Newshour, Australia Network

JIM MIDDLETON: Stephen Smith, welcome to Newshour.

STEPHEN SMITH: Thank you Jim.

MIDDLETON: At the Food Security Conference in Rome, Ban Ki-moon called for a 50 per cent increase in world food production. That seems like a pretty heroic ambition?

SMITH: Well I think increasing yield and increasing production is very important to addressing the food security issue into the longer term. It's quite clear from my attendance at the conference that there is a, if you like, a general overwhelming view that we've got to have two things.

Firstly, an immediate humanitarian response for those areas which are really suffering a humanitarian crisis as a result of increased food prices. And that's why, for example, Australia has announced a $30 million contribution to the World Food Programme. So there's the immediate humanitarian assistance.

But then, secondly, in the longer term we've got to address some structural issues that go to increase of production, that goes to using scientific and research techniques to adapt to some of the adverse consequences of climate change or drought conditions. And we also very strongly believe that it also means we've got to be much more robust and serious about trade liberalisation and trade reforms so far as agricultural products are concerned.

So in a time when we've got increasing food prices, increasing fuel prices, higher input costs, and climate change, and diversion of food stocks to biofuel, increasing production, increasing yield is very important. Australia agrees with that and we're also very well placed because our agricultural research in this area is very, very highly regarded. So we think we've got a contribution to make on those longer term issues as well.

MIDDLETON: On that question of the immediate humanitarian response, I noticed that on Australia's account you're boosting food aid to Pakistan, Zimbabwe, and North Korea. Why reward Robert Mugabe and Pyongyang which have both used food aid as a political weapon?

SMITH: Well, because we take a very strong view that whilst both in the case of North Korea and Zimbabwe and in Burma, we have a very dim view of those regimes, we've always had the view that our humanitarian obligations require that we make a contribution direct to the people of Burma, Zimbabwe, or North Korea, as the case may be.

So I've announced today that in addition to the $30 million that we made available to the World Food Programme, we're providing an extra $9 million for Pakistan for areas close to the Afghanistan border, $8 million for Zimbabwe, and $2 million for North Korea. That will all be done through the World Food Programme which maximises the prospects of the food aid being delivered...

MIDDLETON: And you're sure, are you, that it will be delivered to the people who need it, that it will not be corrupted either by Pyongyang or by Mugabe?

SMITH: Well, certainly by doing it through the World Food Programme which is a very highly regarded international organisation, we maximise that chance. We know, for example, in the case of Burma where we very strongly were of the view that the Burmese regime had to open up to international assistance, that when we made a direct contribution there was a risk that some of that would be diverted. But our judgement was to be a good international citizen, to discharge what we regarded our humanitarian obligations, we are better off doing things to try and get some through than sitting on our hands and doing nothing. But doing it through the World Food Programme maximises that.

I have been very very strongly critical of the brutal Mugabe regime. I thought it was, frankly, an obscenity that Mr Mugabe turned up to Rome. This is a leader who inherited one of the world's premier agricultural nations who destroyed that industry, and has seen starvation and has used Food Aid as a political weapon against his people. So it was an obscenity that he's there. But we believe we can actually help directly the people of Zimbabwe by making that contribution through the World Food Programme. We think it reflects the fact that Australia wants to be a good international citizen. And trying to alleviate a food crisis in a humanitarian away, we think, is an appropriate thing to do. And that in some respects more particularly applies to those nation states where a regime doesn't respect the human rights of the people, whether it's North Korea, Burma or Zimbabwe.

MIDDLETON: As you note, this is an immediate problem, an immediate crisis. Prices of food has risen by nearly 60 per cent in a year, there have been food riots in many parts of the world. And yet it doesn't seem to me that the Rome conference has produced any immediate solutions. And noble though $30 million on Australia's part is, that's not going to solve it, is it?

SMITH: I think what the Rome conference has done is it has crystallised the fact that we've now got both an immediate and a long-term crisis here that the international community needs to respond to. The fact that Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary General, has taken such a high profile, the fact that the Rome conference will just feed into both Ban Ki-moon's UN task force, into the G8 meeting itself coming up in Japan in the next few weeks. But also the Secretary General tells me his intention is to also have food prices and food crisis a highlight of the UN General Assembly in September of this year.

So I think what it's done is crystallise the need for the international community to be active, but also I think made the point that if all we do is deal with the immediate humanitarian crisis, we'll be doing that year-in year-out. We do actually have to make some structural changes.

MIDDLETON: You're in London obviously. You've been speaking to your British counterpart David Miliband. How pessimistic is he about the state of play in Afghanistan?

SMITH: Well, I don't want to put words into his mouth. I had a very productive meeting with David Miliband, my counterpart. And Afghanistan was one of the issues we spoke about; also the very good relationship between Australia and the United Kingdom, Australia's desire to increase its relationship with the European Union, but also touched upon issues of joint concern, Burma, Zimbabwe.

On Afghanistan, I think it's true to say that we both believe that the Bucharest conference was a productive conference, that that made the point that there needs to be a greater commitment in terms of military or combat commitment, both from NATO nations but also from the international community generally. But also I think the Foreign Secretary's view is the same as the Australian Government's view which is it can't just be an enforcement or a combat contribution. We also have to see a considerable commitment so far as humanitarian assistance but also capacity building, nation building is concerned.

There's a donors conference for Afghanistan coming up in the next few weeks, and that will be an important forum for solidifying that point; that it can't just be in Afghanistan, peace and security for peace and security's sake. We've also got to try and give the Afghanistan government and people the capacity to manage their own affairs and to make a contribution on the civil side which goes to building their capacity: whether it's training police, whether it's training doctors, whether it's helping their agricultural industry, making those civil society contributions to give them the chance to ultimately manage their own affairs.

MIDDLETON: But can the Taliban now be defeated militarily? Increasingly expert opinion suggests not. The Chief of the Australian Defence Force, Angus Houston, is saying that in Oruzgan province there aren't the numbers of troops to contain them, or can contain them but not to defeat them. How pessimistic was Mr Miliband about the military contest?

SMITH: Well, I'm not proposing to categorise his demeanour, but simply say this; I don't think there is any rose-coloured or starry-eyed view about how difficult the Afghanistan situation is. I've made that clear in the past, as has Prime Minister Rudd, as has Defence Minister Fitzgibbon.

But we think it is very much in Australia's national interest and in the international community's interest for a considerable commitment to be made in Afghanistan to stare down what we regard effectively as a hotbed of international terrorism. Is it difficult? Yes. Will it take a long-term long-haul commitment? Yes. Is it going to be an issue which is resolved overnight in an easy way? No, it won’t. It requires the considerable resolve of the international community. But we think that is unambiguously in Australia's national interest and in the international community's interest.

And one of the good things coming out of Bucharest was an enhanced contribution from a range of NATO states, and I haven't seen anyone out there arguing that anyone should necessarily be reducing its commitment. But a range of nations, both NATO and otherwise, are making a contribution. We were pleased with the outcome from Bucharest but we need to drive the results of the Bucharest conference home, both in terms of the military or combat or enforcement contribution, but also the civil or nation building or capacity building contribution that I've referred to.

MIDDLETON: Stephen Smith, thank you very much for your time.

SMITH: Thanks Jim.

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