Anderton Jim: Urgent Debates — SAS—Deployment to Afghanistan 
Anderton Jim: Urgent Debates — SAS—Deployment to Afghanistan 
[Volume:656;Page:5607] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 The Progressive Party was established only after a policy disagreement over intervention in Afghanistan in any circumstances so we have some fairly passionate views about this issue. Today we believe we must continue to support stability in Afghanistan but the days when we should have combat troops there are over. 
In 2002 the Progressive Party supported New Zealand’s involvement in Afghanistan because the situation there at the time represented a clear and present threat to the civilised world. Al-Qaeda had just committed a terrorist atrocity in the United States. I was Acting Prime Minister on the day that it happened. One of those killed in the attacks on the United States was a New Zealand citizen. I sent a message as Acting Prime Minister to the United States President saying that New Zealand saw the attack as an attack not only on the United States but on all civilised society. I promised that New Zealand would stand shoulder to shoulder with the United States in resisting terrorist attacks and we have kept that promise. 
The al-Qaeda threat was in fact a global threat. The Taliban responded to those attacks by giving al-Qaeda shelter. In football stadiums—where ironically election rallies are being held this week—the Taliban was carrying out mass executions. Men women and children were being executed for the perverted political ends of the then Government of Afghanistan. That no longer happens. The Afghanistan of today is not the Afghanistan of 7 years ago. It is not perfect—in fact it is far from perfect—but it is different. The world could not have stood by and ignored what was being done. We were right in that view and we have made a difference even though it might be incremental and even though it is clearly not the kind of democratic perfection that one would like. 
The United Nations Secretary-General at the time said: “The only way to win against terrorism is to organise a common international action. The main point is that the fight be led within the framework of the United Nations on the basis of the two Security Council resolutions and the General Assembly resolutions.” The United Nations agreement was crucial in forming my view and the view of others in the then Alliance that we should be part of that intervention. 
International law makes it clear that the only grounds for military intervention are self-defence or United Nations sanction. So United Nations authority for the Afghanistan intervention was vital to ensure that it complied with international law. Once that was decided our involvement was to send provincial reconstruction teams. We also sent the SAS. Its work was not and is never soft. Willy Apiata’s Victoria Cross is proof of that. We cannot send children to school or sick people to hospital and we cannot develop economies and end poverty when terrorists are doing their best to kill and to threaten entire communities. 
So I supported SAS involvement in Afghanistan to help reconstruction at that time—my present party exists because of it. But it was never an open-ended commitment. What we cannot support is involvement that tries to take sides in the feudal infighting in Afghanistan today. There are layers of sides in Afghanistan and we cannot—nor should we try to—pick one over the other. We can help the country however to clear itself of al-Qaeda. We must have United Nations authority to do so and we must have a firm base in international law. So we cannot just walk away from Afghanistan in my view. That would give not only Afghanistan but northern Pakistan to the Taliban and to other ideological extremists. 
Pakistan is of course a nuclear State. I do not particularly like that situation but it happens to be a fact. It is teetering dangerously. The consequences of a nuclear State like Pakistan becoming even more unstable are too dangerous to tolerate. The whole world has a strong interest in making sure that that does not happen. The best contribution we can make in our view is to support stability in Afghanistan. How best can we do that? We should certainly offer to be of help and assistance but I do not support doing so through the continued combat role of the SAS in Afghanistan. We have been pulling and have pulled our weight in Afghanistan; we have spent over $180 million on military assistance and aid there. That is one of the biggest commitments outside of international war theatres that we have ever made as a nation. So we cannot be accused of not taking the issues and events there seriously—we have. 
This is not a debate about whether we should assist Afghanistan; it is about what kind of assistance we offer. Our contribution today has to be towards rebuilding and helping to strengthen the Afghan communities the Afghan economy and of course the Afghan National Army. Following the elections later this week the future of security in Afghanistan will be the responsibility of that army in particular. It is our view that SAS engagement is no longer the appropriate vehicle for that purpose. As I have said we believe we should continue to engage in Afghanistan and we should continue to offer assistance but the role of the SAS in our view is now not appropriate any longer. New Zealand should continue with its provincial reconstruction team engagement which has been extraordinarily successful and has played a very important role in the rehabilitation of the region in which it operates. That is the course we recommend to the House and to the Government.