Dr EMERSON (5:09 PM) —There were further significant developments on this fast-moving Iraq issue in the parliament today, and I want to comment on a couple of those. First, it is apparent that there is even more confusion in the government's position as this issue develops internationally. In relation to the letter that has been sent by the Iraqis to the United Nations indicating that they will again invite in the weapons inspectors, the Prime Minister said that we are dealing with `nothing more than a diplomatic ploy'. When the Minister for Foreign Affairs immediately followed the Prime Minister in question time today, he described the same letter as `an important first step'. I am left in a position of wondering whether it is `nothing more than a diplomatic ploy' or `an important first step'. I certainly think the government should ponder that, come into the parliament and make a very clear statement on the significance of the letter. But, yet again, we have confusion in the government in terms of its handling of this very difficult issue.

The second observation I would like to make is that there seem to be some encouraging signs today that the government is moving towards Labor's position. I hope I am not being too optimistic in suggesting that, but the Minister for Foreign Affairs indicated in question time that `there is no Security Council resolution which authorises a regime change'. When the administration started explicitly setting as its objective for its dealings with Iraq a change in regime, senior members of the government endorsed that as an objective. Today, the Minister for Foreign Affairs indicated that the objective of the dealings with Iraq is disarmament. That is what Labor has been saying all along.

Labor has not set and does not support as the objective of dealing with Iraq a change in the regime. That is not to say by any means that we think that this is an acceptable or a humane regime; it is not. It is an appalling regime. But it is vital, in determining what next steps should be followed, that there be a common objective. On the one hand, we have an objective of regime change; on the other hand, we have an objective of disarmament. Yet Labor has consistently stated that the objective is disarmament, and today the foreign minister appeared to distance himself from earlier claims by government ministers that they shared the administration's objective of changing the regime.

I hope that we do not have to debate this issue again. Like all members on this side of parliament, I strongly welcome the fact that we are—belatedly—having this debate, but my fear is that, if we are to have a new debate, it will be a debate about whether we send our sons and daughters to war. On the Labor side, we do not embrace the prospect of going to war with any enthusiasm at all, so I hope that we are not back here debating a resolution to the effect that—all other processes having been exhausted or the Americans or this government considering that the process has been inadequate—we are proposing to go to war. I think that that is a very serious step, and we should remember that.

Labor's position on Iraq's noncompliance has been strong, clear and robust. I certainly take this opportunity to say what a marvellous job the Leader of the Opposition and our shadow foreign affairs minister have done in setting out Labor's position so clearly—a position that is workable and that is based on principle. The fundamental principle behind Labor's position is that we believe that the rule of international law should be observed. The war against Saddam Hussein in 1991 was because he did not observe the rule of international law, and it is not now okay for other countries to fail to observe the rule of international law in taking unilateral action against this regime.

Labor have consistently argued that the pursuit of a resolution to this very difficult problem should be through the United Nations, just as, in the lead-up to the Gulf War, we insisted that the whole issue be progressed under the auspices of the United Nations—and it was; the Gulf War was based on United Nations resolutions. In calling for proper United Nations processes to be followed, Labor have been labelled by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and others as appeasers, but the fact is that the Australian government should not blindly follow the United States.

The Vietnam War was a case of America saying, `It is a just and fair argument that we should go into Vietnam,' and the government of the day said, `If that is what America says is a good idea, we should do it.' What was the consequence? More than 500 Australians were killed in Vietnam, more than 57,000 Americans were killed in Vietnam and more than a million Vietnamese were killed in that war. Labor opposed the Vietnam War, at great political cost, in the early years of the war. Now General Peter Cosgrove, Chief of the Australian Defence Force, has said that that war was wrong; that it was a mistake. What a mistake it was: more than a million people were killed in that war, and the then coalition government fell over itself to follow the United States blindly into that war—a massive mistake.

The fact is that Australia's alliance with the United States, which has been forged under and implemented through successive governments—especially through Labor governments—is a strong and durable alliance. But the fact that we have such a strong alliance with the United States does not mean that Australia should always agree with the United States. I will outline a number of cases where we have not agreed with the United States, yet the alliance has survived in very good shape. Ultimately, we did not agree with the United States on the MX missile trials. Labor supported the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone. The United States disagreed with that. It did not damage or destroy the alliance. Labor opposed the Strategic Defence Initiative, which came to be known as Star Wars. We had a difference with the United States on that. The United States understood and the alliance endured. Labor opposed the National Missile Defence System. Similarly, that does not mean that, under a Labor government, the alliance with the United States would be any weaker as a result. The Americans understand that we do not agree on everything, but we, ourselves, must determine what is in the national interest. We should decide what is in the national interest, not the Prime Minister asking the American President or anyone else in the administration what they consider to be in Australia's national interest.

In respect of self-defence under article 51, there must be a clear and present danger and the evidentiary bar needs to be higher than simply for noncompliance—not that noncompliance is excusable; it is not. We need a two-stage process, as outlined by the Leader of the Opposition and our foreign affairs spokesperson. If we follow that process through to its ultimate goal, we will have a much clearer picture of the way forward. But we must observe the rule of international law rather than blindly follow the United States in a particular direction. It is up to Australia to determine what is in the national interest, and I do sense some encouragement in what the government was saying today in perhaps now agreeing with Labor that those UN processes ought to be followed through to completion.