Address to the 2009 Future Summit - "Navigating the challenges ahead"
Tuesday, 19 May 2009
Today I will speak about the security challenges facing western democracies including Australia and the inherent tension between the long term nature of such challenges and the short term nature of the political cycle.
How can a democratic nation maintain a military presence for example in a radicalised failing state for a sufficient period of time to combat the security threat posed by that failing state without losing the support of the public back home?
What is too often overlooked is that you can’t change things overnight. Let me draw this analogy.
One of the challenges for health authorities in dealing with the current swine flu outbreak is that the disease has a gestation period of about a week, during which time the infected person is contagious but shows no symptoms. This makes it very difficult to predict where the disease is spreading and how quickly it will spread. Health authorities are forced into other actions trying to limit the disease and preventing it from becoming a global pandemic
Similarly, most geopolitical crises and international challenges have a long gestation period, during which time it is often very difficult to predict how and when a crisis will manifest or events unfold.
Take the current crisis in Pakistan. This is now the world’s hot spot. A country with a nuclear arsenal; an ongoing conflict between Government forces and extremist Islamic insurgents; a porous border with Afghanistan where NATO troops have been fighting the Taliban for sheltering Al Qaeda terrorists – a powder keg – yet it has been building for some time.
For the past 3 years the Pakistan government forces have been battling Taliban forces in the Swat Valley fighting for control of the north west frontier province on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border. Last month a peace deal was negotiated with Pakistan’s President Zardari agreeing that fighting would cease in return for the Taliban imposing Sharia Islamic law in the province. Having got what it wanted, the Taliban ignored the agreement and moved into the Buner district. The Pakistan military forces have launched an offensive against the Taliban. Should this have been foreseen?
Take this one seemingly unrelated fact. Back in the early 1970s and early 1980s, the number of fundamentalist religious schools known as Madrassas greatly increased in number in Pakistan.
In 1950 there were estimated to be fewer than 200 Madrassas in Pakistan. It is now estimated that there were more than 10,000 schools by 2001 and some estimate that there are currently up to 40,000 Madrassas teaching religious extremism and violence to successive generations. The Pakistan military encouraged growth in the number of these schools because many of the students joined the fight against the Soviet Union across the border in Afghanistan.
According to Suba Chandran of the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies in New Delhi many of the students were Afghani refugees who had fled to Pakistan and became, according to Chandran, “ideal recruits; neither the Pakistani Government nor the refugees could afford to educate the Afghan children in state-run schools” and “in due course the madrassas…. became recruiting grounds for the Mujahideens”. This was a deliberate policy of encouraging religious extremism to act a bulwark against the communist ideology of the Soviets, occupying neighbouring Afghanistan in the 1980s.
It was a successful strategy. The Soviets were eventually forced to leave Afghanistan in 1989. The Madrassas continued to increase in number influencing millions of Pakistanis, radicalising a significant number of them. These schools played a key role in the emergence of the Taliban – which in Pashto means “students”. The alumni of the Madrassas are the Taliban. After the Soviets withdrew, the Mujahideen warlords – the Islamic fighters – ruled Afghanistan but were ultimately defeated by the Taliban until the NATO invasion post September 11.
You might recall the highly entertaining film Charlie Wilson’s War – a fair amount of Hollywood licence was taken but it was about the covert US support for the Mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviets. Congressman Charlie Wilson having extracted billions of dollars from a Congressional committee to covertly supply weapons, was then unable to get the committee to agree even a million dollars to support the education system after the Soviets withdrew. In the closing scenes you have a sense of foreboding as the devastated country is left to its own devices, no longer anybody’s concern.
This set the scene for the Taliban rule of Afghanistan until the NATO invasion after Al Qaeda's September 11 attacks on New York and Washington. While many Taliban fled from Afghanistan to Pakistan after the NATO invasion, they were not importing their ideology into Pakistan for in fact many Taliban were returning to the place of their ideological birth. The tribal structure of society in Pakistan's northern areas also make it fertile ground for authoritarian rule of the Taliban.
There are many other historical factors which have greatly contributed to the current instability in Pakistan – the numerous military coups and corruption that has plagued civilian and military governments. However for the purposes of my speech, the critical issue is that the rise of the Taliban in Pakistan with its increasing Islamic extremism is not something that has suddenly happened over past few years; it has been building for the last 30 years or more.
And that brings us to the current situation in Afghanistan where Australian soldiers have been stationed for the past 7 years.
As we look for a resolution to the current circumstances in Afghanistan, it is worth recalling some history over the past 30 or more years. In 1973 King Zahir Shah was overthrown when his cousin Mohammad Daoud declared himself the president of the new republic employing Marxist elements to put down a nascent Islamist political movement. His later attempts to reduce the influence of the Soviet Union in domestic affairs backfired and led to the 1978 communist coup. President Daoud was assassinated and members of his family were murdered this marking the end of almost 200 years of rule of Afghanistan by its royal family.
Internal turmoil and assassinations soon erupted under the new communist Government, which also sought to ruthlessly suppress the population under President Amin, through a campaign of terror and murder.
In late 1979, Amin was assassinated and the Soviet army stormed across the border. It is widely accepted that the Soviet occupation was a disaster for Afghanistan, with estimated deaths among Afghans of more than one million people.
The Mujahideen - the Islamic fighters - fought against the occupation and as I have said were secretly supported by the US, including through the Pakistan military and secret police. By 1992, the Mujahideen had swept away the last vestiges of Soviet rule and took control of the capital Kabul establishing a new Afghan Islamic Republic. The Mujahideen were not able to agree on power sharing arrangements and the country was beset by conflict often verging on civil war. In this unstable environment the Taliban became established in Kandahar in the south of the country. The Taliban were initially supported by many Afghanis who had tired of the corrupt Mujahideen warlords. However, conflict soon erupted and civil war broke out, with the Taliban eventually capturing Kabul in 1996.
The ascendency of the Taliban raised three issues of particular consternation to the Western world:
-
Increasing opium poppy production;
-
Harsh Sharia law and its impact on women particularly;
-
The sheltering of Osama Bin Laden and his growing Al Qaeda network.
When the US Government blamed Bin Laden for the September 11 attacks, NATO forces led the air attacks on the Taliban in Afghanistan. Kabul quickly fell to the Mujahideen fighters and the Taliban were forced out of most of the country. While the NATO forces remain, Afghanistan has held democratic elections, electing President Hamid Karzai. And as incumbent he looks set for re election in the forthcoming presidential elections, yet the situation continues to be unstable with a re-emergent Taliban fighting for control of large parts of the country.
Again, while Afghanistan has been a priority for the Western world since 2001, the gestation period for its current troubles has been percolating for more than 30 years.
And all this matters for Australia.
As Greg Sheridan pointed out in his column in The Australian yesterday what is happening in Pakistan and Afghanistan has an effect on Southeast Asian terrorism. Jemaah Islamiah the terrorist network in Indonesia behind the Bali bombings - has a close relationship with Al Qaeda and the Taliban – and while JI has been relatively quiet for some time its members are still receiving training from the Taliban in Pakistan and according to Greg it is “expanding its network of schools and post-school indoctrination” and has been “tremendously cheered by the success of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan”.
My point is this. While our involvement in Afghanistan seeks to address a security challenge in the break up of the Al Qaeda network how does one maintain the level of commitment required to achieve peaceful societies that are sustainable and stable in the long term? Are we expecting relatively quick and easy resolutions to conflict situations that have been brewing for 20 or 30 years or more? While the military and strategic planners of Western nations are undoubtedly aware of the likely timeframes, can the same be said of the public in western nations?
We have seen in Australia how the electoral cycle can put enormous strain on the nation's commitment to sending our troops into conflict zones for deployments beyond one election cycle. Mark Latham's infamous and populist commitment to bring the troops home from Iraq by Christmas of 2004, and Mr Rudd's ongoing demand of the Howard Government that it have a clear timetable for withdrawal, a clear exit strategy from Iraq. There was little debate or consideration of whether it was in our long-term strategic interests for troops to be withdrawn. The issue became caught up in the political contest as just another political football in the lead up to an election. Mr Rudd’s grandstanding on Iraq and demands for a timetable and exit strategy mean that there is a growing expectation that he will have to meet the same benchmark for Afghanistan. And that may well not be possible nor in Australia’s long term national or security interests.
Similarly in last year's United States presidential election, the presence of US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan became embroiled in the political debate. Domestic public opinion has long proven to be a strong factor in the commitment to Western nations to international conflicts. According to a recent Gallup poll, the United States public is rapidly losing enthusiasm for the Afghanistan conflict.
In the wake of the 11 September attacks, public support was high with almost 90% of people approving of the war in Afghanistan. In January 2002, only 6% of people surveyed called the war "a mistake." Support has plummeted in recent months, with 42% of people now surveyed saying the United States made "a mistake" in sending military forces to Afghanistan, up from 30% in only February this year.
After the success of President Bush's surge of troops into Iraq, President Obama has appeared to be keen to replicate the same tactic in Afghanistan and has committed an additional 21,000 troops. President Obama has the advantage of a high approval rating as a newly elected President and the US public appears willing to give him support for his strategy for Afghanistan. But for how long? The challenge is way beyond defeating Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Radical Islam has taken hold in parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan.The Taliban remain active in Pakistan. A steady stream of militants and potential fighters are continuing to surge through the Pakistani madrassas. Afghanistan also shares a large border with Iran, whose nuclear ambitions are terrifying.
For the West to realistically achieve the goal of stable and peaceful societies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, there needs to be fundamental change taking place over generations. Fundamental reform of the education system to ensure it no longer radicalises young men in particular. Fundamental reform of the economy so that people can improve their standard of living without resorting to illegal activities such as opium production. These changes are exceedingly difficult to implement at any time, and much more difficult in countries where the Taliban still exert considerable overt and covert influence.
It follows logically that Western nations with troops in Afghanistan must be prepared for the long haul, and it could be a very long haul. Certainly there is no end in sight and there is unlikely to be any such end for many years, if the goal is to establish a sustainable democratic society. And that includes securing some form of peace and stability in Pakistan and Iran. Western nations must also not lose sight of the ultimate goal – to ensure Afghanistan does not ever again become a base for global terrorism – with thousands of men passing through Al Qaeda's training camps going on to play roles in terrorist attacks around the world. And that is why it was so concerning to see the reaction from NATO allies to President Obama's recent request for additional troops to support the US surge in Afghanistan.
At the NATO summit in April, President Obama gave an impassioned speech in which he asked other NATO countries to also send more troops. His request was largely ignored. The United Kingdom pledged to send several hundred additional soldiers to help improve security during the election to be held in August. These additional British troops will be withdrawn after the election. Belgium said it would send 35 military trainers while Spain said it would send 12. President Obama warned European leaders that any failure to show long term commitment would increase the danger of terrorist attacks on their home soil. France rejected the request outright, while Canada, Germany, Poland, Italy and Denmark reserved their positions.
NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer observed that reports of new laws in Afghanistan which reportedly legalised child marriage and marital rape were a significant factor in the reluctance of European nations to engage further in Afghanistan. He confirmed that public opinion was a key consideration behind the decision to not send additional troops. There is nothing new in this. Public opinion has dictated the approach to other conflicts, most notably with regard to Vietnam.
It has often been said that the far greater levels of media coverage, particularly graphic images of soldiers and civilians, killed or wounded, has been a defining factor in public support to any conflict for any length of time. One cannot help but wonder how the public would have reacted during the first two world wars if there had been the current levels of media scrutiny.
This poses a serious challenge for Western nations. While the initial intervention can often enjoy strong domestic support, which encourages action by leaders, as public support ebbs so does the support of the nation’s leaders. There is obvious potential for poor outcomes from such a cycle. A key challenge for the leaders of Western nations which have intervened in places such as Afghanistan is to convince the public of the need for a long-term commitment to such an intervention.
In Australia the Government has sent a confused message on the threat of terrorism. In December last year the Prime Minister released a national security statement, which identified a range of ongoing security concerns. While the document does not rank the threats in any order of precedence, according to an analysis by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, it mentions the threat from terrorism and extremism three times more often any other threat. The next most oft cited threat comes from failed or fragile states, which could create regional instability. The paper also mentions the challenges that may arise from a major shift in the balance of power as the Asia Pacific increases in economic and military importance.
However, the recently released Defence White Paper raises other strategic threats and while not explicitly spelling it out, strongly suggests that Australia must significantly bolster its defence to counter China’s growing military capability.
The scenario of Australia having to defend itself from a conventional military threat from China is hotly disputed by many analysts. There are already reports out of China that its government is not comfortable with the implications of the paper and that China is currently uncomfortable with the Rudd Government. Somewhat paradoxically, it notes that while terrorist will pursue nuclear and biological weapons, the terrorists are inherently restrained from achieving their aims and that “an attack in coming decades” cannot be ruled out.
Given the Pakistan/Afghanistan/Iran complexity, throw in North Korea, and I would think it far more likely that we will face a terrorist attack rather than a conventional military threat from a nation state in our region. We must focus efforts on doing what we can to eradicate the basis for terrorism and extremism in Afghanistan, Pakistan and South East Asia. That is why the Coalition is concerned by the shift in focus of the Rudd Government in foreign policy terms due to its pursuit of a temporary seat on the United Nations Security Council, for the 2013-14 term of the Council.
Now while a temporary seat on the Security Council may well be a worthwhile objective, to date, the Prime Minister has not outlined the reasons behind the bid or how it would be in Australia’s national interest for Australia to win a seat. Mr Rudd’s rationale to date has been that by 2013-14 it will be more than 30 years since Australia last held a seat and that "it was a long time between drinks". He has argued that Australia can be more fully engaged with the UN, although how he sees that as specifically assisting Australia is not clear.
At a press conference on 30 March Mr Rudd gave this explanation:
"Australia is a strong supporter of the United Nations and while there are people who criticise the UN ... I believe it's important to see the glass as half-full rather than half-empty."
"My view is pretty simple - you've got to be in it to win it, and have a go. We're about to have a go. I think 30 years is a fair enough old wait between drinks and I think it's time we actually got cracking."
More recently in this year’s Budget papers, the Government said that “Membership of the Security Council would enhance Australia's ability to shape international responses to security issues.” However, the Coalition’s concern is that this ambition has had a major impact on the Rudd Government’s foreign policy positions.
In particular, the Coalition is concerned that the campaign to win a Security Council seat has resulted in the Rudd Government compromising long-held foreign policy positions of Australian Governments. For example, there is a perception that Mr Rudd is courting the anti-Israel bloc in the UN. Late last year the Rudd Government changed our long held voting pattern in the UN and voted in favour of two anti-Israel motions. Then the Government refused to withdraw from the Durban II conference until the very last minute, a conference on Racism tainted with radical anti-semitic outcomes, despite repeated calls from the Coalition for it to announce an early withdrawal and take a position of moral leadership. The anticipated keynote address by the President of Iran where he predictably launched an anti-Israel rant should have been enough cause for the Government to take an early and principled stand.
In addition, while the Budget reports a direct cost of $11.2 million over two years for the Security Council bid there is potential for tens of millions of additional dollars to be used from other parts of the Budget, including the foreign aid budget. For example, the Budget includes an additional $106 million over four years to increase diplomatic links, including with countries in Africa and Latin America. It is clear that the bid for the Security Council is the rationale for putting additional funds and staff resources into Africa and Latin America. Indeed the bulk of the money is not distributed this year or next year or the year after, but in 2012, the year the vote will be taken. If the Government argues that Africa and Latin America need our aid money, then surely they need it now – not just in 3 years time when the vote is taken.
The media have had no hesitation in describing this redirection of foreign aid from our region to Africa and Latin America as shoring up votes for the Security Council bid. As John Kerin in the AFR said yesterday “there is also more cash to chase the UN Security Council – extra spending in Africa and Latin America which hold vital votes”. Indeed – 55 votes in Africa, 33 votes in Latin America. And while there is extra aid money for Afghanistan, including a feasibility study for an embassy in Kabul, the Rudd Government must keep its focus firmly on our region, given the range and scale of problems in countries such as Afghanistan and Pakistan, and in SE Asia and the Pacific. There is a risk that Australia’s aid and diplomatic effort will be compromised by being spread too thinly across the globe as Mr Rudd chases votes. And after all it is a secret ballot. He’ll never know if his largesse in one particular country translated into a yes vote.
The Coalition’s major concern is that the Foreign Affairs Budget and the resources of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade are being used to support the Prime Minister’s ego-driven agenda with regard to the United Nations.
Despite his indignation in the Parliament last week which was not in the least bit convincing, there continues to be credible speculation that Mr Rudd has set his sights on the job of Secretary-General to the United Nations.
Australia’s strategic interests and aid budget should not be sacrificed on the altar of Mr Rudd’s personal ambitions and ego. Compromising our principled positions in trying to win votes runs the risk of undermining public support for Australia’s foreign policy in general including the long term commitment that we must make to Afghanistan and other nations.
Australia has an important role to play in the international community. We are one of the leading nations of the world in terms of freedom, the rule of law, respect for human rights and social equity. But we need to maintain confidence amongst the Australia public that our foreign policy aims are consistent with their long term interest and security. Then we can look forward to aligning long term national interests with long term public support.
Address to the 2009 Future Summit, Melbourne on 19 May 2009
