E&OE
25 June 2008
Press Conference, Parliament House, Canberra
Subjects: Zimbabwe, Visit to Japan, High Commissioner to London
STEPHEN SMITH: Well, thanks very much; sorry I'm a bit late. This evening I leave for Japan, travelling to Tokyo and Kyoto. The purpose of the visit is for a trilateral strategic dialogue with the United States and with Japan. This will take place in Kyoto on Friday.
This will be the third such ministerial trilateral strategic dialogue between Australia, Japan and the United States. It'll be the first since November 2006. It'll be the first that I attend, the first that my Japanese counterpart, Mr Koumura attends, and the third that US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice attends.
Kyoto, of course, this week we see the meeting of the G8 foreign ministers, so having the trilateral strategic dialogue in Kyoto on Friday affords the opportunity of a series of bilateral meetings with G8 foreign ministers, and I'll be having bilaterals with a number of my G8 foreign ministerial counterparts, including United Kingdom, France, Canada and Germany.
The trilateral strategic dialogue is, of course, a very important part of the relationship between Australia and Japan, and between Australia, Japan and the United States.
It provides the opportunity of discussing at a strategic level a range of regional and global issues. So far as regional issues are concerned, we will certainly be having a conversation about Afghanistan and Pakistan, also Burma, and I'll be pursuing or following up the Prime Minister's conversation with the Japanese Prime Minister recently looking forward to better integration so far as disaster assistance and humanitarian assistance in our region is concerned.
I'll also take the opportunity of having bilaterals with the US Secretary of State and my Japanese counterpart, Mr Koumura, and with both these bilaterals and with G8 foreign ministers, I'll be discussing Zimbabwe.
If I can just make some remarks about Zimbabwe, Australia, of course, has been at the forefront of both action and dialogue so far as Zimbabwe is concerned. And we've indicated in the last couple of days that we are looking at what further, if any, sanctions we can impose on Zimbabwe.
Australia has been at the forefront of sanctions, together with the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Australia has been for some time at the forefront of sanctions against Zimbabwe.
We're looking particularly at extending our sanctions so far as travel is concerned, extending the list or the ambit of members of the regime or Zimbabweans associated with the regime to be subject to travel sanctions.
I've also been in the last 24 hours in conversation with some of my ministerial counterparts in southern Africa. We've been saying for some time that the primary responsibility for progress in Zimbabwe falls upon the Southern African Development Community states and the African Union states.
Yesterday, I spoke to my counterparts from Zambia and Tanzania. Zambia and Tanzania, of course, currently hold the presidency respectively of the Southern African Development Community states and the African Union. And plans are under way today for me to speak to the Vice President of Botswana and also to speak to the South African Foreign Minister, Dlamini Zuma.
The SADC, the Southern African Development Community, states have an emergency meeting today, and we will, of course, be monitoring very closely the outcome of that meeting.
In my conversations with my southern African colleagues, I've been making the point that we very much welcome the much more robust comments that we've seen emerge from Zimbabwe's neighbours over recent days, and we do see the primary responsibility falling on SADC and the African Union.
We've also welcomed very much the comments by the UN Secretary General and the statement by the Security Council so far as Zimbabwe is concerned. We're urging, through our mission in New York, upon the Secretary General a couple of suggestions.
Firstly, that there be a full and open debate before the Security Council on Zimbabwe, in which Australia would have the opportunity of putting its point of view, and also suggesting to the Secretary General that he appoint an envoy or special representative with the job of having a dialogue with the Southern African Development Community states and the African Union on Zimbabwe.
It's quite clear that Mr Mugabe has no electoral or democratic legitimacy whatsoever. And even if Mr Mugabe continues with perpetrating the fraud of a poll on Friday, he can't be given any legitimacy and we again call upon the neighbouring African states to bring as much pressure to bear as is possible on Mr Mugabe.
I'm happy to take your questions on the trilateral strategic dialogue and bilaterals with the G8 foreign ministers and Zimbabwe, or any other issues of interest to you.
QUESTION: Mr Smith, overnight you asked Robert Hill to call for the Security Council to hold an open debate.
SMITH: Yes.
QUESTION: Now, at what stage will, or should, the Security Council consider military intervention in Zimbabwe, given that some believe that what Mugabe's up to is no more than genocide?
SMITH: Well firstly, I don't think that the international community will move in the first instance, or quickly, or necessarily at all to military intervention in Zimbabwe. We've been arguing for some time, and we repeat the argument, that the primary responsibility here has to fall upon Zimbabwe's neighbours.
The Southern African Development Community states. And I don't hold out, frankly, any realistic prospect that the Security Council would move to an enforcement action.
We know the difficulties so far as vetoes before the Security Council are concerned.
I've seen suggestions that electoral observers should be buttressed with a peacekeeping force. If there is to be a peacekeeping force in Zimbabwe, then logically and necessarily in the first instance, that would have to come from the African Union and South African Development Community states.
QUESTION: But you know that the African - that Mugabe will oppose a peacekeeping forces in Zimbabwe. It will get to the stage where there has to be an intervention that does not have the support…
SMITH: Well, I think it's always wise in these matters to take each step as it comes. We have, frankly, welcomed very much the sharp comments and much more robust comments by the Southern African Development Community states, in recent days, particularly from Tanzania, from Zambia, and also from Botswana.
And we've previously expressed our disappointment that South Africa itself has not taken a much more robust role.
I think, I think that Mr Tsvangirai's decision not to contest the election has crystallised for Zimbabwe's neighbours the very deleterious situation, and caused them to act.
We've got an emergency meeting of the Southern African Development Community states today, and we urge those community states to start imposing their will on Mr Mugabe.
Mr Mugabe cannot continue to ignore the views of the international community, and in particular, he can't ignore the views of his neighbours.
I agree very strongly with the point made by the Secretary General of the United Nations - that this is not just now an issue for Zimbabwe. This is an issue which has very severe and potentially adverse consequences for Southern Africa as a region, and for Africa generally.
QUESTION: Morgan Tsvangirai seems to be the legitimate leader now; the vote, the last vote suggests that - he's the people's choice. If he was to appeal for military intervention, for greater action, what would be your response to that?
SMITH: Well, the comments that I have seen from Mr Tsvangirai are for Zimbabwe's neighbours to put pressure onto Mr Mugabe.
Can I make this point about legitimacy. If you go back to the March election, the Movement for Democratic Change - Mr Tsvangirai's party - won a majority of seats in the parliament, and Mr Tsvangirai won a majority of votes in the first presidential round. And that was after whatever rorting of the count occurred.
So it's quite clear that Mr Mugabe himself has no electoral or democratic legitimacy, and he can't pretend to occupy office on or after Friday in any legitimate manner.
That point's been made as well by some of the Southern African Development Community states.
QUESTION: Desmond Tutu suggested last night that he appreciated the fact that the western countries appeared to be showing some sensitivity to the feelings of Africa, and that if there was an intervention of some sort, it was likely to involve African personnel, but he might seek, or Africa might seek logistical support from western countries.
Is that something you could see happening, or something that Australia might get involved with?
SMITH: Australia has already made it clear that, in terms of, for example, electoral observers, that we stood and we were ready, willing and able to provide electoral observers.
We never received such a request, and frankly we weren't expecting a request.
And again I make the point, in the same way as I do for electoral observers, I make for any potential peacekeeping force - to make progress in the first instance I think these would necessarily come from Zimbabwe's neighbours, and I think, as I said overnight, I think that what Archbishop Tutu had to say had very strong moral authority behind it.
Again he made the point that Mr Mugabe has no democratic authority himself, and it's now incumbent upon the international community to respond to that moral challenge.
And the primary responsibility in the first instance for that goes to Zimbabwe's neighbours.
It also - just one more point - it also does raise, as Archbishop Tutu himself raised, the question of the emerging doctrine of responsibility to protect.
To effect such a doctrine in international law again in my view requires cooperation of the Security Council, but it does make this point - we have seen too many instances in the past, either in Africa or in Europe itself, where the international community or a regional community has waited too long before putting pressure on a nation state.
What do we see in Zimbabwe now? We see a climate of fear, intimidation, a State-sanctioned campaign of violence, a brutal regime imposing itself on its people, using food and food aid as a political weapon; stopping humanitarian assistance from non-government organisations, using humanitarian assistance as a political weapon against its own people.
This is a brutal regime and Africa can no longer ignore it.
QUESTION: Some of those symptoms that you've just described are the same symptoms that we saw in Iraq, the only difference being of course that Zimbabwe isn't oil rich.
Do you think that it's about time that people looked at this nation with the same sort of fury as they did with Saddam Hussein?
SMITH: Well, I'm not now, and I haven't suggested a military intervention into Zimbabwe.
What I have suggested, and what the Australian Government has suggested, and what the Australian Government has urged diplomatically upon Zimbabwe's neighbours is that the primary responsibility and obligation falls upon Zimbabwe's neighbours to put pressure on the Zimbabwe regime.
And we welcome, we welcome in recent days, a much more robust approach by the Southern African Development Community states, and we welcome for the first occasion a conversation about Zimbabwe before the Security Council, and we urge a full and open debate on Zimbabwe before the Security Council.
QUESTION: But what level of pressure from Zimbabwe’s neighbours is really going to have an effect? You say you're not talking about military intervention, so precisely what are you talking about? I mean years ago we saw the, the fact that sanctions actually strengthened that economy not weakened it. What, what do you want them to do, apart from talk?
SMITH: Well, it's more than talk, it's put pressure on them. We believe that pressure is now starting to mount. And we certainly hope that South Africa itself will be much more robust now than it has been in the past. We certainly hope that there will be urgings to Mr Mugabe that he leave the stage.
I take a different view so far as sanctions are concerned. We think that sanctions have been effective. And one of the things that we've done in the last few days is to raise with other nation states the level of their sanctions to ensure we've got international coordination of the sanctions, and to examine the sanctions to see whether there is more that we can do, which is precisely what Australia is doing.
So we've been urging a number of nation states to look at the sanctions that they impose or don't impose, as the case may be, and sanctions will be one thing which I'll be raising with my colleagues in Japan.
QUESTION: You've ruled out military action, but have you spoken to the ADF about what potentially they could do down the track if…
SMITH: I don't think it helps in any way for Australia to be talking in terms of military intervention.
The international community is not talking in terms of military intervention.
You may have seen the Secretary of State from the United Kingdom dismiss that the other day. I don't think that is a helpful contribution. I don't think there'll be international community support for that. I certainly don't think there will be support for that from the area of the globe where the primary responsibility for action has to fall, namely Zimbabwe's neighbours.
QUESTION: You were talking to the South African Minister today. I mean what…
SMITH: That's - well there are some logistical differences, but that's planned. I hope to do that today.
QUESTION: Well what exactly - I mean taking up Michelle's question, what exactly will you be saying? You said that you want - they've been the lightening rod for criticism for not doing enough and will you be urging them to press Mugabe to go or what exactly…?
SMITH: Absolutely. I've previously spoken to my South African counterpart, Dlamini-Zuma. I'll be urging upon South Africa that South Africa take the same robust position that Zambia, Tanzania and Botswana have been taking in recent times and urging South Africa, together with the Southern African Development Community states and the African Union, to put pressure to bear on Mr Mugabe.
Now the South African position to date has been that the best approach here is through a political dialogue between Mr Mugabe and Mr Changerai. Most other people have frankly been very sceptical about the prospects of success in that area. But I'll be urging upon South Africa to adopt the same approach that the current African states which chair respectively the African union and the Southern African development community, Tanzania and Zambia, to adopt the same approach as those nation states are.
QUESTION: An EU delegation says that the Fiji Government has confirmed that they won't meet their promise of a March 2009 election. Are you concerned by that development?
SMITH: Well absolutely. I had a conversation with the EU delegate yesterday. Australia has been very sceptical for some time that Fiji would meet the faithful and unconditional obligation that it gave to the Pacific Island foreign leaders in Tonga in September of 2007. Australia is part of the so-called ministerial contact group which has been given the job of monitoring Fiji's progress towards an election and the ministerial contact group will report to the Pacific Island leader's forum in Niue in August.
But for some time I've made it clear I've been sceptical about the intentions of the interim government in Fiji. Having said that, in recent days, in the last week or so, the interim government has finally appointed an election supervisor who will formally start work from memory, the beginning of July I think, 7 July. We welcome this very much. We regard this as being progress. And Australia together with other members of the ministerial contact group which includes Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Tonga, New Zealand, we'll continue to monitor progress that the interim government makes. But I've made it very clear that I'm very sceptical about the interim government meeting that faithful and unconditional undertaking to have an election by the end of the first quarter of next year.
QUESTION: [Inaudible] apply anymore pressure?
SMITH: Well we've been very robust so far as our comments on Fiji are concerned. We're taking an active role in that ministerial contact group and we'll be making our views crystal clear at the leader's meeting in Niue in August.
QUESTION: Minister, Morgan Tsvangirai sought refuge, obviously as you know, in the Dutch embassy. Did he ever approach Australia for such refuge and if he had, would you have given it to him?
SMITH: Well firstly, to the best of my knowledge, no he didn't approach. Secondly, if he had approached our mission in Harare for refuge, we certainly would have granted it. I suspect that one of the reasons that Mr Changerai sought refuge in the embassy of the Netherlands, in the Dutch embassy, is that if he had sought refuge in the United States, the United Kingdom or the Australian mission, I suspect Mr Mugabe would have used that against him politically in Zimbabwe, and of course, the Dutch mission in Zimbabwe, for obvious historical reasons, has very good contacts in South Africa itself.
But if he had have asked, we would obviously have given him whatever consular support and assistance that we could.
QUESTION: Minister, could I just ask you a question about Australian missions overseas that goes to your own department?
I've just come back from Myanmar for three weeks where the mission refused background briefings or any assistance to media over there. It's a very marked departure from the other missions over there, the French, the Germans, the US who are helpful. Now the Australians missions across Asia have a reputation for being unhelpful. In fact they're often - it's a bit of a joke amongst other missions that they are so reticent to speak on almost anything to anybody.
I'm just wondering, for a country that sort of has aspirations to have a Security Council seat, to be more of a voice in world affairs, are you concerned about that reluctance for an advocacy role for Australian missions overseas?
SMITH: Firstly, I'm not aware of the Burma or the Rangoon mission example to which you refer. That's the first point. Secondly, in my experience our missions overseas are very helpful to Australians including Australian journalists, so I frankly don't agree with your starting point. So far as our bid for the United Nations Security Council is concerned, last time I looked Australian journalists didn't have votes, but that won't in any way stop our missions from being as helpful to Australian journalists as they are to Australians generally. So, I frankly don't agree with your analysis.
QUESTION: But the key point there is Australian journalists - I mean you're often very vocal at home, but you're very reluctant to speak to international media. This has come up during the Prime Minister's visit to Japan..
SMITH: I just don't agree with your analysis. You may be on the back end of what you regard as an invidious personal example, but…
QUESTION: No, it's not - it's something that you're very widely regarded in international media and it's not just my own…
SMITH: I'm very pleased that I'm very widely regarded in international media. I just disagree with your starting point assumption.
QUESTION: Mr Smith, you talk about stronger sanctions, but Mr Mugabe's already skirted travel sanctions by travelling to the food crisis talks in Europe. He's likely to have embezzled millions of dollars out of the Zimbabwe coffers. Do you really believe strong sanctions will have any impact?
SMITH: Well I simply don't believe that the alternative of doing nothing or just continuing to do what we're currently doing is sufficient in these circumstances. Somehow we have to encourage the African community and the international community to put maximum pressure on Mr Mugabe. Mr Mugabe was able to go to Rome because that was a United Nations sponsored conference I attended myself. He is subject to European union travel bans, but he is entitled to travel to United Nations sponsored events, that was why he turned up in Rome.
QUESTION: Mr Smith, is this one of the things that you want the Security Council…
SMITH: The alternative is to say it's all too hard, we do nothing. That is not the Australian Government's position.
QUESTION: Mr Smith, is that one of the things then you want the United Nations to do, the Security Council to impose worldwide travel bans on Mr Mugabe, his apparatchiks, his ministers, all of the other despots?
SMITH: Currently Australia has a series of sanctions against the brutal Mugabe regime. They include travel sanctions, they include financial sanctions on members of the regime, they include ministerial contact sanctions.
We, of course, continue humanitarian assistance to the Zimbabwe people itself.
Given the deleterious nature and the grim position in Zimbabwe, we have said to ourselves we will examine our sanctions to see if we can do more, particularly in the travel sanctions area. That's the first thing.
Secondly, for a considerable period of time, from 2002, Australia has had robust sanctions against Zimbabwe. That's a credit to Australia, the previous government and continuing.
We're looking at what we can do to enhance those.
At the same time we are saying to members of the international community, if you look at the sweep of sanctions, who are the countries at the forefront of sanctions against Zimbabwe? The United Kingdom, Australia, the United States and the European Union. We're urging those nation states and the international community itself to look at whether they can improve or enhance or better coordinate their sanctions but also saying to other nations the time has come for you to examine what you're doing or what you're not doing to try and put maximum pressure on Mr Mugabe.
QUESTION: So you will not see a worldwide travel ban on Mugabe?
SMITH: In an ideal world I would like to see all nation states adopting the same position that Australia does but the world is not necessarily ideal and I'm not expecting that to occur but we are urging other nation states to contemplate what sanctions they can impose on the brutal regime.
QUESTION: You mentioned talks involving Afghanistan and Pakistan. Do you have any particular goal in mind there?
SMITH: I certainly think, well, firstly, Japan makes a civilian reconstruction contribution in Afghanistan. The American interest and the Australian interest in Afghanistan is there for all to see. But, as I've made clear at the Afghan Donors Conference in Paris in the last week or so, and repeated those concerns in Australia, we are very concerned about the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area being, firstly, the current hotbed of international terrorism and, secondly, the border exchanges or the border crossovers are making a very difficult and dangerous situation for Australian forces in Oruzgan Province even more difficult and we want the regional and the international community to focus on that difficulty.
We don't believe that the Afghanistan-Pakistan border issue is simply an issue between Afghanistan and Pakistan. It has, in our view, regional and international implications. That's one of the reasons I raised it with the Pakistan Foreign Minister when I spoke with him in Paris, again at the Afghanistan Donors Conference, and it's something that I think is in Australia's interest, in our national interest and our security interest, for me to raise with my United States and Japanese counterparts.
QUESTION: Is there a solution that you might raise there?
SMITH: I think we've got to engage much more in a dialogue with Pakistan. I think we also have to continue to make the point that this has regional implications, it's not just a border issue between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
And I want not just, for example the NATO nations who are involved in Afghanistan but the regional and the international community generally to start focusing on what I describe as the Afghanistan/Pakistan problem.
I think from Australia's perspective we need to engage much more in a dialogue with Pakistan and we're proposing to do that.
QUESTION: There are calls from a Liberal backbencher, Chris Pearce, to appoint Malcolm Fraser as the special representative for Zimbabwe. What do you think about this course?
SMITH: First, I've got a high regard for Malcolm Fraser and I have a high regard for his credentials in Africa. Our suggestion has been the suggestion to the Secretary-General of the United Nations that he appoint a special representative or a special envoy to do the job of persuading and entering into a dialogue with the Southern African Development Community states and the African Union.
That's our preferred model and I also think, as Mr Fraser himself has said, and this is not said in any way critically of Mr Fraser - I think Mr Fraser himself has said overnight he doesn't necessarily see himself as the best person for the task. Again, I think, it's one of those areas where it may well be that an African envoy is the best starting point. We've already seen, for example, Assistant Secretary Haile Menkerios doing some work in Zimbabwe for the Secretary-General. We believe that should be upgraded to a special representative or envoy position.
I've got a thing at 10.30 so I'll take this one. Unless there's any more pressing questions, I'm going to scarper.
QUESTION: The West Australian identified three students last week, or two students and one working, that are children of people who are on the RBA banned Zimbabwe list. Have you identified where they are and are you going to kick them out of the country?
SMITH: The advice I have is that we are still carefully assessing the factual circumstances to make sure that we are very safe and confident of the facts of the circumstances, to ensure who we are dealing with. Once those facts have been clarified with absolute certainty, I will then make a judgment as to whether, as I do in the usual way as to whether their presence in Australia is contrary to our foreign policy interests.
But in the first instance we need to very carefully ascertain the correctness of the facts and that is currently underway.
QUESTION: Are you any closer to replacing Richard Alston as the High Commissioner to London?
SMITH: We have an Acting High Commissioner in London who's doing a very good job and we'll make an announcement about an appointment to the High Commissioner's job in London at a time of our own choosing.
QUESTION: Will you be promoting any particular human rights initiative for an Asia-Pacific community in these coming talks and also what is the progress and will you also be promoting the Australian idea of translating the six-party talks into something wider?
SMITH: Dealing with that one first. I think I mentioned in my opening remarks that the six-party talks would be an issue for the trilateral strategic dialogue. Two things that I'll be interested in there: one will be the extent of progress so far as the nuclear issue is concerned. You may have seen in the international press suggestions that in the next couple of days we may well see a response from North Korea to the most recent suggestions put to it, through the six-party talks.
The second issue which comes from the six-party talks, which is of interest to Australia, is whether any strategic or regional arrangement might flow from the six-party talks and I've made it clear, as I will in Kyoto again, that Australia has a very keen interest in being involved in any regional arrangement which flows from the six-party talks.
Two of the things that I will be raising with my counterparts will be the two issues or proposals that the Prime Minister has announced in recent weeks, one isthe Asia-Pacific community or regional arrangement idea and, secondly, our nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation commission.
I'll be taking these issues in conversation with my colleagues from the United States and from Japan.
Everyone happy? Thanks very much. Cheers.
Media Inquiries: Foreign Minister's office (02) 6277 7500