E&OE
31 March 2008
Perth Press Conference
Subjects: Zimbabwe Elections, UN Security Council and other matters
STEPHEN SMITH: Well I'll just make some remarks about a number of matters and I'm happy to answer your questions.
Firstly, Zimbabwe and the parliamentary and the presidential elections. I've just got off the phone from speaking to our High Commissioner in Zimbabwe. It's very early in the morning in Zimbabwe, but later this morning, later this afternoon Canberra time we expect the announcement of the results of the parliamentary and the presidential elections.
Can I say that in the past, Australia has been very critical of the Mugabe regime. In recent days I've been very critical of the Mugabe regime and that criticism continues. We, of course, are very concerned that there hasn't been the opportunity for a full and free election, with full participation, conducted fairly. And there are also very grave concerns that the counting of the election will not necessarily reflect the actual casting of the votes; and we remain very concerned that Mr Mugabe will seek to claim election victory irrespective of the actual votes cast.
Whatever is claimed in the hours ahead, we certainly hope that there is no violence. And I note that the Opposition Leader Mr Tsvangirai has indicated that irrespective of the call of the election, he and his supporters will not engage in violent activity and we certainly hope that that is the response of Mr Mugabe and his supporters.
But we remain very gravely concerned that Mr Mugabe will seek to steal this election, irrespective of the actual votes cast, but we will of course monitor this in the hours and days ahead. And I've indicated to our High Commissioner that I'll be in regular contact with him in the course of the day and this week.
Secondly, China and Tibet. Can I indicate that yesterday evening I received a report from our official who attended Lhasa with other diplomats over the 28 and 29 March, and I've now had an opportunity of looking at that report and considering it. Our diplomat was one of 17 diplomats from 15 countries, which included the United Kingdom, the United States and other countries.
Can I firstly say that we regarded access by the diplomats as a step in the right direction. I've previously made the comment that access to international media and to diplomats, full and free access, is essential to the ongoing resolution of these matters and I also welcomed the restricted access to media which occurred last week.
Can I also say, and foremost, that our diplomat was able to confirm that the small number of Australian citizens remaining in Lhasa are safe and that their welfare is secure. That's been the case with the more than 20 Australians who have been in Lhasa or Tibet over the recent period.
Secondly, the delegation received an assurance that monks who protested effectively in the presence of international journalists a few days prior to the diplomats arrival, would not be punished. But thirdly, and disappointingly can I say, that the trip itself was effectively under supervision - at all times the delegation was in the presence of Chinese officials.
The best way forward in the Australia Government's view in this matter, is for China to be open and transparent about Tibet; to open itself up to scrutiny, to full scrutiny, whether by the international media or by diplomats. We remain of the view that whilst the Australian Government respects China's territorial sovereignty over Tibet, we expect that the human rights of the people of Tibet will be respected. We believe the best way forward is for the Chinese authorities to act with restraint and to engage in a dialogue with the Dalai Lama and other Tibetan representatives, and that openness and transparency is the best way forward.
Can I also make this point. It's certainly been the case that what the Australian Government has been saying both publicly and privately - what the Prime Minister has been saying publicly, what I've been saying publicly and what Australian officials in China and in Canberra have been saying privately to the Chinese officials, has been noticed by China.
We have a strong view, firmly held, about these matters and we are putting it. And those views have certainly been noticed by Chinese officials both in Canberra and in Beijing.
Thirdly, can I just make some remarks about the Prime Minister's announcement that Australia will seek election to the United Nations Security Council for the period 2013 and 2014, with an election to be conducted for the Security Council in October 2012. This is effectively now a four year campaign. There are already two other declared candidates, Finland and Luxembourg.
It will be a very tough contest, but we believe that it's appropriate for Australia, one of the world's 20 largest economies; we're in the top twenty so far as the OECD economies of the world are concerned. We're a robust, parliamentary democracy. We're a prosperous well developed country. That it is appropriate for Australia to be seeking to put its view at the Security Council.
The last occasion we were a member of the Security Council was 1985, 1986. There had been a couple of failed or withdrawn attempts since then. But we believe it's appropriate that we put our name forward for the 2012 election for 2013 and 2014.
Finally, can I just make some remarks about the Dutch MP Geert Wilder's film, which has been seen on the website. Can I say that the Australian Government regards the film and its content as offensive. We deplore it. We condemn it. While, of course, one of Australia's great attributes is that we respect freedom of speech and freedom of expression, we believe with that right, with that inalienable right there also carries with it responsibility and it's not open for someone, particularly an MP, to abuse that right, the right of freedom of expression, to say and do things which are essentially an incitement to religious or to racial violence or hatred. And I very much support and welcome the comments I've seen from the Dutch Prime Minister and also from the Secretary General of the United Nations, consistent with those remarks that I have made.
I'm happy to answer your questions on those and any other issues.
QUESTION: Just on the UN Security Council, I believe Alexander Downer did a costing about three years ago of about $35 million for a campaign like this. Have you got any costings around?
STEPHEN SMITH: Well I understand from Mr Downer's public remarks - I obviously haven't seen the internal documentation, nor would it be appropriate for me to do so - but I understand from his public remarks that that was the sort of figure he had in mind for a campaign a few years ago which the Howard Government, in the event, did not take up.
I'm not proposing to nominate a figure. I make this point about the allocation of resources and budget and the seriousness of our campaign - it's a four year campaign. The things that we have to do now and in the first instance can very much be done from within existing resources. A lot of that is alerting other nation states to the fact that we believe we are a serious candidate and want to make a serious bid. The allocation of budgetary resources will be done over that four year period and in due course we'll obviously let that be publicly known. But in the first instance, I'm not proposing to put a ball park on it. But secondly, a lot of what we need to do in the first instance can be done from within existing resources.
QUESTION: Will it involve though setting up embassies in other countries like Africa? What sort of things will you need to do?
STEPHEN SMITH: Well you need to campaign. You need to embark on a four year campaign and a lot of that campaigning can, of course, be done from within existing resources, through our post and through our missions, starting of course with our mission at the United Nations itself. But every mission that Australia has now overseas, whether it's in Africa, whether it's in Asia, whether it's in the Americas, north or south, now know that we're running a campaign and it becomes part of the general representations that we make.
We, of course, because it's a serious campaign, will be looking to do additional and special things and I'm happy to announce those in due course.
QUESTION: [Inaudible question]
STEPHEN SMITH: Well I'm certainly not going to make any adverse comments on other, on other candidates. Luxembourg and Finland have made their intentions clear. They will run their own campaign. Other nations may well see fit to also nominate for election for that period.
What do we bring? We bring to the United Nations a nation that has a new government that has come to office saying we believe that Australia needs to play a more active role in the United Nations and we believe the United Nations needs to be brought back more centrally to international events. We believe, for example, that the United Nations can play a greater role in matters such as disarmament. But we bring, as I've put it, the capacity which comes from being one of the world's top 20 economies.
Now I've often heard this expression, Australia punches above its weight. It's an expression that I hate. It's an expression that I hate because we need to conduct ourselves in a manner which befits a country ranking in the top 20 economies, in a manner which befits a country which is prosperous, well developed and has a robust parliamentary democracy which respects human rights. All of the things which are synonymous with the United Nations charter and being a good international citizen.
QUESTION: What are the...[Inaudible question]
STEPHEN SMITH: Jeff...[Inaudible ]
QUESTION: Is it the Government's - the Australian Government's view through DFAT that one of the reasons that the election in Zimbabwe hasn't been declared yet, is because Mugabe has lost. And secondly one of the reason's he's been able to get away without, with what he does without punishment because the black African's [indistinct] so soft towards him. Is that...
STEPHEN SMITH: Well, there are a few questions there. And I'll put the Australian Government's view.
Firstly as I've indicated, we're very concerned that the election itself has not been a full and free and fair election. There were any number of reports about the production of multiple ballot papers, about the inappropriate use for example for political purposes of the - of food aid by the Government. Of propaganda, abuse, propaganda abuse through government, radio and TV outlets. So our starting point is not - there was a full and free and fair election. Having said that, the reports that we received were that the election itself was conducted in a more peaceful and peaceable manner than was expected.
We also are concerned that we've received reports that the turnout appears to have been quite low which may have come from people's fears about conducting themselves in the election context.
Early reports, and these are reports made by opposition parties, early reports do seem to indicate a greater show of support for the opposition parties than was expected. I have no way of verifying that, but there is widespread concern, that irrespective of the conduct of the election, irrespective of the actual voting, that Mr Mugabe will seek to declare the election and steal it for himself irrespective of the objective analysis and the actual casting and counting of votes.
QUESTION: [Inaudible question]
STEPHEN SMITH: There is - I am happy to respond to that I am sorry, I leapt over it.
There is a responsibility on the nation states of Africa to seek to bring a terrible regime to account, just as there is a responsibility on the international community and on Australia. And Australia has, for a number of years, had travel and other sanctions on Zimbabwe which expresses our long standing disapproval of a terrible regime.
QUESTION: How's our relationship with Japan at the moment, given that some of the media are saying that the Australian Government practically ignored Japan on Kevin Rudd's tour?
STEPHEN SMITH: I've seen a fair amount of commentary about our relationship with Japan - let me make a couple of fundamentally important underlying points. Australia's relationship with Japan is very, very important but also very, very good. We have an economic, strategic and security partnership with Japan. It is a very important nation for us and when I went to Japan earlier this year I met with my counterpart the Foreign Minister, I met with the chief cabinet secretary Mr Machimura, and I met as well with the Prime Minister for more than half an hour.
And in each of those meetings the fundamental nature of the relationship between Australia and Japan was underlined and reaffirmed. And in each of those meetings we also made the point that whilst we have a strong disagreement over whaling; we agree to disagree about that. The fact that our relationship is so good is one of the things which enables us to have such a disagreement.
Now the Prime Minister has been invited by the Japanese Government, invited by Japan, to be effectively an observer or what's technically described as an outreach partner at the G8 summit. That reflects the strength of the relationship. And it's already been agreed that in addition to that visit to Japan, the Prime Minister will conduct the bilateral meeting with Japan in the course of this year.
You know, I've seen a fair amount of commentary and with the greatest of respect to those who are prosecuting that commentary, what you have to return to is the fundamental underlying, good relationship between Australia and Japan and that is ongoing and it will remain ongoing. I've made the point publicly myself. Japan has been, in the past, and remains, one of Australia's closest friends in the Asia Pacific region.
QUESTION: You mentioned the G8 summit, isn't that the exact point that you were talking about you're speaking to the Prime Minister, but the symbolism between talks between both Prime Ministers is probably important. Couldn't Kevin Rudd have called the Prime Minister and thanked him for allowing Australia that...
STEPHEN SMITH: Well, as the Prime Minister made clear yesterday and again overnight, from time to time phone calls are made. From time to time phone calls are made. And often phone calls are made when there's a difficulty or an issue. The point I am making is the fundamental nature, basis, of the relationship between Australia and Japan is a very strong one and that will continue.
QUESTION: Is it just a sign that the Government still has the training wheels on? Is it just a mishandling of the situation, rather than any intention...
STEPHEN SMITH: Well, as I say I've drawn your attention to the commentary. I've made the point, but with the greatest of respect to that commentary I largely disagree with it. In other words, I don't believe that it understands the nature and the basis of the relationship between Australia and Japan, between two nation states and the relationship between the two governments.
Already in the course of this short period in office I've been to Japan, the Minister for Trade has been to Japan, The Minister for Agriculture is going to Japan next week. It's not as if there hasn't been considerable contact.
Now of course there will be Prime Minister to Prime Minister contact. But I make the point, that initial prime ministerial contact will be as a result of a Japanese Prime Minister inviting our Prime Minister to do something which to my memory hasn't occurred before, which is an Australia Prime Minister attending a G8 meeting. That reflects the nature of the relationship between us.
QUESTION: Are there plans unannounced for a visit by the [indistinct]
STEPHEN SMITH: Well, the Prime Minister made clear some time ago that he's proposing to make two trips to Japan this year. One in association with the G8 which is in July, my memory I am happy to stand corrected. My memory is the 7 or the 8 of July, but a separate and additional standard, bilateral trip to Japan in the course of this year.
QUESTION: So, you don't think that the Japanese Government has been snubbed by - in this latest world tour, I guess, by Kevin Rudd deciding to visit a whole heap of nations including China but not Japan?
STEPHEN SMITH: Well, I again, make the point; the relationship between Australia and Japan is a very good one. If anything was going to cause a difficulty in the relationship between Australia and Japan it would have been a three or four month dispute over whaling which we've just witnessed. Such is the relationship between the two nations and between the two governments that we're able to treat that strong view - strong disagreement firmly held views, differently on both sides - we're were able to treat that as something about which we would simply agree to disagree. That reflects the strength of the relationship between our two nation states, but also the strength of the relationship between our two governments.
QUESTION: In regards to Japan, are you concerned that the diplomats didn't actually get a proper look around Tibet and that if so [indistinct]
STEPHEN SMITH: Let me take some positives out of the visit. Firstly it was a step in the right direction. Secondly it enabled the Australian diplomat to satisfy as to the safety and security and welfare of the Australian citizens. Thirdly an undertaking was given that none of the monks involved in the protest with the overseas journalists would be punished.
But then I make this point; all of the inspections, all of the meetings, all of the dialogue was conducted under supervision and in the presence of Chinese officials. I think the best way forward for China, so far as Tibet is concerned, is to engage in a dialogue with the Dalai Lama and other Tibet representatives but also to be open and transparent. That effectively means full access to journalists and full access to diplomats.
QUESTION: That undertaking [indistinct] months, you're confident that it will be honoured?
STEPHEN SMITH: Well, it's been given. It was asked for and it was given, and I'm pleased that it was asked for and pleased that it was given.
QUESTION: Kevin Rudd was quite forceful, or quite open about his belief that there had been human rights abuses in China over the weekend. How forceful does he need to be in his discussions with China?
STEPHEN SMITH: The Australian Government has been very robust in this matter and I've seen commentary from some representatives in Australia of the Tibetan community making the point more robust than we've seen in the last decade or so, and I don't take that point any further.
But can I also make the point that Kevin Rudd, both as Prime Minister and earlier as Leader of the Opposition and earlier as Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, often made the point that when it came to human rights and China, when he met with Chinese officials he would make that point. He's certainly indicated for some time that he'll make points about Tibet when he visits China in the next few days or week.
But these matters are raised as a matter of course. When the Chinese Foreign Minister, Foreign Minister Yang, was in Canberra in early February, I made points about Tibet, points about the Dalai and points about human rights. These points are made, and as I've indicated in the context of Tibet, the Prime Minister and I have made both public remarks and private - both public remarks and our officials on our behalf have made private remarks. These public and private remarks have in no uncertain terms been noticed by the Chinese authorities. These have been serious remarks and they've been treated seriously. And I think that's reflected by the fact that one of our diplomats was invited to join the inspection of Lhasa.
But no one should be under any misapprehension that the robust point of view that we have made publicly and privately has been noticed. They've been very serious comments and they've been treated as serious comments.
QUESTION: On Zimbabwe, Morgan Tsvangirai has been warned not to declare victory and that could be tantamount to a coup. If Mugabe does try and steal the election, is there anything more that Australia can do, apart from diplomatic protest?
STEPHEN SMITH: Of course I am concerned that he will seek to articulate a result which doesn't necessarily reflect the votes cast. But I remain also very, very concerned that he will seek to impose force to get his way.
I'm very pleased that Mr Tsvangirai has said that he won't resort to violence to get his way, and I certainly hope that Mr Mugabe does likewise.
We would want the election result to be respected. There is, of course as I have said, very grave concern that we're not here dealing with a full and free election and we are potentially not dealing here with a fair indication of how the votes were actually cast.
But we would want calm, we would want no violence, but we also want, as I've made clear, the international community to be very, very sceptical about the outcome if it does go Mr Mugabe's way.
QUESTION: Will you look at more sanctions though, will you step that up if it does eventuate that Mugabe...
STEPHEN SMITH: What I think we will step up, we've had our sanctions, both travel and other, in place for a period of time, travel sanctions, investment sanctions, and they make the point. What I think we will step up is our urging of the international community, starting with relevant nation states in Africa, that the time has come to really up the ante here that it has been a regime which has lasted for too long a period of time. There have been very grave reservations about the capacity for full and free and fair elections in the past. The expressions of concern about this election and its capacity for a fair outcome have been much more sceptical. The concerns have been much greater on this occasion than in the past.
I think it is now incumbent on the international community to seek to place more pressure on Mr Mugabe and more pressure on his regime. We want to see Zimbabwe move to a proper democratic state, but we also want to see the citizens of Zimbabwe have the chance of a decent economic life and a chance to share in some form of prosperity.
QUESTION: Does upping the ante necessarily involve perhaps a commitment of troops possibly, more specifically African troops?
STEPHEN SMITH: Well in Australia's case, certainly not, and that hasn't fallen for contemplation.
QUESTION: No, but there's - I mean, they are probably, you know, one of the basket cases of Africa. Isn't it up to Africa to solve its problems?
STEPHEN SMITH: Well, you've made the point and I've agreed with you that we do believe that relevant African nation states need to be paying much more assiduous attention to what's occurring.
I'm a very long way away from entertaining suggestions that Australian troops be involved.
QUESTION: No, I actually wasn't suggesting Australian troops, but African...
STEPHEN SMITH: Well, how other...
QUESTION: Particularly South Africa could step up to the plate.
STEPHEN SMITH: How other nation states discharge what they regard as their obligations is a matter for them. We will certainly, if things take, as very many people are expecting, a turn for the worse, then we will obviously be expecting the relevant African nation states to, as I put it, up the ante.
QUESTION: But monitors from the Southern African Development Community said that the vote was peaceful and a credible expression of the will of the people, the indication that they won't act, or are they wrong?
STEPHEN SMITH: Well, I've made the point myself that our own mission have indicated that the actual conduct on the day of the election was more peaceable than they were expecting, also that there appeared to be a low turnout.
So we're obviously pleased that on the day itself it was generally peaceable. That I don't think enables us to go to the next step and say that we think we are dealing here with a full, free and fair election or that we're necessarily dealing here with a full, free or fair election outcome.
QUESTION: Just finally on the Japan [indistinct] and China.
STEPHEN SMITH: Yes.
QUESTION: Do you see balancing the interests, or Australia's interests with both countries as being a more delicate issue over the next few years, or are they completely separate from each other?
STEPHEN SMITH: Well, can I say, it's actually possible to have a very good relationship with the United States, a very good relationship with Japan, a very good relationship with China, and indeed a very good relationship with India.
It's possible to have all of those individual, very good bilateral relationships that don't adversely impact on any of the others, and that is what we are doing.
We have an alliance with United States. It remains the indispensable bedrock so far as our security, strategic and defence arrangements are concerned. We have a growing economic relationship with China. We have a strategic, security and economic partnership with Japan. We have a relationship with India which we want to take to an even higher level, given the emergence not just of China in this century but also of India.
It's not a zero sum game, it's actually - you are actually able to have very good economic, investment, people-to-people and bilateral relations with all of these countries without that adversely impacting on any of the others. And that's what we believe we are doing and what we believe we can do into the future.
Thanks very much. Cheers.
Ends
Media Inquiries: Foreign Minister's office (02) 6277 7500