Interview, The Times (London)

at the International Conference in Support of Afghanistan, Paris

Journalist: The international conference on Afghanistan now over, what’s your assessment of it?

Stephen Smith: I think it has been a success, that’s the first thing. But the sequel – or the truth – will be in long-term success. No-one under-appreciates or underestimates the difficulty of the task. But I think we have had two things in recent months. We’ve had the Bucharest conference where we’ve seen an improved and an increased international commitment on the military side. But you can’t have a military enforcement action which gives you peace and security for peace and security’s sake; you’ve got to build the nation as well. So, we’ve now got the Paris equivalent on the civil side, where you’ve had an enhanced international community commitment, including Australia’s $250 million over three years; with about $20 billion dollars from the conference.

Journalist: Is that Australian dollars?

Smith: Yes, ours is. It’s a hundred million over the London contribution. The key is, I think, a realisation that the international community has to keep on playing a continuing role, but the Afghan Government has to start taking some responsibility.

Journalist: They’re not taking enough, or any, at the moment?

Smith: Well no, I’m not saying that. I mean, off a low basis, they’ve done very, very well. And I think that is the sentiment of the conference, whether it’s economic growth in some of the provinces, whether it’s having a parliamentary system of elections, whether it’s an improved security arrangement, whether it’s an improved capacity on their own part to help the security, off a very, very low base, this is progress. But there is a lot more to be done.

Journalist: How much is President Karzai being blamed, personally, for what’s gone wrong so far?

Smith: Well, I think he has been given credit for the things that have gone right. Is any administration perfect? No. And that includes administrations where you have long standing, enduring adherence to democracy and where you’ve got a capacity to do things.

Journalist: I know the starting point was very low for him. Well, President Sarkozy’s endorsement of him was strong today.

Smith: Yes.

Journalist: Is that surprising?

Smith: No. What’s the alternative? If there’s an alternative, the people of Afghanistan will discover that alternative when they next go to the polls. Just to finish a point. What are the real challenges? There is the ongoing security challenge. There is the ongoing need to seek to impose or maintain peace and security over terrorism and extremism. That’s one challenge. The second challenge is the capacity of their State institutions to do the job. There is clearly a huge job to be done, to do the best with their capacity. Then we have good governance. It’s quite clearly the case that we need to improve and enhance their good governance. And finally narcotics. They are, in my view, the essential four points of difficulty. Now, how do we address those? The international community has got its role to play but at some point in the cycle – if we’re going to have an Afghanistan where the Afghani Government, and the Afghani people manage their own affairs – there’s got to be a transmission of responsibility.

Journalist: The message has got through today about corruption, it seems. That seems to be, on the media side, that’s been the dominant . . . (inaudible)

Smith: Well, it’s one thing. I regard the challenges of good governance as one of the four main key challenges, which were – if you have a look at the Australian statement to the conference – that was essentially the thematic.

Journalist: Australia, as far as its troops are concerned, forgive me if I’m wrong, you’ve withdrawn the combat –

Smith: No, that’s Iraq. We’ve got 1100, between 1000 and 1100, nearly 1100, in Oruzgan province, in Tarin Kowt. I was there on Sunday. It’s some of the toughest fighting areas. We are, of course, very worried about the border issue – incursions from Pakistan and retreat back to Pakistan. That has potentially serious, deleterious consequences for our nearly 1100 personnel there.

We’ve made it clear that we regard our contribution, both military and civil – or capacity building – as a long-term commitment. We’re not proposing to increase our military contribution. And I’ve left the door open to looking at increasing our civil contribution. As I said in my statement, our $250 million is a minimum contribution. A hundred million dollar pledge more than the London contribution. In the event, our contribution was substantially over that. But we won’t be enhancing our military.

Meanwhile, in Iraq, we’ve taken out our so-called Overwatch Battle Group. One of the other things I’ve done in recent days is to have gone to Baghdad and seen and spoken to some of our troops who are going home from Iraq. At the same time we have also given, I announced when I was there, a one-hundred-and-sixty-million- dollar contribution over three years for Iraq …

Journalist: That is Australian dollars?

Smith: Yes, which is nearly at parity with the US dollar.

Journalist: Your Defence Minister said I think that Afghanistan is going to be a very, very long haul.

Smith: I think that’s right. In Tarin Kowt we have Special Forces, who will essentially seek to secure the peace. Then we’ve got a reconstruction arm, which then comes in, builds a base and seeks to build the community, to allow the locals to essentially have what we would regard as a normal existence, when they can go about their daily life without being oppressed. That takes a long time. I said in my own statement today that the issues we’re talking about go beyond the five years of the Afghan national development strategy.

Why is Australia in Afghanistan? When we came to office, one of the things – perhaps the only thing – that caused us to, sort of break our stride a bit, was when we received advice on Afghanistan and we were struck by what we regarded as a much more deleterious state-of-affairs than we had appreciated from Opposition. So we looked at it exhaustively and we came very strongly to the conclusion that it was in our national interest to be there and in the international community’s interest to be there. Why’s that? We regard Afghanistan, and the areas near the Pakistan border, as being central to international terrorism which these days is very mobile. To the north, to Europe; to the South, to South-East Asia. We’ve already seen the adverse consequences of terrorist activity in South-East Asia and it’s not very enjoyable. So our approach was: continue with our military commitment but we had to add to that the nation-building characteristics, which are what this conference has been about.

Journalist: Just to branch a bit into Iraq. What’s your new government’s assessment of the whole situation there?

Smith: I think pretty much as we’ve seen through public commentary in recent months. Improved and we hope improving. I was in Baghdad on Tuesday and had a meeting with the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister and spoke to our own officials, and whilst it’s a very tight security environment, the general view is that things have improved in recent times and are on the improve. There’s a general view that the recent operation had some beneficial consequences. Both the surge and -

Journalist: Your government’s been pretty critical about some of the handling in the past –

Smith: Well, we never supported an Australian military contribution in Iraq and we went to the election with a specific, express election commitment, to return those troops to Australia. We’ve done that in consultation with the United States, the United Kingdom and Iraq and as an extraction of forces it’s gone very well. We’re very pleased with the logistical outcome and we’re also very proud of the job they’ve done in both Iraq and Afghanistan, whether it’s on the military side or the civilian side, there’s nothing but praise for the contribution the Aussie contingents have made.

Journalist: Just on your Defence Minister. Your Defence Minister I think has been very critical of the European commitment to Afghanistan.

Smith: Well, in the run-up to Bucharest, we came to the conclusion that this was a serious issue that was in our national interest to address and in the international community’s interest to address and we argued very strongly that two things had to occur. An enhanced military contribution and commitment from NATO and from the international community generally, and also on the civilian side. So we were very robust, and quite rightly in my view, about the need for an enhanced contribution. We’re pleased with the Bucharest outcome. We’ve seen such an enhanced contribution.

Journalist: You’re pleased with the French, I guess.

Smith: Absolutely.

Journalist: You talked to (French Foreign Minister) Mr Kouchner.

Smith: I had a bilateral with Mr Kouchner and made that point to him – that we were pleased with that contribution.

Journalist: Do you get the impression that French policy has changed greatly towards Iraq and towards the United States, just from your dealings with Mr Kouchner?

Smith: My dealing with Mr Kouchner was a very open, very cooperative approach; wanting to be open, wanting to work closely – not just with European countries but with other like-minded countries. So I found him very positive, very constructive, very open.

Journalist: Have you worked with the French ...

Smith: Well, it was my first dealing with ...

Journalist: The French have changed enormously since the election of Mr Sarkozy.

Smith: New governments, both in France and Australia, often do this.

Journalist: Thank you very much.

Smith: Thank you.

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