E&OE

30 June 2008

Media Conference

Subjects: Zimbabwe, Fiji, visit to Vietnam and Thailand

STEPHEN SMITH: Well thanks very much. Three things I wanted to talk about today. Firstly, tonight I leave for a trip to Vietnam and Thailand. I'd also like to make some remarks about Fiji and also about Zimbabwe.

I'll be visiting Vietnam and Thailand in the course of this week: Vietnam on Tuesday and Wednesday; and Thailand on Thursday and Friday. My visit to Vietnam will see the first bilateral meetings conducted in Vietnam by a Minister of this Australian Government. And the purpose of the trip is to mark, in Vietnam, the thirty-fifth anniversary of diplomatic relations between Australia and Vietnam.

Australia and Vietnam have a good and growing and strong relationship. Our trade and investment has increased significantly in recent years and as Vietnam plays a growing role in regional and international affairs. Australia's partnership with Vietnam in the region and internationally is growing. We, of course, work together in ASEAN and Vietnam is currently a non-permanent member of the Security Council. So I very much look forward to my trip to Hanoi.

As well, as I've indicated, I'll be visiting Thailand. My trip to Bangkok will be the first visit by an Australian Minister to Thailand since the coup in 2006 and it will be the first visit by an Australian Minister to Thailand since the restoration of democracy in Thailand.

Australia, of course, has a long standing, friendly and productive relationship with Thailand. I'm looking forward to reinforcing and underlining Australia's view that democracy in Thailand is very important to Thailand itself, but also very important in the region. Australia and Thailand, of course, work very closely in the region, Thailand again being obviously an important ASEAN member.

In Bangkok I'll have the opportunity to also meet with the ASEAN Security General and that will be a precursor to the important ASEAN and ASEAN Regional Forum meetings in July in Singapore.

Can I make some remarks about Fiji.

I'm pleased to announce today that the Australian Government has notified the Fiji interim government that the Australian Government will agree to the appointment of an Acting High Commissioner in Canberra and the appointment of a Fiji Consul-General in Sydney. We indicated some time ago to the interim Fiji Government that if we believe the Fiji interim government was making progress towards an election, then we would respond by allowing Fiji to upgrade its diplomatic presence in Australia.

Recently, the interim Fiji Government agreed to the appointment of an election supervisor and the election supervisor will commence her work on the 7 July. So I'm pleased to indicate that to improve diplomatic communications and the dialogue between Australia and Fiji and between the Australian Government and the interim Fiji Government, we've authorised the appointments of an Acting High Commissioner in Canberra and a Consul-General in Sydney.

On Fiji, I regret to advise that on the 27 June we received a third serious, credible and offensive threat to our High Commissioner in Fiji. This is the third such death threat that we have received. Immediately upon the death threat being received by the High Commission it was drawn to the attention of the Fiji police authorities and precisely the same representations we made to the Fiji interim government on the two previous occasions, we made again. I continue to regret the fact that the interim Fiji Government has not authorised Australian Federal Police close personal protection of our High Commissioner and we've made precisely the same points to the interim Fiji Government on this occasion, as we did on the two previous occasions. In the meantime, we have taken a range of steps to upgrade our own security arrangements, so far as our High Commission itself is concerned.

Whilst on the one hand welcoming the appointment, by the interim Fiji Government of an election supervisor and announcing our approval for Fiji to appoint an Acting High Commissioner in Canberra and a Consul-General in Sydney, can I indicate that we are disappointed by the fact that Fiji has withdrawn from the ministerial working group at officer's level in Fiji. That's a matter of disappointment and we continue to urge the Fiji Government to liaise with its Pacific Island Forum partners and colleagues.

Can I say in respect of the appointment of the Acting High Commissioner and the Consul-General that Australia paid very close attention, very close attention to the views of Prime Ministers Sevele and Somare, senior Pacific Island leaders and statesmen. And we viewed their representations very much in mind when we came to approve the appointments.

I continue to be very sceptical about the progress that the interim Fiji Government is making so far as an election is concerned. You will recall the faithful and unconditional undertaking that Commodore Bainimarama gave to the Pacific Island Leaders Forum in Tonga in September of 2007 that there would be an election before the end of March 2009. I continue to be very sceptical about genuine progress to that.

It's clearly, of course, the case that there needs to be a political dialogue in Fiji, an unconditional political dialogue involving all parties. But that cannot be a precondition to the election in 2009 and we continue to urge that election on Fiji, both as the Australian Government, but also Australia as a member of the Fiji Foreign Ministers Forum Contact Group.

Finally, before I happily respond to your questions, can I just make some remarks about Zimbabwe. It is quite clear that the election has been a complete sham, an obscene sham. Mr Mugabe has no electoral or democratic legitimacy whatsoever and we continue to call upon the African Union and the Southern African Development Community states to put pressure on Mr Mugabe.

You would have seen indications of suggestions of negotiations, or a dialogue between representatives of Mr Mugabe and Mr Tsvangirai. Australia's very strong view, which I indicated to our Southern African colleagues, my counterparts including South Africa itself, Botswana, Tanzania and Zambia in the course of last week, the Australian Government's position continues to be that we believe the solution is for Mr Mugabe to walk off the stage; for Mr Mugabe to leave the scene. But I note that there are suggestions of discussions or negotiations between representatives of Mr Tsvangirai and Mr Mugabe and we hope that the pressure of the AU, the pressure of SADC in those discussions might lead to some outcome which goes someway to respecting the democratic will of the Zimbabwe people.

Mr Mugabe has no political, electoral or Democratic legitimacy. We should remember that in the end of March this year Mr Tsvangirai's party received a majority of parliamentary votes and a majority of the presidential votes in the first round.

I'm happy to respond to your questions on those and any other matters.

QUESTION: What form did the death threat take in Fiji?

SMITH: Sorry?

QUESTION: What form did it take?

SMITH: It was the same as the previous two. An anonymous letter delivered, or posted to the High Commission in the same form and format as the two previous obscene and objectionable anonymous death threats and we've relayed that to the Fiji Police and raised it with the interim Fiji Government.

The Fiji Police continue to investigate the previous two threats and they've indicated they are investigating this one as well.

QUESTION: If you are sceptical about Fiji's preparations for an election, why would you allow there to be an acting High Commission?

SMITH: Well, I have to say that I thought long and hard about this, but I wanted to make the point to Fiji that Australia's position is not one of ongoing confrontation and lack of dialogue. Fiji is a very important member of the Pacific.

What we want Fiji to do is to move away from the culture of coups, to move away from an interim military government and to restore democracy and the respect for human rights in Fiji.

And to do that, there are two aspects to our foreign policy approach. One is to be very hard on bad behaviour in the form of our travel sanctions and in the form of our responses to the conduct by the interim Fiji Government, particularly, for example, when newspaper proprietors or editors are unacceptably removed from Fiji.

But at the same time, we want to indicate we are prepared to have a dialogue. We're prepared to have a dialogue both in a bilateral sense, but also as a member of the Pacific Island Ministerial Contract group.

And I indicated some time ago, at officer level, that if I could see progress towards an election, then we would respond accordingly. And so I'm quite upfront about the fact that the appointment by the interim Fiji Government of their election supervisor, with the supervisor commencing her work on 7 July, I've responded accordingly.

Does that cause me to any way move away from the scepticism that I have about the intentions of the Government, the interim Government? No, it doesn't. I remain very sceptical about the intentions of the Government to meet its faithful and unconditional undertaking to the Pacific Island leaders that they would have an election by the end of March of 2009.

But having a dialogue, either in a bilateral sense, or having a dialogue as part of a Pacific Island Forum, is well worthwhile doing. But that doesn't mean, for example, that we will move away from the sanctions or the travel bans that we currently have.

It is absolutely essential that there is an election in Fiji; that's our starting point. And I remain very sceptical about the interim Fiji Government's intentions in that respect.

QUESTION: And on the death threats, is there a chance that we'll be forced to pull our High Commissioner out of service?

SMITH: We're not proposing to take any further steps other than the ones we previously have. We have again indicated to the interim Fiji Government that we would prefer, much prefer to have the Australian Federal Police provide close personal protection to our High Commissioner. We've also taken steps to upgrade the security arrangements so far as the High Commission is concerned. And we've also previously indicated to the spouses and dependents of our officials in Fiji that we're - we are quite open to a voluntary return so far as they are concerned.

QUESTION: Do we know where the threat's coming from?

SMITH: Well, they're anonymous threats. We don't know, ourselves. We've indicated to the Fiji police that we would like them to investigate it. They have investigated and continue to investigate the first two threats. And they have indicated they will investigate this threat as well.

QUESTION: How far along though are the investigations are though? Have they got any idea who's behind the first two? Or are they…

SMITH: Well, they're progressing; that's as high as I can put it. We've received the third anonymous death threat to our High Commissioner in Fiji. The Fiji Police are investigating. And I've indicated from day one, we're happy with the cooperation we've been receiving from the Fiji Police itself.

QUESTION: Is there a chance that it may have come from within the Government?

SMITH: Well, I'm not proposing to speculate on those matters. I think that the occurrence of a third anonymous death threat is deeply disturbing to the Australian Government. And I hope it's disappointing to the interim Fiji Government.

QUESTION: These are threats from the same source though; because it's exactly the same [indistinct]…

SMITH: Well, again, I don't want to speculate about what is appropriately a police investigation. But the third anonymous letter is in the same style, format, and objectionable and obnoxious tone as the first two. So, if I were an investigator, which I'm not, my starting point would be a consideration that all three letters have come from the same source.

QUESTION: Is someone guarding the property? Are the residents of the High Commissioner [indistinct] able to move through our bases?

SMITH: Well, the High Commissioner himself is currently on leave. This was a planned leave, this is not as a result of the third threat. He was intending to take leave away from Fiji. He's currently on leave outside of Fiji and he'll be on leave outside of Fiji for a week or so. But without, for the obvious reason, going into the personal security arrangements that we have put in place, since the occurrence of the first threat to our High Commissioner, we have upgraded our security arrangements, both in the case of the High Commission itself and in respect of our High Commissioner.

We continue to believe that close personal protection by Australian Federal Police is warranted and we continue to urge that upon the interim Fiji Government.

QUESTION: Just in terms of Zimbabwe, you say that you'd like to see Robert Mugabe go; what exactly do you mean by that?

SMITH: Well, retire; walk off the stage; never be seen again; vacate the office. He has no democratic, electoral or political justification to pretend that he can be anointed to the position of President of Zimbabwe.

After the first round, which he tried to steal through the rorting of a count, we've seen for the second Presidential round, a climate of state-sponsored intimidation, fear, and violence. And the electoral observers, both the Pan-African observers and the Southern African Development Community observers have both indicated that this was not an election which you could regard in any way as being free, or fair, or democratic.

And we continue to urge the Southern African Development Community states and the African Union, Zimbabwe's neighbours, to put pressure on Mr Mugabe to arrive at a situation in Zimbabwe where the will of the Zimbabwe people is respected.

QUESTION: Does that mean that Australia will get close to a government of national unity?

SMITH: Well, there may we… it may well be that some political arrangement emerges. Our starting point is that we don't believe that an appropriate starting point is a political settlement or a negotiated political solution which involves Mr Mugabe. We would regard that as very much the lowest common denominator.

QUESTION: What sanctions is Australia considering?

SMITH: Well, Australia has had sanctions against Zimbabwe for a number of years, since 2002. Those sanctions have been at the forefront of the international community. I think it's fair to say that Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union have been at the forefront of sanctions.

I indicated last week, both publicly and also to Foreign Ministerial colleagues who I saw in Japan, that we were looking at increasing our sanctions, particularly in the are of increasing the ambit of travel sanctions and urging other nation states to examine their sanctions and urging the international community to make sure those sanctions are coordinated. And I see, for example, the United States, United Kingdom, indicating they're having a look at their sanctions as well.

So we're looking very carefully at increasing the ambit of our travel sanctions, and what, if anything else, that we can do to apply pressure to the brutal Mugabe regime.

QUESTION: But if they haven't been successful since 2002, then surely, travel sanctions aren't going to actually…

SMITH: I wouldn't describe our sanctions as not being successful or not having some effect. We urge those sanctions upon other members of the international community.

But in the first instance, and I've made this point before and I make it again, the most effective pressure that can be placed upon Mr Mugabe is pressure from his neighbours, pressure from the African Union states and pressure from the Southern African Development Community states.

Now, the African Union leadership is meeting in Egypt today and tomorrow, and I urge the African Union leadership to place pressure on Mr Mugabe to accept the fact that he is neither electorally nor democratically legitimate.

QUESTION: Would you support military intervention by the African Union?

SMITH: Well, I've indicated that I don't believe the international community will either authorise or promote a military intervention in Zimbabwe. The highest I think we can contemplate is a peacekeeping force, but again, a peacekeeping force which is made up of representatives of the African Union or the Southern African Development Community states.

I've seen the suggestion by various representatives of the African Union or the Southern African Development Community states that they would be prepared to take part in such peacekeeping arrangements, but I believe in the first instance that's where the appropriate starting point is.

QUESTION: Given Mugabe's been in power for decades, do you really think it's achievable to force him to step down without bloodshed?

SMITH: Well, that's been the Australian Government's aspiration for a considerable period of time. I mean…

QUESTION: That doesn't mean it's achievable.

SMITH: The alternative is to do nothing, and that's not something we're prepared to do. The alternative is to turn a blind eye or do nothing. We're not prepared to do that.

Australia has been very robust in its condemnation of a brutal regime. This is a man who came to lead his country at a time when his country was one of the premier agricultural nations of the world. That industry has now been destroyed and he uses food and food aid as a political weapon against his own people.

The alternative is to do nothing. We think the most effective thing that Australia can do is to continue with its sanctions regime and to improve and enhance those if we can, which is what we're looking at, but also to urge upon those group of nations who are in a position to place most pressure on Mr Mugabe, and that is Zimbabwe's immediate neighbours, the African Union states and the Southern African Development Community states, particularly South Africa itself.

QUESTION: So are you confident that the Australian Government is doing all it can, though?

SMITH: Well, we're looking at what more we can do. But we have been very robust in terms of our sanctions and very robust in terms of our diplomatic representations.

At the end of last week, including from Japan, I spoke to my South African counterpart, Foreign Minister Dlamini-Zuma, and urged upon her the Australian Government's position.

So we are doing what we believe are making the appropriate private diplomatic representations, also making the appropriate public urgings. When I spoke, for example, last week to colleagues from Zambia, Botswana and Tanzania, one of my colleagues said to me, Australia should keep shouting; when Australia shouts, it makes it easier for African nation states to put pressure.

So we continue to do what we believe is appropriate, and to do that at every level.

QUESTION: Have you had a chat to the Australian Defence Forces about their readiness should a decision be made to send in international troops?

SMITH: Well, no, because it's not a role that Australia sees appropriate for Australia.

QUESTION: You've had no discussions?

SMITH: I've had no discussions with the Defence Forces and no discussions with my Defence Ministerial colleague, Mr Fitzgibbon.

We don't see an Australian military or peacekeeping role as being appropriate, and it's not something we're contemplating.

And I again indicate, I don't believe the international community will support military intervention in Zimbabwe. I think the highest we can put it is the African Union states, the Southern African Development Community states contemplating peacekeeping force.

So I've certainly not had discussions along those lines because it's not something we're contemplating and not something that we believe would be appropriate.

QUESTION: If Mugabe is forced to step down, which, you know, there's no guarantee that that's going to happen, aren't you concerned about the possibility of a power vacuum or a civil war or those sorts of outcomes that might occur?

SMITH: Well, we're concerned about all those things, we're concerned about all those things, but the most effective way of avoiding those things, in our view, is for Mr Mugabe to leave. That's the most effective starting point, in our view.

QUESTION: Can I just clarify one thing in regards to the High Commissioner of Fiji.

SMITH: Yes.

QUESTION: You say he is on leave at the moment.

SMITH: Yes.

QUESTION: Was he on leave at the time the threat was made?

SMITH: No, the threat occurred on the 27 of June, and I can't remember what actual date…

QUESTION: He left after that though [indistinct]…

SMITH: I can't remember what actual day that was, but when the threat was received by the High Commission on the 27 of June, he was in Fiji.

My memory is and I'm happy to provide further detail if that's appropriate, that he had a planned period of leave and left Fiji the following day. But that leave was coincidental. It's not a consequence or related to the threat. He had some planned leave, which is usual and regular for our representatives overseas, and he's taking that leave. He'll be back in Fiji in the next week or so.

QUESTION: I've just got one more question for the Australian Network. The UN's Under-Secretary says civilian casualties in Afghanistan have jumped by two-thirds to 700 in the first half of this year.

What's the Australian Government going to do about that?

SMITH: Well, I've seen reference to that report from, I think by Mr Holmes, but I haven't had the chance of looking at it in detail.

Let me just make some general remarks. I was in Afghanistan recently and attended the Afghanistan Donors' Conference in Paris. There's absolutely no doubt, and both the Prime Minister, the Defence Minister and I have made this point before, Afghanistan is a long, hard, difficult, dangerous struggle, both for the 1100 Australian forces that we have in the south in Afghanistan, and for the Afghans, Afghanistan Government and people itself.

And when recently Australia suffered its tragic fifth casualty, Jason Marks, the Prime Minister made the point that we needed to understand that there was a likelihood, a grave risk of further casualties so far as Australia was concerned.

But the Australian Government's position continues to be. We believe that it is in our national interest and in the international community's national interest for there to be an effective combat and military enforcement action in Afghanistan, and also a civilian reconstruction, nation-building program.

On the first, we were pleased with the improved arrangements coming out of the Bucharest Conference with an increased commitment from NATO and other forces, including France, including Italy, including Germany, including the United States. And at the Afghanistan Donors' Conference, we were pleased with the enhanced international community commitments, civil reconstruction contribution.

Afghanistan continues to have significant problems, very grave problems. We've made it clear we're there for the long haul, but it'll take a long time to overcome the very significant difficulties that Afghanistan has.

There is a difficulty of restoring peace and security; there's the difficulty of good governance; there's the difficulty of building the capacity of the state institutions; and there is the grave difficulty of narcotics. All of these things were on the table at the Paris Conference, and we all know that the Afghanistan Government, the Afghanistan people, the Afghanistan nation, has to start taking more of the burden, more of the responsibility.

But we continue to be of the view that Afghanistan, particularly the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area, is a very serious risk to the international community. There is no doubt that is the current hotbed of international terrorism, and we believe it's in our national interest to be there, albeit in difficult circumstances and in circumstances where not just we regrettably have to face the prospect of more Afghanistan civilian and military deaths, we run the risk of further casualties so far as Australia itself is concerned.

QUESTION: [Indistinct] update of Gough Whitlam's condition at all?

SMITH: I know that Mr Rudd visited Mr Whitlam. I spoke to Mr Rudd when I was in Japan and he'd just come from the hospital. Of course we were all concerned to hear that Gough was in hospital. I haven't spoken to Mr Whitlam himself. Of course I send him personally my very best, very best wishes.

I understand his condition is improving. That's as much as I'm in a position to indicate. But I think everyone in the Labor Party and everyone in the community would be wishing the former Prime Minister all the best.

And one of the things which Mr Whitlam of course did, which will be relevant to me this week, is establishing diplomatic relations with Vietnam 35 years ago.

Thanks very much, thank you. Cheers.

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