| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
  Interview: Foreign Affairs Minister, Stephen Smith February 24, 2008  Watch the video Interview by Sunday's political editor Laurie Oakes LAURIE OAKES "SUNDAY" INTERVIEW with Foreign Minister STEPHEN SMITH. LO: Good morning, Mr Smith. Welcome to Sunday. SS: Morning, Laurie. LO: Now I assume you talked about Australia's withdrawal from Iraq yesterday, are the Americans genuinely happy about that decision? SS: Well, they certainly genuinely accept it. It was a long-standing election commitment where implementing it in office, I've had conversations with the American administration when I went to Washington earlier this year; the Prime Minister and the Defence Minister spoke about it when the Prime Minister visited Iraq and spoke to US forces there. So we're implementing that decision carefully, in full co-operation with them and making sure that we minimise any disruption, so it's effectively has taken as read and it hasn't in any way disturbed the fundamental basis relationship between the two governments and certainly hasn't disturbed the long-term enduring alliance between Australia and the United States. LO: So while we're pulling out, the Turks have sent forces into Northern Iraq, what's the Australian Government's attitude to that? Are we trying to get them to leave? SS: Well, we think the Turkish Government should respect Iraq's sovereignty. That's a very important issue for Iraq and we believe, as the United States administration expressed yesterday through the secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, that those Turkish troops should withdraw as quickly as possible. LO: Do we know how many troops the Turks have sent in? SS: I don't, but I think some of the public references have been overstated. I think it's more limited than what's been suggested. I don't have an accurate figure, but irrespective of the number of troops, the Turks should respect Iraq's sovereignty and they should retreat back over the border as quickly as possible. LO: And any indication whether civilians have been caught up in this? SS: I don't have any advice to that effect, so hopefully not. LO: What did the American side tell you yesterday about Iraq? Do they claim to be winning? SS: Well, they're certainly of the view, which they have expressed publicly, and on our own analysis we share it, that things have substantially improved over the last recent period, the last 9 months or so since since the so-called surge, but we think the job in Iraq is two-fold. It's to secure peace and stability, but also to do the things which allow Iraq to grow as a nation state, to do the nation-building things, which is why we've said whilst we're withdrawing those combat troops in accordance with our election commitment, we're also, as we speak, giving consideration to the sorts of capacity-building things that we can do, whether that's building their government bureaucracy or government infrastructure, but also humanitarian and development assistance. So it's not just securing the peace and good order, it's also trying to do the nation-building things, and we're looking at that at Cabinet level at the moment and we expect to be able to make some announcements in the not-too-distant future. LO: Now, you also said yesterday you're looking at the same thing in Afghanistan. What sort of capacity-building do you have in mind for Afghanistan? SS: Well, Afghanistan, of course, we regard very differently. We think there is a real problem in Afghanistan. We've made it clear that we're there with a long-term commitment. We've got about a thousand troops in the south, some of the heaviest fighting and most difficult area - very dangerous work. But in addition to that, we do believe as well that the Afghanistan Government, the Afghanistan nation, needs to have that assistance in the nation-building area, so giving them the trappings of a democratic state, bureaucratic capacity, judicial and legal capacity, but again also humanitarian assistance, infrastructure, roads, schools, hospitals and the like, and again we're giving consideration to that. But, the most important short-term point for Afghanistan, which we've made very strongly, is we think there needs to be a much stronger international commitment to the military effort in Afghanistan, and that particularly needs to come from NATO and the NATO nations, which is why Joel Fitzgibbon has been so strongly out there arguing that point in the run-up to the NATO Conference in April. LO: Kevin Rudd is going to the NATO Summit in April. Why do we need to send a prime minister? SS: Well, it's very important for us to make the point very strongly which is we think there needs to be a greater, more coordinated, much more focused, international effort in Afghanistan. We very strongly believe it's in our national interest to be there, to counter terrorism, because international terrorism these days is very mobile and can move very quickly. And we think there needs to be a greater effort. The United States administration has responded by an additional 3,200 marines. We think there needs to be a greater, coordinated effort from the NATO nation states generally, because with Afghanistan, with difficulties in Pakistan, this is now the centre of international attention, and we can't neglect it, nor can the international community. LO: Would we consider sending more troops? SS: No, we've made it clear that a thousand troops is a - it's a substantial load, a substantial number, and we're not proposing to contemplate any additional troops, but we are, as we've discussed earlier, looking at the other things that we can do, the capacity-building or development assistance things that we can do in Afghanistan as well. LO: Do we try and talk the Canadians out of their decision to pull out? SS: No, the Canadians, of course, have suffered terrible casualties. We've had casualties in Afghanistan as well, but the Canadians have had about 80 and so, if you like, a comparable sized nation, they are terrible casualties. So the Canadians have been making the point as well that they believe a greater international commitment is required and they've essentially put out what they regard as the minimum additional international commitment should be made, and they will be making a very strong case at the NATO Conference in April as well. But they've suffered great casualties, and it's a credit to them that they're continuing to say if there is a greater international community, they will still be there. LO: Kevin Rudd in Opposition called for Australian Federal Police to be sent to Afghanistan. Will that happen? If so, how many? What will they do? SS: Well we're looking at a greater complement of Australian Federal Police to go to Afghanistan, and they will be part of, if you like, the capacity-building aspects that we're doing in Afghanistan - training the Afghan police. I made the point earlier about you want law and order and peace and stability, but it can't be peace and stability for its own sake because an international force can't be there forever, so you've got to help Afghanistan or other nations in difficult situations, build their capacity. So training of their own police force is very important, and it's one of the roles which we envisage for the Australian Federal Police. LO: Well, on the subject of yesterday's AUSMIN meeting, why is the Australian Government now being so coy about the possible missile defence system cooperation with the United States? SS: Well, I wouldn't describe it as being coy. I mean, in Opposition, we said that we would look carefully at missile defence for theatre purposes, but we weren't persuaded about missile defence for strategical global purposes, largely because of the cost and secondly because of concerns about the technological capacity. The technology has moved on and so what we've said is that in conversation with our ally, with the United States, we're happy to give consideration to the missile defence arrangements, but we want to do that very carefully, and do that sort of in a deliberate and sober way. So it's not a matter of being coy. The technology changes and we don't want to make any decisions which would deprive us of technology which might in the end be in our national security interests and be able to protect our forces in the field. LO: There is no, I said you're being coy though, as Joel Fitzgibbon the Defence Minister yesterday said this has been discussed but had to remain confidential, now you're having secret talks about a missile defence system. SS: Well, they're not secret talks. LO: He said they were, they had to be confidential. SS: Well, they're not secret talks. Everyone knows we were there at AUSMIN yesterday. But obviously there are things which we discuss, around the table, which go to our national security interests and it wouldn't be appropriate or wise or sensible for either Joel or me to be tipping them out either yesterday at a press conference or on your show, but in general terms there's no secret to what we said in Opposition or what we're now contemplating. The technology has changed. We don't want to deprive ourselves sensibly of any capacity which might be of benefit to our troops if they're in the field, either in a UN peacekeeping force or an international force. LO: This is a change, though, isn't it, because Kevin Rudd said, as shadow Foreign Minister, "We have profound reservations about missile defence." Those reservations seem to have gone? SS: No, no, that's not right. We said that, and Kevin said that those reservations went to, if you like, global strategic use of missile defence. We weren't persuaded that the technology was there. We weren't persuaded that it was viable in terms of cost. We made it clear during our time in Opposition that we would happily give consideration to theatre or limited missile defence. The technology has moved on. We are yet to be persuaded, we're not rushing to embrace it. We are just giving very careful consideration to it, and we'll do that in conjunction with our United States ally. LO: So son of "Star Wars" could be acceptable? SS: Well, we're working our way through it very carefully. This is not a decision that we're going to be making tomorrow, but when we do come to a final deliberation, we will obviously let people know the framework of that. But we're not going to be rushed and there is no need to be rushed. LO: Now, the people you spoke to yesterday, Mr Gates and Mr Negroponte, represent the Bush Administration, that'll be gone in a year, which potential president would the Australian Government like to see take over from George W. Bush? SS: Well, we don't have a candidate or a favourite, we will work with whichever administration is elected by the American people. One of the points I made yesterday is that the alliance with the United States, Australia-US alliance, has been going for 50-60 years, it's worked well for both nations, it transcends Labor or Liberal governments here or Democrat or Republican there. It's a long term, enduring, fundamental bedrock and it's indispensable to our defence and security and strategic arrangements. All of, if you like, the three main candidates - McCain, Obama and Clinton - all of their camps have indicated they will happily work with the Australian Government, as you would expect; so we'll deal with whoever the American public chooses. LO: One of the reasons I ask though is that Barack Obama is very strongly protectionist. He's pushing very hard to get the blue-collar vote which Hillary Clinton tried to get by being similarly protectionist. Now, surely the Australian Government has got to worry about a highly protectionist US president? SS: Well, the protectionist issue was an issue that I raised with pretty well everyone I spoke to when I was in the United States, both the administration itself and people on the Hill, Democrat and Republican representatives. It is of concern to us that the United States might move to a more protectionist position. It's bad for our trade and we have made the point that openness, so far as trade is concerned, is a much more attractive system for us, both in terms of our exports, but also generally in the international trading and economic environments. So it's a concern that I indicated to United States administration and Republicans and Democrats when I was in Washington and New York recently. LO: A couple of quick questions about the region. SS: Sure. LO: Your government, the Rudd Government, has ended the so-called Pacific Solution, closed down the detention camp on Nauru. How have the Nauruans acted to that? It will cost them money. SS: Sure. LO: Are they complaining? SS: They're not so much complaining, there's no-one there. We're in the process of closing it down, but I've written to my counterpart in Nauru and made it clear that we're currently giving consideration to what form of development assistance might be appropriate to compensate for the loss of income, and we'll - we've already said some AusAID officers to Nauru and we will be having conversations with the Nauru Government about the sorts of development assistance that will be appropriate, given that they are losing income as a consequence. But we make no secret, we had, again, a firm election commitment to close down the off-shore processing arrangements. It was very costly and very expensive. We will all recall John Howard saying that none of them would come to Australia and about 70-80% of them did. It cost us $300 million. So we will close them down, but we will make sure that we discharge an appropriate development assistance package to Nauru and we will do that in conjunction with them. LO: We thank you very much. SS: Thanks Laurie |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
