, and there are more timed for today, is that a worry for
the government and what the government is trying to achieve?
Senator Hill:
I don't think it's a worry as such. I think it's understandable, people don't want war
and they take the opportunity to express their point. They also don't want a
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. So it's hard to know what to draw
from them in terms of detail, but certainly it's a message to us that we should be
making every endeavour to resolve this issue without the need for armed conflict.
Compere:
Well a recurring theme seems to be that Australia has no business attacking Iraq. I
suppose a question that is posed by some of the demonstrators, at least, is what is
the imminent danger to Australia from Saddam Hussein?
Senator Hill:
Well from my perspective I look at previous occasions when he's invaded his
neighbours and the like, Australia has become involved in the conflict as part of an
international community that's obviously totally opposed to that type of behaviour.
2
And if Australian forces in the future are to engage in such an action, and to
experience weapons of mass destruction that have been further developed because
we haven't disarmed him in the way we'd promised twelve years ago, they're
obviously under a greater threat. And that's... and from my responsibility that's
intolerable.
But beyond that it's not only Saddam Hussein, it's the issue of tyrants such as
Saddam who use chemical weapons on their own people being able to get away from
it, and for others to follow the signal that they can get away from it. And as we look
around the world today, and we see so many states, otherwise weak, building up
these weapons, and the weapons, of course, are developing so rapidly, then it's...
then it is for the future a major threat for the civilised communities.
Compere:
The world community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council,
would seem most reluctant to use force against Saddam Hussein. Is Australia
preparing itself for having to go into a coalition of the willing without UN backing?
In other words, what's the prospect now in light of the reception to Blix... the
second Blix Report of no UN resolution?
Senator Hill:
Well we would find that disturbing in the sense that the... we depend upon the
Security Council in terms of the collective response of the global community to
these security threats. That's why it was set up. And twelve years ago it said he
must disarm. And basically it hasn't enforced its resolutions. And so we get to the
situation where there's now some sixteen or seventeen resolutions that he's in
breach of.
And again, to me, my concern is that what does that say to him, and what does it
say to others of his type if the Security Council, as a method of collective security, is
simply not going to work.
From the United States perspective, of course, they say, we, the US, believe we're
under threat, we have a responsibility to our people - and, of course, they've still got
September the 11th ringing in their ears - we must protect our own people,
whatever the Security Council says.
And the next... third stage therefore is if the United States says, well, we can't afford
to wait, we're not going to take the risk of waiting, and ask others to assist them in
that regard, well that would be... that would be a situation that we have to address.
Compere:
In light of the obvious concern in the Australian community, through the opinion
polls, through this weekend's demonstrations, it would be terribly risky politically,
would it not, for the government to continue of this course without a second UN
resolution?
Senator Hill:
Well it... I think it's not so much the next resolution, because there's been so many
already, it's really the Security Council meeting its responsibility, and that's what
we want it to do, and another resolution, you know, it's a sort of the second part of
1441, in effect, finding...
Compere:
Is there a time line, is there a time line now? I mean when would we expect another
Blix Report? When would we expect the Security Council to bite the bullet literally?
3
Senator Hill:
Well the French, for example, are suggesting that he come back in another month's
time. But trouble is that 1441 was the line in the sand, it was the last chance. And
again, if the Security Council now says, well it actually wasn't the last chance, if
you give us a bit more by allowing a U2 over-flight, for example, we'll give you
another month.
My concern is we get back to where we've been for the last twelve years. Every time
it's got close to the brink, he's offered something. When the Security Council has
refocussed on other issues, he's then made it difficult for the inspectors and, in
effect, thrown them out.
Compere:
Well Colin Powell says it's weeks rather than months. What do you say, is it by the
end of this month, mid-March?
Senator Hill:
Well I think it is weeks rather than months. Now how many weeks I'm not too sure.
And obviously the United States will be considering its position post, not so much
the Blix, second Blix report, because I don't think there was much new in that, but
rather the reaction of other Security Council states. The US will be considering its
position in that light, and I think their preference is still to try and encourage and
support the Security Council to do the job. But they, I don't sense that they are
going to wait a lot longer.
Compere:
There are reports today that General Cosgrove has given assurance to our pilots
and personnel in the Gulf that they will not be asked to target civilians. Have you
sought that assurance also from your counterpart in America, Donald Rumsfeld?
Senator Hill:
No, I concern myself with our own rules of engagement. We obviously don't have
rules of engagement at the moment because we've only agreed to a pre-deployment,
we haven't agreed to applying armed force. But we don't target civilians.
Compere:
So I mean you ...
Senator Hill:
I can understand what he's saying, and I suspect if you asked the Americans they
would say the same thing. But clearly we operate within the laws of war. We have
accepted, we’ve actually accepted more of the restraints of the international
conventions than the United States has, but they're well established and rules of
engagement are drawn within those limitations.
Compere:
Bob, just finishing on this point, the Americans talk of shock and awe, in other
words, massive, overwhelming force, even talk about targeting the water supply of
Iraq, which would have enormous consequences for the civilian population. Are you
saying there that our F/A-18s, for example, wouldn't be expected to bomb
reservoirs?
4
Senator Hill:
Well of course they wouldn't bomb reservoirs. But I, but the Americans won't either,
I'm not sure where you've got that. When they talk about overwhelming force, it's
directed against strategic and military targets. And they've got the opportunity to do
it with much greater precision now than they had ten years ago.
Compere:
Okay. Time for a break. When we return with the panel, Chief Weapons Inspector
Hans Blix says he still can't find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. When we
come back we ask why not?
[Commercial Break]
Compere:
You're on Meet the Press with Defence Minister Robert Hill. And welcome to the
panel Ian McPhedran, The Herald Sun, and Brian Toohey, The Financial Review.
Hans Blix is in a quandary, he can't find weapons of mass destruction after three
months searching in Iraq, nor can he find evidence of their destruction. Brian
Toohey.
Brian Toohey, Australian Financial Review:
Minister, what weapons, banned weapons that it would be a problem do you believe
that Iraq has still got hidden? Hans Blix hasn't been able to gone everywhere that
US and UK intelligence has suggested, and cannot find any weapons of mass
destruction. What do you think is hidden there that's still a danger? And how will
we know that Iraq is actually disarmed? I mean how are you ever going to prove
that you haven't got something hidden?
Senator Hill:
Yeah well I think the weapons that have been acknowledged in the past, the
chemical agents and the biological agents, are of greatest concern to me, because
they've acknowledged that they've had those weapons. And whilst Saddam says
that he's destroyed them, his refusal to provide evidence of that to his background,
his record, is something that's extremely worrying.
Brian Toohey:
But on that, the, in the Blix Report it says that Iraq has now given over the names
of eighty-three people who are supposed to know how and where those chemicals
were destroyed, and they'll let them test the soil, et cetera, et cetera. I've also
spoken to weapons inspectors, one with a PhD in Chemistry from Oxford, who says
that they wouldn't matter, that the chemical weapons deteriorate so quickly, the
VX*, they don't know how to make it, it's terrible, it degrades quickly. So even if
they still had it it would be completely useless. And the other point this weapons
inspector makes is that anything that's hidden, it's not a problem because it's
useless. It can only be used as it's taken out. And if it's taken out it'll be destroyed.
Senator Hill:
It's got to be weaponised.
Brian Toohey:
Well not even weaponised, it'll come out into the open, hung onto a missile or hung
onto a plane, and it'll be destroyed well before it can be used.
5
Senator Hill:
Yeah, well your information is different to mine. Mine is that it may, some may have
degraded, but others have – a lot of these are pre-cursor chemicals as well. We
don't know the extent to which they've been further developed over the last 12
years. What we do know is that they existed because they were acknowledged by
Iraq. And the, you know, if you read Dr Blix' report himself, they were obviously of
concern to him that the thousands of, the thousand tonnes of chemicals, et cetera.
Brian Toohey:
He says that this is actually a useful step towards cooperation, the giving over of
the names of the people who are supposed to have destroyed ...
Senator Hill:
Yeah, he said ... but that's ...
Brian Toohey:
… so it may be that not too far from now he'll establish that those things have been
destroyed. That would leave – basically if you're worried about these things it
would leave anthrax. They can either show that that had been destroyed, if they
do. Or alternatively that it, here it is, here is the number of litres you claim to have
discovered ...
Senator Hill:
Yeah.
Brian Toohey:
... Then isn't the problem solved?
Senator Hill:
Well if they can't ...
Brian Toohey:
Wouldn't you be satisfied if that's...
Senator Hill:
Iraq ... well I want ... what will satisfy me is I want to see Iraq disarmed, the
weapons...
Brian Toohey:
That's what I'm trying to ask, how do you tell that?
Senator Hill:
...therefore ... yeah, I know, but you're doing all the talking.
Brian Toohey:
Okay.
Senator Hill:
They're – we know that he had these weapons in relatively recent UN reports
because he's acknowledged it. We need confidence that they have been destroyed.
His refusal to date to provide that evidence, where, when, how and by whom, is not
only disturbing to me, but it's disturbing to the inspectors, including Dr Blix in his
last report. He did say that he is starting to get access to some scientists and they
might help, you know, provide a few more pieces of that jigsaw. And that's fine.
6
But why is it such a struggle to get this information, to get access to these
scientists, and our suspicion, which is backed up by the international intelligence
communities? Because, A, he can't disclose that he's still got them because that's a
material breach. But secondly, he has no intention of accepting disarmament
because, you know, that's really the basis of his own regime of terror.
Ian McPhedran, Herald Sun:
Minister, can I just move across to the subject of the anthrax vaccinations of our
sailors? You made the announcement on January 10, or the Prime Minister did,
about the deployment, and yet almost a month later these sailors weren't
inoculated or told they were going to be inoculated. You waited until they were two
days at sea before you told them. I mean are you confident that the Navy can
manage these sorts of issues? And why weren't you told about this? And why do
you think these young people are deciding to not be vaccinated?
Senator Hill:
There are a few that have preferred not to be vaccinated, and under our rules they
are entitled to voluntary vaccination. And if they're not, if they don't accept
vaccination, which is for their safety, then we believe we have a duty of care to
ensure that they are not at risk, they are not in the theatre. We announced the predeployment on the 10th of January, that's right, so they couldn't be vaccinated
before that date. And vaccinations proceeded across the forces almost immediately
thereafter.
Ian McPhedran:
But those people weren't told ...
Senator Hill:
In relation to the Kanimbla, well they were – I would probably, do you remember the
day or two after the 10th- I think it was only a day after – there was a headline in
one of the newspapers saying they weren't going to be vaccinated. And I had to go
public to reassure them and their families that they would be vaccinated for
anthrax. So there's no secret in that regard. With regard to the vaccinations on the
Kanimbla, I understand there was a short delay there because our Health people
were going back to the British authorities who produce this vaccine with some
questions. As soon as that was resolved they were then vaccinated.
Ian McPhedran:
But I mean isn't this another case of Navy mismanagement? I mean the other two
ships in the Gulf ...
Senator Hill:
I don't ...
Ian McPhedran:
... the people on that ship been told that ... were they told that they were going to be
vaccinated prior to deployment, or how did that work?
Senator Hill:
Well you are told internally through the naval communications, and you are told
externally in terms of what the community at large is told. And we assured the
service personnel, their families and the broader community, that if we were going
to send our forces into an environment where they were potentially subject to a
7
biological threat, then we would have them vaccinated for each of those threats.
There's no secret, that's ...
Ian McPhedran:
What capability does Saddam Hussein have to deliver anthrax to a ship in the Gulf?
Senator Hill:
Well one of the problems is that we work on risk assessments, and if he doesn't
have that capability then you can say to me, they needn't have been vaccinated. If
he does have the capability, and we don't know his full capabilities, it'll be too late.
So you don't take a chance. If the experts say there is a risk of anthrax being used
against those who are operating off ships in the Gulf, then we vaccinate them.
Compere:
Minister, time for a break. When we return we ask about the serious doubts over
the capability of our ships and planes sent to the Gulf.
[Commercial Break]
Compere:
You're on Meet the Press. There are reports that our ships and fighter jets are
vulnerable because their defence systems are hopelessly out of date.
Ian
McPhedran.
Ian McPhedran:
Minister, we know that the F18s lack adequate self-protection, they lack suitable
missiles. And the Navy has admitted that HMAS Darwin, the frigate, does not meet,
quote, current capability requirements because of its outdated combat system.
Just how well equipped are our forces?
Senator Hill:
They are obviously well equipped for the threat environment into which they are
being sent, otherwise they wouldn't be sent. The F/A-18s, in terms of their full
capability, obviously they are always being upgraded. But the way it's been put to
me, you know, as you know they are the principal strike fighter from the US aircraft
carriers, and our planes would fit about the middle of their parameter of
capabilities.
Ian McPhedran:
What about the ship, Darwin with its combat system?
Senator Hill:
The frigates. Well as you know there is another upgrade planned for them in terms
of a new combat system and new weapons, and that's a continuous process as well.
But in terms of the – again, in terms of the threat environment into which they are
being sent, Navy's advice is that they are perfectly capable of not only defending
themselves, but fulfilling their tasks.
Ian McPhedran:
8
So, in other words, neither the F18s nor the frigates will have a frontline role, if you
like?
Senator Hill:
Ah no, I wouldn't say that particularly in relation to the aircraft. Very capable
aircraft, very capable pilots, and they could carry out a range of different tasks airto-air, protection of troops on the ground, or strike air to land.
Ian McPhedran:
What is this deployment costing the Australian taxpayer?
Senator Hill:
We haven't put a figure on it publicly, but as I've acknowledged before, you'd have
to say some hundreds of millions of dollars of additional funding on top of the,
obviously the cost, the embedded cost of the assets and the cost of the personnel.
Ian McPhedran:
So you're confident that won't have a negative impact on the budget?
Senator Hill:
We will have to be supplemented for it. We are, currently we are paying for it within
our own appropriations, but government accepts that as the figures become firmer
through the budget process, we would be supplemented.
Compere:
Is there a, is this an indication now of a time line? For example, if the UN Security
Council and the US agree to, say, delay action for another three to four weeks, that
obviously will add to the cost. Have we had to factor that in?
Senator Hill:
Well that's a part of the uncertainty of costing. But as you say, we – that would add
to the cost. But we've had ships there in the Gulf enforcing sanctions against Iraq
pretty much for the whole of the last 12 years, and they are rotated basically on six
monthly rotations. The, you know, the Americans and the British have enforced the
no-fly zone with rotations of their fighters, and so there's nothing new in this.
Compere:
There's a figure of $1 million a day for American troop costs. Do we have any sort
of ball park figure like that?
Senator Hill:
No, but we – in terms of the policy decisions that we have to make, we won't be
dictated by the cost of the forces on the ground. We're not going to make a decision
that, you know, action must be taken by, before a certain date, because otherwise
it's too costly. That would be a fundamentally wrong approach to this matter.
Brian Toohey:
Many members of the United Nations believe they are fulfilling their duties and
their responsibilities in Iraq by keeping weapons inspectors there, 'cause Iraq could
not attack its neighbours while that was the case. Many see North Korea as a bigger
problem. Would you be willing to go to war to disarm North Korea?
Senator Hill:
I certainly see the North Korean situation is extremely worrying, and the way in
which the rhetoric continues to be beaten up is even more worrying. And it all
9
seems so illogical. But as you know, we believe that they have one or two nuclear
weapons already, so to some extent the genie is out of the bottle. You know,
weapons of mass destruction have been allowed to be developed in North Korea.
Now the issue is whether they are going to build that stockpile. And of course in
parallel they are continuing to build their capability for long-range deployment of
those weapons.
Ian McPhedran:
Well the Japanese ...
Senator Hill:
But our focus is on the diplomatic solution of that issue and, you know, really the
acknowledged breach of the 1994 agreement was, is only a month or two old.
Whereas in the case of Saddam Hussein, it's been a 12-year struggle to get to the
point we are at now.
Ian McPhedran:
The Japanese Defence Minister has reserved the right to make a pre-emptive strike
against North Korea if they suspect North Korea will use one of these weapons
against them. Does that worry you?
Senator Hill:
Oh, I can understand his sentiment. He said if we're about to be attacked the
Japanese people wouldn't accept that we can wait until it occurs. I can understand
what he's saying. The test then becomes what is, what's reasonable evidence of
that. And some have talked about, publicly talked about the fuelling of the
missiles. There'll be no doubt further debate on that particular issue in the next
few months. But Japan is very close, and we do know that they have, obviously
have missiles that can comfortably reach Japan.
Brian Toohey:
But aren't you on a slippery slope once you condone the idea that people have right
to take pre-emptive action? I mean, North Korea could say, look - and this is
beyond dispute, the United States has publicly admitted to training - your training
exercise has to deliver nuclear weapons against North Korea. That they could argue
we're under threat, we'll immediately open fire on Seoul with our massive array of
artillery. It's very dangerous once you start this pre-emptive, you're allowing preemptive attacks, isn't it?
Senator Hill:
Well you've, but self-defence has always been accepted. And even on the most
conservative definitions of that, imminent attack, the right to self-defend in the light
of imminent attack is legitimate. And I didn't hear the Japanese Defence Minister
saying more than that.
Ian McPhedran:
But we've had the concept of deterrents as the self-defence mechanism for the past
50 years or so, we're now moving beyond that in the current climate, wouldn't you
agree?
Senator Hill:
Well it's somewhat similar in the Iraqi situation. Basically we believe that we could
resolve the issue through containment, and it hasn't worked.
10
Brian Toohey:
But it has, hasn't it?
Senator Hill:
In the case of North ...
Brian Toohey:
When ...
Senator Hill:
... in that he hasn't recently invaded a neighbour or bombed his own people.
Brian Toohey:
Deterrence has always worked. It wasn't tried against – because we were on their
side in terms of their war with Iran, it wasn't tried in the case of Iran. It was a slipup, but nonetheless the American Ambassador gave a clear nod to the invasion of
Kuwait. But the containment work in the sense they didn't use chemical or
biological weapons during the Gulf War, and it's worked ever since.
Senator Hill:
... yeah, but let's say because if you look at the history of evasion and avoidance
that he has continued to develop both his biological and chemical weapons. And we
know he's been diverting the oil for aid money towards weapons programs. And it's
no good in our instance to say, well, we were wrong, we need an effective
containment ...
Compere:
Yeah.
Senator Hill:
... and that's what we're endeavouring to do.
Compere:
Minister, we're right out of time. Thank you very much for joining us today on Meet
the Press, Defence Minister Robert Hill. And thanks to our panel, Ian McPhedran,
The Herald Sun and Brian Toohey, The Australian Financial Review.
ENDS