E&OE
20 November 2008, Lima, Peru
Joint doorstop interview with Minister for Trade Simon Crean - APEC Ministerial Meeting
STEPHEN SMITH: Firstly, we’re very pleased with the very strong declarations from APEC Ministers urging leaders later in the week to get in behind full steam the G20, urging a successful conclusion to the Doha Round, urging openness and access and again indicating this is not a time to retreat to protectionism.
So we think it’s a very strong statement from the ministers for trade and the foreign affairs ministers.
In the course of the week, I’ve done a couple of things of importance to Australia’s foreign policy interests. Firstly, there are a number of new foreign ministers. Foreign Minister from New Zealand, Minister McCully, new Foreign Minister from Thailand, Minister Sompong, new Foreign Minister from Canada, Minister Cannon, and Minister Nakasone, Japan’s new Foreign Minister. I’ve had, or will have, formal bilateral relations with all of those.
Importantly from Australia’s perspective, I met this morning with Mr McCully. It was a very good meeting. We discussed a range of issues shared, interests shared between Australia and New Zealand. We spoke about the prospect of a forthcoming Ministerial contact group to Fiji, our shared interest in Fiji, our shared interest in the Pacific Island Forum and our development assistance programs in the Pacific Island Forum. Also, our joint contribution to RAMSI. I look forward to working very closely with Mr McCully in the course of the next period.
In addition to those meetings, another point that we’ve made while we’ve been here – and I’ve had or will have had bilateral meetings with foreign ministers from Peru and Chile, and this follows my visit to Mexico on the way to Lima – the point that both Simon and I have made in the course of the year, Australia needs to up its engagement with Latin America, with the countries of South, Central and Latin America. We’ve made this point in the course of our various conversations with our colleagues in the course of this week.
Of course that contact follows on the visit to Australia by Foreign Minister Foxley from Chile, where we signed the Free Trade Agreement, and Foreign Minister Amorim from Brazil, when we embarked upon a plan of action to enhance the bilateral relationship between our two countries.
In addition to the work of APEC, the region’s premier trade and investment forum has had some good developments as far as our bilateral and regional arrangements are concerned.
I’ll hand over to Simon who’ll go into detail on some trade matters as well and then we are happy to respond to some questions.
SIMON CREAN: Thanks Stephen. It’s very important to look at the wording that came from the Ministers being recommended to Leaders tomorrow on Doha. It is a strengthening of the commitment that the G20 Leaders gave because it is a direction now by the Ministers to send negotiators to Geneva this Sunday to participate in a meeting that Pascal Lamy has convened. They are being instructed to stay there and to prepare the ground for a Ministerial meeting that Pascal can now convene, depending on the progress next month, we expect around the middle of the month.
The determination that was shown here to strengthen the words, I think, is a significant build on to the G20 because here there are nine countries of the 20 present. So what we have, and this is reflected in the Leaders’ statement tomorrow, is another 12 countries -significant countries, committing to concluding modalities by the end of this year. So the momentum that’s been commenced in Washington has been built upon here. It’s also language that says that we must engage with groups that we have influence with to try and secure this outcome.
Already I have convened a meeting with the Cairns Group of countries and whilst we are at one on agriculture, it is not a group that in the past has expressed views about NAMA, and sectorals and industrial products. But they clearly understand the importance of a balanced outcome, including finalisation of industrial products, not just agriculture. And they clearly are committed to do what they can to influence those countries with whom they have relationships to build the equation.
It was significant that at that Cairns Group Meeting, Mari Pangestu spoke very strongly in support of the need to conclude this year. That came out of the meeting that she participated with Stephen and myself and Foreign Minister Wirajuda last week. But significantly Mari Pangestu chairs the G33 group of countries. So between Cairns Group, G33 and the very strong commitment we had in the lead up to the G20 meeting with Brazil, we are building, I think, a solid base to continue the momentum that’s been struck.
Like Stephen, I’ve had the opportunity he had to also engage in a number of bilaterals – bilaterals that themselves have involved pushing the agenda for Doha. That’s been important with China for example. And also I’ve had the opportunity to speak with Kamal Nath in New Delhi, whilst I’ve been here.
On the bilateral front, we’ve had important engagement with China and Japan. That’s significant because beyond Doha and beyond the regional agreements we have to try and finalise our bilateral arrangements. You’d be aware of the very strong impetus the Prime Minister has given particularly to the China relationship on his recent visit to Washington and his engagement with President Hu Jintao.
The other announcement of significance coming out of today is that we, Australia, have agreed to join negotiations to develop the framework for a P7 group of countries. This builds on P4 which exists, which is Chile, Singapore, Brunei and New Zealand.
Washington indicated their preparedness to join in September at the General Assembly when Stephen was there, and today Peru and Australia have signalled their intention. It’s also interesting in the bilaterals that I’ve had that there is a very solid basis on the P7 to do more than that.
Negotiations on that framework will begin in the first quarter of next year. This itself is a significant development because it’s a Trans-Pacific Agreement, and in many cases it should be one that we should be able to conclude quickly.
We have bilaterals with a lot of the countries that are already there. Other countries have bilaterals with each other and it ought to be an interesting exercise in consolidation of comprehensive FTAs giving substance to what we are trying to do in terms of model FTAs under the APEC agenda, get FTAs that are complementary, supportive of multilateralism, quality agreements and building their range .
We hope to build a momentum from APEC that gives substance in a regional sense to trade liberalisation. We think the order in terms of multilateralism, concluding Doha, building regional structures and enhancing organisations through that mechanism and then enhancing again through bilateral relationships is the sensible way to develop trade liberalisation policies. All tiers but sequential and enhancing of the broad multilateral principles.
I am delighted that not only has this Ministerial Meeting of APEC, the first we’ve participated in since coming into office, that we have been able to influence the direction forward of the program that Australia commenced to develop. And both of us have made the point that we’re now, over the next three years, going to build the forward work program of APEC around three countries that were the original members of APEC. In sequence Singapore, Japan will chair it in the Bogor year 2010, and then the United States.
The United States has been strongly involved in APEC and with Australia’s lead that’s what really kicked it off. That’s what gave us the Bogor declarations back in the 80s. We want to recreate the momentum that APEC can, in our view, become and can better contribute to enhancements globally.
QUESTION: Mr Crean, Susan Schwab suggested that the Trans Pacific Partnership could be used as the basis for building the Free Trade Agreement of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP). How would you see that working?
CREAN: I do too. I think it can be the building block to FTAAP. Although I think it’s fair to say that most people think that most people think that FTAAP with 21 countries and whatever happens to membership in 2010 is a longer-term objective and difficult to get everyone agreeing.
I joked with her at the end that I saw P7 as being the mothership to which we would like a lot of dockings and if we get a framework that establishes P7, maybe more than P7 but which then countries can make decisions to join on the basis of what we’ve done, given that what we’re reflecting is the principles of a) multilateralism and b) the importance of consistency and comprehensiveness in regional trade agreements, then I think we would have developed a concrete model. This is the aim of all of us who are seeking to develop the P7, and I must say just in the two days there clearly is potential for that to be built upon.
QUESTION: Is the global financial crisis responsible for reviving Doha?
CREAN: It’s not responsible for reviving it, but it’s one of those things that we have used strongly to argue for the rebuilding of momentum to get Doha going. It’s, if you like, saying in these adverse circumstances, we need some positive signs and one of those positive signs can be a conclusion to Doha because world trade is a multiplier of economic activity.
Historically, world trade has grown three times faster than world output. We know that that multiplier has actually lifted every time there has been a successful trade round concluded. We also know that we are 80 per cent there in terms of agreement. What we’ve got to do is to bridge the gap. The significance about the G20 meeting is that leaders have made the commitment to say conclude it and what Ministers have done here is to act on that instruction and act in a concrete way to take it forward.
The other significant thing that the G20 did was to not just instruct us to get it concluded but a commitment to themselves to remain involved and prepared to participate to an effective conclusion.
So if we run into log jams, and that remains to be seen, I think we can resolve these issues, but if we do, we can go back to the leaders.
QUESTION: How are we going with the Chinese in this process? Are they fully on board and are you confident that when it comes to the discussions in Geneva that the Chinese will be prepared to make the concessions necessary to get this thing done particularly on agriculture?
CREAN: Well let me just go to agriculture. China was prepared in July to sign up as part of the G7 group of countries, which Australia was also involved in. China was prepared to sign up to the balance of commitments in agriculture and industrial products. Many said this was the most difficult part of negotiations and I think quite frankly they were but we did get agreement on that.
The second thing is that it was an important dialogue not just with China but with India and with Brazil and with the G33 group of countries. We’ve always acknowledged the problems of countries that have large populations that are in subsistence agriculture. Subsistence agriculture isn’t what we are competing against. By definition they don’t produce surpluses. So trying to deal with the language and satisfy concerns that could be misrepresented back in their own country as being a big part of what this dialogue has been about.
I think that the July exercise was a terribly important building block in the relationship with China – not just in understanding their problems but building the basis for bilateral understanding too.
The third point I’d make is China was there at the G20 and their President has signed up to this instruction and the Chinese through their Minister Chen Deming has here today signed up to this declaration. Now of course we have to engage China as we do India, as we do Brazil. But I am confident that if the political will inherent in this statement, inherent in the G20 statement maintains itself and is driven, we can get an answer.
QUESTION: When you say all the Ministers have decided to send the officials back to Geneva on Sunday to stay there - what are you saying? Don’t come back until you’ve sorted it out?
CREAN: That’s right. We were prepared to stay in July until we got it sorted out. We didn’t quite get there but we were prepared to stay the distance, so that’s what we expect them to do. It not just a question of turning up. It’s turning up at senior level and being prepared to stay. But what we’ve said is that we’ll remain engaged and if we need to break the political log jams we’ve also got a mechanism that can take us back to the leaders.
QUESTION: So is the big stick for the officials that if they can’t get it together they’ve got your big stick and if they still can’t get it together they’ve got the Prime Minister’s big stick?
CREAN: No I think it’s us demonstrating our political commitment. Their complaint has been, look we know what you are saying but you don’t give us sufficient - some have used the expression there’s not enough tools in the box left for us. Well if they don’t put tools in the box we have to find them between now and when we settle.
QUESTION: This is a question for both of you. Last night in Canberra Mr Rudd announced that he was going to make some statement in Lima about this Pan-Asia Pacific Union. How will this fit in with the APEC concept and procedurally, how will we advance this idea? What’s really involved here?
SMITH: Well it’s the Prime Minister’s initiative which he launched in April – the Asia Pacific Community. Our rationale for launching it then remains true. In this century we will see a shift of economic and strategic and security influence to the Asia Pacific region – the rise of China, the rise of India, the rise of the ASEAN economies combined. When you look at our regional architecture, whilst we strongly support APEC as the premier economic investment and trading institution in the region, whilst the East Asia Summit works very well for Australia and the ASEAN-related dialogue is very important for Australia, there is not one piece of regional architecture where all of the key players are in the same room at the same time, having a conversation both about economics, security and strategic matters.
Simon made the point in his answer that Kamal Nath – he has been on the phone to him as India is not part of APEC. That’s the big gap. We strongly support India’s admission to APEC. When you go to the East Asia Summit, United States is not there, so there is not one piece of architecture where the key players are not all there at the same time. What we have done, I have obviously had conversations since then with my Foreign Ministerial colleagues, we’ve appointed Dick Woolcott, former Ambassador and former head of the Department to be an envoy. He has been going around and the Prime Minister and I expect to receive a report from him in the not too distant future. We’ve initiated a conversation and the reception to this conversation has been very good. People are interested in this issue. The timetable we struck was 2020 so no one is expecting this is going to be decided upon or agreed tomorrow.
QUESTION: (inaudible)
SMITH: (inaudible)... I expect what we will see over time will be a process of evolution rather than a creation of any new particular body, but if you asked people when ASEAN, for example, was conceived in the 1960s whether we would see the East Asia Summit and the ASEAN Regional Forum, they would have been surprised. When the G20 itself was conceived in the aftermath of the Asian financial crisis, I am not sure people would have been expecting it to be playing the role that it played in Washington last weekend. These things either evolve or there is a creation like APEC of a new body. We think it is important conversation and we are very happy with the response we have had from our various colleagues.
QUESTION: Has there been any further discussion on an expansion of the Six Party talks to deal with these type of security issues?
SMITH: No, we had a conversation about the Six Party talks in Singapore at the ASEAN-related forums. I have not had a conversation with the group of colleagues on that matter since then. From time to time I have spoken to individual counterparts, but I suspect that the long-serving Chris Hill will probably be briefing some of his colleagues in the course of the next couple of weeks. We are expecting a response from the North Koreans on that timetable.
QUESTION: But could it lose impetus because with the Bush administration out of office, could that sort of fall away?
SMITH: …the views and issues of verification are quite clear and the ongoing problem remains North Korea’s failure to respond to the verification requirements. Whether it is pre-20 January or post-20 January, this is an on-going issue of considerable concern to the international community.
QUESTION: So the Forum as an expanded security mechanism, rather than just about North Korea ?
SMITH: That has not been the subject of a conversation in general terms since the ASEAN-related meetings in Singapore in July.
QUESTION: You mentioned a couple of times that Australia’s effort in South America is underdone, I presume you mean both diplomatic and trade related – why is that so, because you would have thought that there would be lots of opportunities for exporting mining technology.
SMITH: Well that puts it precisely into context. What Simon and I have both found is that the economic exchanges and the people-to-people exchanges have gotten ahead of the government-to-government exchanges. And, so with the array of countries that I have referred to – Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Peru and others, what we find is mineral resources interest is ahead of government-to-government contact; education exchange and educational services is ahead of government-to-government contact.
Interest in research and development in scientific endeavours, interest in Australia’s renewable technology and approaches to climate change, these things have gotten ahead, in our view, of the government-to-government exchanges, so as a nation we need to lift our engagement, with not just the individual countries, but with the regional organisations and with the continent generally.
QUESTION: …with Austrade support for the people who are ahead of the Government and could you help over here.
SMITH: We continually look at the question of resources. We know that whether it is Austrade, whether it’s a diplomatic post, resources are something we continually review and we do that within our budgetary restraints and allocations.
QUESTION: You mentioned that Mr Crean had been on the phone to Dr Nath. Are the Indians going to be more helpful this time, do you think, in Geneva? Are you given any reason to believe they would be?
CREAN: Well he was saying “yes” to me when I spoke to him and I said that we need officials in Geneva next Sunday, and he said “yes” and he said that he would be prepared to participate in a Ministerial.
Look, I’ve had lots of conversations with him and he visited Australia. We clearly have a joint study to determine, and I think go forward with the bilateral relationship. It is a relationship that has been underdone, and the reality is that despite that, India at the moment, was our fastest growing trading partner. Stephen has been there. I’ve been there. We’ve made the commitment. I think Stephen in his very first press conference, he used the geography to argue the connection, but the very first press conference said that this was a relationship that was important. But just to echo elements of what was said before, we have to develop these relationships at all levels. We have to develop them, most of all at the multilateral level, because in a funny sort of way, as difficult as it is, it provides less hassle in terms of selling it.
Look at the US: the debate during the election campaign – the problems on trade were essentially around bilaterals. There were not negative statements in relation to concluding the Doha Round.
QUESTION: (inaudible)
CREAN: We believe that anyway Mathew. I mean, that is the point. If the argument is right, that world trade grows faster than world output, what you need is a framework that liberalises world trade with all countries rather than just doing it one-by-one. The trouble with the one-by-ones is that they lead to preferential outcomes. Now, it is true that multilaterals are not the most perfect in the sense of total liberalisation, but they are huge advances.
As I say, each successful round has given lift to that multiplier impact. The task for us is to try and conclude a round knowing that it is not going to be everything that we want and create the platforms on which we can do the enhancements, whether it is through regional architectures and/or bilateral architectures.
SMITH: We had a sticking point with India (inaudible).
QUESTION: One final question about the first anniversary of the government, your finest achievement in that first year?
SMITH: I will leave that to Simon, and I will leave it to Monday the 24th.
CREAN: I think the discussions with India are important, because it is a big country. It has links with a lot of other developing countries, but the truth is it is not just India we have to get in the cart, the truth is we have to get the whole 153. So we need strategies that engage on all of those fronts, and we will.
[Ends]
Media Inquiries: Foreign Minister's office (02) 6277 7500