Speech
at the Royal United Services Institute of Australia
South Australia, 4 November 2002
Australia's Security Policy: New Challenges, Enduring Interests
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is a great pleasure to be here to address today's meeting of the
Royal United Services Institute (RUSI).
My thanks are due to Colonel Neville Bergin for his kind words of
introduction.
As we all know, the RUSI is about encouraging public debate and discourse
about national security and defence issues.
Given our current circumstances – after the tragic and shocking bombings
in Bali last month – there is an even greater need for informed and
balanced consideration of our security environment.
I think most would agree that terrorism has emerged as the most immediate
challenge to global – and regional - security and prosperity.
The challenge is pervasive, complex and profound.
We are tackling it on many fronts, domestically, bilaterally, multilaterally
and regionally.
The other immediate threat to security is the spread of chemical,
biological, radiological and nuclear weapons and their possible usage
by states such as Iraq and North Korea - or by international terrorist
groups.
These are critical and pressing concerns that present a clear and
present danger and demand the immediate attention of the international
community.
Of course, the emergence of these immediate threats to global and
regional security does not make the long-standing security challenges
we face in the Asia-Pacific region go away. Nor does it mean that
the alliances and friendships we have counted on for decades are no
longer relevant – quite the contrary.
These are all issues which I would like to touch on today.
The challenge of international terrorism
On 12 October, a little more than a year after the terrorist attacks
in the United States, an equally senseless and wicked terrorist attack
in Bali claimed the lives of around 180 innocent people, many of whom
were Australians.
The attack confirms what we have all long suspected, and feared:
that the international terrorist threat extends to South East Asian
countries – as demonstrated by the arrest, in December 2001, of Jemaah
Islamiyah terrorists planning to bomb western diplomatic missions.
But even before then, since September 11 2001, the Australian government
had warned that terrorists can strike anywhere, at any time and that
our own region is not immune to the tragic consequences of such attacks.
So when President George Bush declared a war on terrorism, Australia
was quick to respond.
President Bush warned that that the fight against terrorism would
be a many-fronted war, with no clear victory, at least in the short-term.
Some commentators interpreted the declaration as meaning war in a
metaphorical sense.
But my government did not ever see it as rhetoric: to the contrary,
we invoked the ANZUS alliance for the first time in its 50-year history.
Australia has since worked unstintingly to counter this most insidious
threat:
We made a substantial military commitment to the global battle against
terrorism, including through the deployment of special forces in Afghanistan.
We strengthened domestic legislation to proscribe terrorist organisations
and give relevant agencies the powers they need to hunt down terrorist
and sever their sources of finance.
We have intensified our cooperation with other regional countries
– particularly in South East Asia – to strengthen intelligence, law
enforcement, and counter-terrorism capabilities:
We have signed bilateral MOUs on counter-terrorism with Malaysia,
Thailand and Indonesia, and have proposed MOUs to other key regional
countries including the Philippines.
We have recently signed an agreement with Singapore to prevent money
laundering.
We have co-hosted regional counter-terrorism workshops, in Honolulu
and Bangkok - as well as in the Pacific Islands to help small island
countries develop counter-terrorism legislation.
And we will jointly host, with Indonesia, a conference to combat
terrorist financing and money laundering next month.
In the aftermath of the shocking attack in Bali, we owe it to all
those who lost their lives to redouble these efforts – at home, in
the region and globally.
Our first priority will be to work with Indonesia to hunt down and
bring the perpetrators to justice.
Australia and Indonesia have agreed to establish a Joint Investigation
and Intelligence Team to investigate the Bali bombing.
The very best of Australian and Indonesian expertise will be applied
to this crucial task.
This co-operation has been made possible under the auspices of the
MOU on combating terrorism I just mentioned.
The Bali attack has also thrown into sharp relief the need to further
improve regional counter-terrorism cooperation.
Australia strongly supports APEC's determined stand on counter-terrorism,
including the recent statements made by APEC leaders last month in
Los Cabos, Mexico.
We are pleased that APEC economies are working together to combat
the financing of terrorism and to enhance air and maritime transport
security as well as border control measures.
Australia has taken the lead in having the ASEAN Regional forum focus
on ways of promoting regional counter-terrorism cooperation.
Of course technical cooperation is important, but not sufficient.
Strengthening political will is equally important. As The Prime Minister
said at APEC a few weeks ago, no amount of international exhortation
can substitute for the determination of individual governments who
know they have a terrorist problem within their borders to do something
about it.
The Indonesian government's resolve to take action against extremist
terrorist networks, and to strengthen those moderate forces grappling
with extremist violence, will be important for the stability of Indonesia
and the stability of the region as a whole.
We were grateful for Jakarta's crucial support for Australia's request
to have the extremist Jemaah Islamiyah group listed in the UN as a
terrorist organisation.
Action to eradicate the threat of terror from JI is equally important
to Australia and Indonesia – as well as other countries in the region.
Iraq, North Korea and WMD
The global terrorism threat has given new urgency to our disarmament
and non-proliferation goals; and to our commitment to work together
to prevent the spread of WMD - both to non-state and state actors.
We have to be alive to possible links between terrorists, weapons
of mass destruction, and certain states we know are responsible for
their proliferation.
For over a decade Iraq has flouted legally binding obligations to
disclose and eradicate its weapons of mass destruction programs.
It has defied UN resolutions, UN inspections and UN sanctions.
There is no question as to Iraq's past use of chemical weapons, including
against its own people.
And we know Iraq is still producing chemical and biological weapons,
and has endeavoured to produce nuclear weapons.
If Iraq's pursuit of these abhorrent weapons continues, in a few
years we may be asking ourselves why we failed to act decisively when
we still could.
The international community must now draw the line, and Saddam must
disarm – there can be no more prevaricating, no more conditions, no
more undermining of the UN's authority.
We therefore support a tough new Security Council inspection regime
for renewed, unconditional and unfettered access to suspected weapons
of mass destruction sites.
We hope for a peaceful resolution to this situation - the onus is
now squarely on Iraq to allow this to happen.
In our own region we are now faced with another state that is not
living up to international obligations not to pursue WMD programs:
North Korea.
We are gravely concerned that Pyongyang has been operating a secret
uranium enrichment program for nuclear weapons, in breach of the Treaty
on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and the 1994 US-DPRK
Agreed Framework.
This new revelation about North Korea is profoundly disappointing
given the efforts we, and others, have been making to encourage that
country to participate more openly and constructively with the international
community.
Indeed Australia has been a strong supporter of the Agreed Framework
as a mechanism for freezing North Korea's nuclear program. Together
with the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organisation (KEDO),
the Framework is an important investment in the stability on the Korean
Peninsula.
The revelation is also a blow to the process of cooperation and reconciliation
between the two Koreas begun under ROK President Kim Dae Jung's policy
of engagement with the North.
These developments are of direct concern to Australia.
Nuclear competition in East Asia would have significant implications
for our own security. It would change the dynamics of WMD proliferation
and upset the power relativities between major countries, including
most of our leading trade partners.
Last month, I registered Australia's concerns with the DPRK Ambassador
and emphasised the importance of the North complying with its non-proliferation
obligations and allowing immediate and unfettered IAEA inspections.
Terrorism, Iraq and the DPRK's nuclear weapons program were the main
focus of the discussions the Minister for Defence and I had with our
counterparts in Washington last week, during our annual Australian
United States Ministerial Consultations.
Indeed we are working closely with the United States - as good friends
and allies - to meet these immediate threats to global security.
We share common values and, at a time when Western society is being
threatened by terrorist organizations, it is essential that countries
like Australia and the US work very closely together to address the
global challenges of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction (WMD).
Other challenges and enduring interests
The increased global threat of terrorism and the spread of WMD are
the most urgent security policy challenges we face. But those immediate
challenges have not displaced any of the long-standing ones in our
own region.
On the contrary, they highlight the fact that inattention to such
challenges now may increase security burdens later.
I should like to touch on some of these in the time left.
I have already mentioned the Korean Peninsula, but there are other
potential flashpoints in Asia – the Taiwan straits, disputed territories
in the South China Sea and tensions between India and Pakistan over
Kashmir.
And the Asia-Pacific region is a place where conflict involving
major powers is conceivable.
It is by no means inevitable, but consider that this a region where
six of the world's largest armies are found; where the regional arrangements
for security dialogue and cooperation are relatively underdeveloped;
and where the concept of collective security has made least headway.
And it is a place where internal conflicts, internal violence and
separatism undermine security and where national governments' capabilities
to ensure stability and promote economic development are conspicuously
uneven.
Our immediate region also faces some serious transnational issues
– not just terrorism but also the threat posed by issues such as illegal
immigration, people smuggling and epidemics such HIV/AIDS.
But I don't want to paint too bleak a picture of the region.
Asia has enjoyed a period of relative peace and stability over the
last two decades.
Major powers are managing their differences carefully, with a growing
recognition of a common interest in a stable environment conducive
to economic growth and security.
The United States strategic presence and US alliances in the region
continue to underpin regional stability, by balancing and containing
potential rivalries.
Through the ASEAN Regional Forum, the countries of the region are
developing a habit of dialogue and a shared commitment to manage their
differences.
And if any good can come from Bali, it is that this attack – and
the threat of others – has underlined the extent to which regional
powers share security interests.
The Bali attacks have also reinforced the point that Asia's security
problems are our security problems – and that protecting one's home
is easier in a safe neighbourhood.
September 11 and October 12 have also highlighted the continuing
importance of policies designed to promote economic development, good
governance, democratization and human rights, to provide the conditions
which underpin stability.
Australia has been doing its bit to promote stability by providing
targeted development assistance, encouraging regional cooperation
on transnational issues such as people smuggling and HIV/AIDS and
working with other countries in a range of areas from law enforcement
to defence.
This will be particularly important in fostering the stability, integrity
and cohesion of our immediate neighborhood, which we share with Indonesia,
PNG, East Timor and the island countries of the Southwest Pacific.
Indeed the state of these countries matters to Australia.
We have humanitarian concerns about the well-being of our neighbours
and important concerns about them providing footholds for transnational
crime in our neighbourhood.
We will therefore continue to devote resources and energy to small
states such as East Timor and the Solomon Islands to ensure their
long-term viability.
Conclusion
International terrorism is a global threat. So is the proliferation
of WMD.
We can no longer sustain artificial distinctions between what we
do at home, regionally or globally.
Nor can we rely on the safety of distance – of being somehow removed
from the central theatre conflicts of the world.
Australia's security is based on our self reliant defence forces…,
our alliance with the United States…, our positive security relationship
with our neighbours…, and our active involvement in regional and multilateral
security forums.
More than ever we need a clear sighted view of the regional and global
security outlook and how we should be responding to it.
I have every confidence that we will continue to rise to that challenge,
and to reach decisions that reflect our national interests, our resilience
as a nation and our determination to face up to any threat to our
security and prosperity.
Again, I thank you for the opportunity to address you today.
This page last modified:
Thursday, 07-Nov-2002 15:59:23 EST
Local Date:
Sunday, 07-Sep-2008 16:03:58 EST
