Interview with Fran Kelly – Radio National

Subjects: Speech on foreign policy and national security, Zimbabwe, PM visit to China, Beijing Olympics

FRAN KELLY: A little while ago we had the Federal Treasurer in our Breakfast studio, now the Foreign Affairs Minister Stephen Smith is in the chair. Last night Stephen Smith gave a major speech on foreign policy and national security at the annual Australian Strategic Policy Institute dinner. He promised quote ‘fresh thinking on solving regional and global security challenges’, there was also an acknowledgment last night that Australia and the world had to be more active in tackling the poverty and despair, that is one of the things leading to modern terrorism.

Stephen Smith, thanks for joining us this morning.

STEPHEN SMITH: Good morning Fran.

FRAN KELLY: Minister, last night you talked about a new international era in foreign policy, and a key role for Australia helping to shape a stronger, rules-based order for the modern world, in practical terms what does that mean?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well what the speech was about was the need for a modern foreign policy in the new era. In national security terms, for example, traditionally we’ve looked at conventional military assets of nation states and people have responded accordingly. That’s much too narrow a focus these days. Look at the challenges we face; international terrorism, transnational crime, we have the potential for degradation and despair arising from dangerous climate change or pandemic. These are all great challenges in strategic and security terms. They can’t be met by an individual nation state acting by itself and so the whole thrust of the speech last night was to say we’ve got to go back to an era or an approach where Australia plays much more of a role in regional and multilateral institutions.

Australia is a significant and considerable nation, but there are a whole range of things we can’t do by ourselves. Climate change is a classic illustration. Climate change tells you the futility of either doing nothing or trying to do it by yourself. So essentially, it’s consistent with our theme that we have got to take a much more active role in those international institutions, the United Nations, economically the IMF where the Treasurer is off to and if we strengthen those institutions we also strengthen our own national interest as a nation state.

FRAN KELLY: Couldn’t it be argued, though, that we are already, Australia under the Howard government’s foreign policy, was already working with others in tackling, for instance, in the war on terror. I mean last night you spoke of ‘tackling poverty and despair that give rise to modern terrorism’ that’s a quote from the speech. Is that an acknowledgement that we’ve got the language if not the game plan wrong, that the so-called war on terror will never be won on the battle fields of Iraq or Afghanistan is something more than that?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well, we have got to be if I could steal a United Kingdom phrase in a different context, we’ve got to be tough on terror but also tough on the causes of terrorism. One of the points I made last night is that, when there is an intervention, a military intervention, a peacekeeping intervention to try and create peace and stability it’s not peace and stability for peace and stability’s sake, it’s to try and create an environment where a nation state can grow. That’s why in the interventions that we’ve made whether it’s East Timor, the Solomon Islands, Iraq, or Afghanistan, our whole approach, the new government’s approach is not just creating peace and stability but doing the development assistance, building capacity of a nations state trying to make the humanitarian assistance to give a nation state the capacity to manage it’s own affairs, improve it’s education, it’s training so that those nation states can also share in the sorts of prosperity that we have. So its ...

FRAN KELLY: But that’s the thing in Afghanistan, it’s easier said than done.

STEPHEN SMITH: Of course it’s easier said than done, but the option is we do nothing. I mean, Afghanistan, I think, is a very good example. We’ve got a substantial military commitment there; we’ve been urging the international community in recent weeks and months to make a greater military contribution, but also to make a greater reconstruction contribution. Of course, one of the other things I referred to in the speech is, we’d all prefer to see pre-conflict resolution than post-conflict reconstruction. But where you do have a conflict you’ve got to have the reconstruction and that’s a very important part of, for example, our ongoing role in Iraq. But it’s also central to what we do in Afghanistan, and also the Solomon’s for example and East Timor.

FRAN KELLY: Well, let’s talk about Zimbabwe now and this notion of helping to shape a stronger, rules based order for the modern world takes us straight there. We spoke to Sekai Holland yesterday, she won a Senate seat in these elections for the MDC and she was pleading for the international community to help, asking why Zimbabwe isn’t being discussed in the UN Security Council.

Has the world response been too weak?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well, I think the international community hasn’t been paying enough attention to Zimbabwe. I think there is a good development this morning and that is that of the development from the South African development community with the Zambian President calling an extraordinary summit of the Development Community on the weekend.

The key states in the South African development community so far as Zimbabwe is concerned are South Africa, Zambia and Tanzania. I’ve become very quite pessimistic in the last couple of days about what’s accuring in Zimbabwe.

I think now its quite clear that Mugabe ZANU-PF, his forces, his regime are getting right back to their old tricks, they’re either going to try and steal the election in a second round run-off, or they’re going to try and rort the poll and not even bother with a second round run-off.

It’s absolutely essential in the first instance that the African Unions states and the South African Development Community states start putting the pressure right on Mugabe to get the election result out there. And then if there is a second round run-off to make sure that we’ve got an effective team of international observers starting with the African states, but we stand ready, able and willing to assist and the United Kingdom have made that same point.

FRAN KELLY: And then our determination to be a more active—what is it—middle power, are you actively making calls on this, internationally trying to agitate?

STEPHEN SMITH: I’ve spoken to my South African colleague, I’ve spoken to my Tanzanian colleague, the Prime Minister spoke to President Mbeki in London when they were there for the Progressive Leaders meeting with Gordon Brown, and when I’ve made those calls I’ve made the point, that one of the reasons that I’m making the calls is because Australia has a renewed interest in Africa.

I think Africa is an area which we have sadly neglected in the recent period. There is, having said that, a long standing interest in the Australian community in firstly Rhodesia and Zimbabwe. There are actually two expatriate communities in Australia. You’ve got a Rhodesian community and a Zimbabwean community: people who came to Australia when Ian Smith was still the Prime Minister, and you’ve had people who have come to Australia following majority rules. So there is a keen interest, but its effectively not in our patch it’s a bit further away than the Asia-Pacific, but there are long standing contacts between South Africa and Zimbabwe. We have a responsibility in my view to make our voice known and we have been doing that strongly and robustly both publicly and with the relevant nation states.

FRAN KELLY: It’s 13 past 8 on Breakfast. Our guest this morning is Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith. Minister, Kevin Rudd got a few laughs from Chinese students yesterday when he delivered that speech in Mandrin, but, not so happy are the Chinese authorities it would seem with the message he delivered on human rights, are you easy and comfortable with the way the Prime Minister is delivering that message, is there a need to be—I don’t know how you nuance these things— but have we gone out a bit too hard on this?

STEPHEN SMITH: Absolutely not. Can I make this point Fran, the government started making public comments about Tibet in the middle of March, and from the first moment we made our public comments, public comments by me and by the Prime Minister, Chinese officials in both Beijing and Canberra indicated they were unhappy with the remarks we had made. So we’ve been consistent in our remarks about Tibet, we want the Chinese to exercise restraint, we want an effective dialogue, and we want human rights to be respected. What the Prime Minister said yesterday in Beijing is pretty much what he and I have been saying all along. Of course it does add a dimension for a leader of a nation state to say it in Beijing and to say it in Mandarin, of course that makes the point. But we do not resile, for one moment, for the robust view that we have taken about the need for openness, transparency, a dialogue with the Dalai Lama and human rights in Tibet.

FRAN KELLY: Given the strong China reaction though too, relatively mild comments and as you’ve say not new comments from our Prime Minister, I mean what hope really, of engagement by China on these issues?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well we think, one of the reasons we don’t ...

FRAN KELLY: It’s incredibly sensitive.

STEPHEN SMITH: One of the reasons we don’t support a boycott of the Olympics is we think that international engagement by China and with China is a very good thing to do. Now that may be regarded as an old fashioned view but I think it’s an important point. The more we have international community engagement with China the better off China will be and the better off international community will be.

FRAN KELLY: And just finally before I let you go, you mentioned the Olympics the whole torch relay it’s just been almost derailed in San Francisco, I think the routes had to change again at the last minute. I mean really is there any point in pursuing this, should Canberra, are we at the point of saying, let’s not bring it here and in future, you know, is there no point in this?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well, its what the International Olympic Committee do with the torch relay is a matter of International Olympic Committee, we’ve indicated all along, we’re quite happy to have the torch relay, we welcome it, the security arrangements are in the first instance a matter for the ACT government and ACT policing but obviously there’s been co-ordination with relevant commonwealth authorities.

FRAN KELLY: And just on that, we are definitely saying no to China to those blue tracksuited paramilitary.

STEPHEN SMITH: Well, we have made it clear that security will be affected by Australians, that there won’t be Chinese security involved in any aspect of the torch relay in Canberra. Can I also make this point? I think it is a matter of some significant disappointment that the spirit of the Olympics in a sense has been lost with the torch relay. Yes I absolutely accept and enthusiastically support the notion of people to peaceably express their point of view and to protest in a peaceful manner. I thought frankly that peaceful protest could have been done in a manner which allowed the spirit and the dignity of the Olympics to continue. We haven’t seen that overseas. If the Olympic federation determines that the torch relay should continue in Australia, then I hope at least in Australia we can have a combination of peaceful and peaceable protests, where people make their points as very central to Australian society. But where there is some dignity associated with the torch and therefore some spirit and dignity associated with the run up to the Olympics.

FRAN KELLY: Stephen Smith, Thank you very much for joining us.

STEPHEN SMITH: Thank you very much Fran.

Ends

Media Inquiries: Foreign Minister's office (02) 6277 7500