Interview on ABC Lateline

Subjects: Zimbabwe, Afghanistan

TONY JONES, PRESENTER: Stephen Smith is Australia's Foreign Minister as you've just seen and he joins us now from our Canberra studio.

Thanks for being there.

STEPHEN SMITH, FOREIGN AFFAIRS MINISTER: Pleasure Tony.

JONES: Now, Zimbabwe's Ambassador is skipping the country without prior notice. Is he doing a runner?

SMITH: Well, no, officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade spoke to him this evening. The advice that we have is that he's going home for effectively personal leave for some four to six weeks. In accordance with the usual processes the Zimbabwean Embassy will formally appoint an acting Ambassador. I'm told that will occur tomorrow. So he's returning home for personal leave, and in that respect, it's pretty much business as usual.

JONES: So you didn't know this was happening up until today, I gather?

SMITH: No, today we received, through media reports, that he was intending to return home, and as a consequence of that, the Department had a conversation with him this evening, and clarified his intentions in the manner that I have outlined.

JONES: Alright, as a parting gift he's closed the door on Australia or international election monitors because of what he calls political and media bias. At what point in this charade will you have to put Mugabe's abuses before the United Nations Security Council for some form of resolution?

SMITH: Well, let me just deal firstly with the comments of the Ambassador. Australia has diplomatic relations with nation states not governments, we respect the Vienna Convention, so the Ambassador is perfectly entitled to put a view on behalf of his nation and Government. We just happen to have a view which is stridently and strongly in disagreement with the brutal Mugabe regime, and we have made that point clear for a considerable period of time, certainly since we came to office.

It's quite clear to us that having tried to steal the first Presidential count by rorting the count itself, Mr Mugabe is now trying to steal the second Presidential run off by a campaign of violence, intimidation and fear. And because we have been making that point strongly, we, of course, cop a bit of flak from Mr Mugabe. We have made it clear we are prepared to offer election observers, but we are not expecting, frankly, that we'll be asked to proceed in that manner.

We are pleased that the South African Development Community states have already supplied about 130 monitors with expectations of another three to four hundred, and that's a good thing. The Security Council has already had a conversation or a discussion about Zimbabwe, but if, as we think now appears more likely than not, Mr Mugabe does successfully steel this election, it's quite clear the international community and the Security Council are going to have to do much more to try and bring him effectively to brook.

JONES: So would Australia be prepared to take this matter to the Security Council. Are the wheels in motion for that to happen?

SMITH: Can I say, firstly, whilst I am deeply sceptical and deeply concerned that the prospect of a full and free and fair election in Zimbabwe is receding, it's not beyond the bounds of possibility, and it's not beyond some analysis that the Zimbabwe people’s condemnation of the Mugabe regime is such that despite the intimidation, despite the brutality, despite the arrests of Mr Tsvangirai, and the campaign of intimidation, that Mr Tsvangirai might be successful.

So for the present I'm happy to in a sense keep our powder dry until we see the actual outcome. But what has brought on the recent round of concern was Mr Mugabe over the weekend essentially saying that he would use whatever means he could, including violence, to win the election, and if he lost it he wouldn't respect the will of the people. But there is, let's keep a scintilla of hope that such is the view of him that Mr Tsvangirai might actually be successful.

If Mr Mugabe does win through this campaign, Australia and the international community will then have to make some pretty clear judgements about what further action we can then prosecute against Mr Mugabe's regime, and a conversation before the Security Council is obviously one of those options.

JONES: Under what circumstances would the United Nations be empowered to intervene in Zimbabwe under the doctrine of the responsibility to protect. That means the responsibility to protect Zimbabwean people?

SMITH: Certainly the notion of a responsibility to protect is an emerging thesis or doctrine in international law. It's probably not yet there finally in practice, but it's certainly a merging doctrine that Australia supports in principle, because we've just seen too many examples where either the use of veto before the Security Council, or slowness off the mark by regional organisations, has seen terrible human tragedies.

The difficulty before the Security Council, indeed, even the most recent conversations, is some of the permanent members effectively applying a veto. But my open instinct is if we do see Mr Mugabe ultimately emerge successful from his point of view, then we do have too look at what further measures we can take.

When I was recently, for example, in the United Kingdom I made it clear to my counterpart Mr Miliband that Australia was already giving consideration to what further sanctions, if any, we might be able to impose in our own right. But what is required here is not just Australia contemplating acting by itself, it's regional and multilateral action, and so far as the regional action is concerned, that primary responsibility has to be sheeted home to the southern African community states and the African Union.

JONES: In that regard you must be disappointed that South Africa, the most powerful neighbour of Zimbabwe, has done so little up until now. And there seems to be a sense emerging there that they won't do anything to impede Robert Mugabe because he's a fellow liberation movement leader. Is that a worry to you?

SMITH: In the last couple of days we have seen statements by South African leaders, including the President, which have been more encouraging than we have seen in the past. But I think it is true to say that the international community has been somewhat disappointed by the lack of robustness on the part of the President and the South African Government. We have seen other members of the South African Development Community states taking and playing a more robust role both publicly and privately, and again we simply urge that upon not just South Africa, but the other African Union and South African Community Development states.

JONES: Let's look at Afghanistan now, where some 600 or more Taliban prisoners are still at large after a military operation to free them from a prison in Kandahar. Doesn't the scale and the ease of that operation indicate how tenuous a grip the allies have on the southern part of the country?

SMITH: There's no doubt that in the south, whether it's Kandahar or Oruzgan province where Australian forces are, it is difficult and dangerous. I have recently gone to Afghanistan, to Kabul and where Australian troops are. And I've gone recently to the Afghanistan donor's conference in Paris. There's no doubt that whilst you can argue, I think, objectively that circumstances have improved, we are dealing here with a very difficult and dangerous exercise, and Australian troops are in some of the most dangerous parts. This is a long term project both on the military enforcement side and the civilian nation building side.

There's no point beating around the bush. This was a very successful, unfortunately, operation by the Taliban. The numbers vary, 1100 odd prisoners, maybe 300-400 on some estimates only associated with the Taliban. But this has been a significant blow to not just morale, but to the fight against the Taliban in the Kandahar region.

JONES: We heard from that eyewitness, a doctor, a teacher I believe it was, living in the town who says the Taliban are at the doorstep of the city in villages around the city, they are taking control of the villages. It sounds like a major operation is going to have to be undertaken to sweep them back out of there, yet this has to happen against a backdrop of large amount of support for them in these places.

SMITH: Well, firstly, I have no reports to that effect. I am not saying that that account is not necessarily accurate. All I'm saying is I have no report to that effect, that's the first point. Secondly, so far as Kandahar is concerned, the rounding up operation, if you like, or trying to deal with the adverse consequences of the prison break, it's being conducted by Afghan forces in conjunction with the international security force.

In Kandahar we've had for a period of time both British and Canadians who are active. There's a small number of Australians located at the airport, which is some way from the prison, so we don't regard them as being in difficulty or danger. They are not involved in the round up, they are essentially logistics - there are some air traffic controllers, some helicopter support and logistics staff and the likes. So in terms of potential adverse impacts on Australian forces, for the present we are satisfied that that is not adding to our concern.

But, of course, as I have made clear both when I was at Paris for the Afghan Donor's Conference and in the House today, we regard Afghanistan as very difficult and dangerous. We were pleased in the aftermath of the Bucharest conference that there was an increased NATO commitment. We were pleased in the Paris conference that there was an increased international community commitment to nation building and capacity building.

I think the four main difficulties in Afghanistan are the security issues, which we are talking about now. The adverse consequences of narcotics and the poppy fields in Afghanistan, then we need to get good governance into the Afghan Government, and we've got to build capacity amongst the State institutions. This was the theme of the Afghan conference: that we have to parallel track the nation building with the military or combat enforcement. No one is under an illusion about the difficult nature and the long term nature of both those task. But the Australian Government is very strongly of the view that pursuing that with the international community is absolutely in our national interest and in the international community's security interest.

JONES: Moving on. You are sending Martin Ferguson to the global oil conference in Saudi Arabia to apply the blowtorch to OPEC.

SMITH: The Saudi administration, the Saudi King and the Saudi Government, have called the high level meeting. They have also indicated that as an oil producer they are proposing to produce more. And this is unquestionably a good thing. The more supply there is, the more prospect there is that that will bring some lessening of pressure on prices. So our Energy Minister Martin Ferguson will be attending, and if the effect of that conference is to confirm the Saudis indication that they will be producing more, it will encourage other oil producers and OPEC nation states to do likewise, producing more, then that will be a good thing. But the initiative was one of the Saudi King, who invited, in the first instance, leaders...

JONES: Okay, what I'm really getting at here is the Prime Minister obviously said the blowtorch should be applied to OPEC, that didn't happen, after the G8 Finance Ministers' talkfest. They didn't do anything much. And so I am wondering whether we are going to see some robust talks, plying of the blowtorch, by Mr Ferguson at this meeting.

SMITH: Well just as I made a contribution in the House today on Afghanistan, Mr Ferguson made a contribution in the House on this subject. He's a pretty robust fellow, and his comments were robust. But I think the qualitative difference, and I think if one wants to talk about glimmer of hope or optimism, is that this is actually an initiative, voluntary initiative of an oil producer, of a substantial oil producer, of an OPEC producer, and that of itself, I think, it a good sign. That, I think, has got more potential to encourage other OPEC oil producers to be producing more and supplying more to relieve pressure on the price.

JONES: Okay, finally, Stephen Smith, are you aware of a pattern of unacceptable behaviour from your MP Belinda Neal?

SMITH: Well, I simply repeat the comments that the Prime Minister's made. The Prime Minister has made it clear that he thinks that members of Parliament, people elected to public office, whether Ministers or Members, need to conduct themselves to high standards. He made the point clear in the House today that a number of instances which fell short of that high standard. He's made that point very clear and he sent that message both to the Parliament and to all members of Parliament. And I think that is a good thing. We are very fortunate to be elected to office, and we need to conduct ourselves to those high standards.

JONES: So you don't think Belinda Neal is being singled out unfairly here.

SMITH: Well in some respects all members of Parliament are singled out.

JONES: I mean in terms of what is going on, the Prime Minister's talking about her pattern of behaviour, very specifically.

SMITH: Because the Prime Minister has formed a view that her pattern of behaviour over a period of time was unacceptable and he's made that point. But I think all of us in the Parliament, we're all volunteers Tony, we all try to get into the place. When we do get into the place, what we try and do is to do good deeds and to make the place better, to make the nation better for its people.

But because we are privileged we are obliged to meet community standards. Indeed sometimes even higher than community standards, and when we fall short of those we all suffer the consequences both individually and collectively. And I think that's the point the Prime Minister is making and I think it's a point which the community will whole heatedly agree with.

JONES: Stephen Smith, the volunteer Foreign Minister of Australia, we thank you very much for joining us tonight on 'Lateline'.

SMITH: Always a volunteer for Lateline on Monday and Tuesdays, Tony. Thanks very much.

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