PRESS CONFERENCE BY AUSTRALIA’S PRIME MINISTER

Instead of rehashing old arguments, Member States should recognize the realities in post-conflict Iraq, John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia, told correspondents at a Headquarters press conference this morning.

Mr. Howard said he had discussed four issues in a meeting with the Secretary-General:  Iraq; East Timor; Bougainville; and United Nations reform.  During that meeting, he expressed his desire to see the restoration of basic services and the emergence of a free and open Government in Iraq.  He added that all Member States should be working towards those same goals.  He also told the Secretary-General that the United States was strongly committed to achieving a peace settlement between the Israelis and Palestinians.

Asked about whether or not the United Nations would play a political role in post-conflict Iraq, as it had done during the Bonn Conference on Afghanistan, he responded that the United Nations could play a positive, constructive role.  Nevertheless, it was important to recognize the reality of what was taking place on the ground.  Although the coalition was the effective administering party, the United Nations was already playing an important role in the area of humanitarian assistance.  With respect to events such as the Bonn Conference, he had an open mind.  However, he stressed that, when building a country’s political process, one had to crawl before walking.  In that regard, the United States was doing a good job.  They were, for example, organizing town hall meetings to discuss Iraq’s political future.  Such actions were more important than repeating old debates and arguments.

Responding to a statement that Australians were “a long way from home” when dealing with the Middle East, Mr. Howard stated that this was not the first time Australian forces had been involved in the region.  For example, they had served in the Middle East during the Second World War and as peacekeepers in Gaza.  Additionally, dealing with rogue States and weapons of mass destruction were worldwide responsibilities.  Australia, therefore, was involved for “good and proper” reasons.

Asked how his Government’s position differed from that of the United States, he said that his role was to explain Australia’s policies and not to discuss how they diverged from those of any other country.  He added that other country’s foreign policies did not define those of his Government.  What was important to realize now was that Iraq was under the administration of the coalition, which was mainly comprised of United States forces.  In that context, it was important to recognize realities and move on.

Fielding questions about the lack of evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and possible future roles for Hans Blix and the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, Mr. Howard said that those were matters for the Security Council to decide.  He did note, however, that evidence of such weapons would probably be found.

Asked about his views on Security Council reform, he maintained that the situation in Iraq had demonstrated the Council’s failure to respect the demands of its own resolutions.  Nevertheless, there was no necessary link between a stronger Council, with respect to that situation, and general Council reform.

Responding to a question about a possible United Nations Special Coordinator in Iraq, he said that having such a coordinator would be a positive development.  The role of such a person would be to coordinate United Nations efforts in Iraq and establish cooperation between the United Nations and the administering power.

Fielding a question about an end to sanctions against Iraq, he maintained that now that weapons of mass destruction would not be used, the rationale behind the sanctions had disappeared.

Asked about Australian contributions to rebuilding Iraq, he cited his Government’s financial commitments, declaring that it was the sixth or seventh largest contributor.  In that regard, Australia was contributing more than countries who had “brought a different perspective to this issue”.  During the transitional phase, his Government would leave between 1,000 and 1,200 defence personnel.  How long they would stay would be assessed later.

Responding to a question about whether Australia would have to choose sides in the ideological split between Europe and the United States, he said Australia enjoyed strong links with Asia and that its ties with the United States had recently been strengthened.  Nevertheless, it would continue to maintain close relations with Europe, especially the United Kingdom and Ireland.  He added that divisions between Europe and the United States had been oversimplified.

Questioned about the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, he stressed that it was not an issue for the United States to handle alone.  After all, the situation directly affected the Asia-Pacific region, to which Australia belonged, and he added that what had happened in Iraq would have a big impact on the Korean matter being resolved in a sensible way.

* *** *