E&OE
2 December 2008, Brussels, Belgium
Interview with La Libre Belgique, Agence Europe, European Voice, Europolitics, Agence France Presse
STEPHEN SMITH: Yesterday, I had a good session with the Belgian Foreign Minister Karel De Gucht. I invited him to come to Australia. He said he might be able to do that next year. We spoke about longstanding relationship between Australia and Belgium that started historically with Australian involvement in the First World War. So there is a lot of historic friendship as a consequence to that.
Also, I spoke to Minister De Gucht about the situation in the Congo. I indicated to him that Australia wants to enhance its engagement in Africa and in part as a consequence of that and the terrible situation in the Congo, recently I announced Australia's contribution of $A5 million in assistance for the Congo.
We also, of course, discussed Australia's interests in Belgium, both in the NATO context but also in the European Union context, and I'll deal with those EU issues when I'll deal with the meetings I attended yesterday and today. So it is a very important bilateral relationship and we hope that Minister De Gucht can get to Australia next year.
Secondly, yesterday, I spent all morning with NATO. Firstly, a formal meeting with the Secretary General de Hoop Scheffer. We had a very good session. We covered, firstly, Australia's relationship with NATO. We have gone in a reasonably short period of time from what is known as the three ‘nons': not a member, not an applicant, not a contact partner to, now, a contact partner, and a dialogue partner. That's largely the consequence of our commitment to Afghanistan. I made the point that we regard our relationship with NATO as being important. We had extensive discussion about Afghanistan, as you'd expect. We have nearly 1100 troops in Oruzgan province in the South. So we had an extensive discussion about Afghanistan, but also we had a conversation touching upon Russia and Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Subsequent to my meeting with the Secretary General, I had also a roundtable with all the representatives, all the Ambassadors to NATO.
So it was an extensive discussion, again which, in general terms, covered three areas: one, Australia's relationship with NATO as a constructive dialogue partner; second, Afghanistan; and third, Russia and Georgia. And, of course, NATO Foreign Ministers are meeting today, and no doubt these will be the subjects of conversations among those ministers.
Yesterday afternoon, I met with two of the European Union Commissioners. This reflects Australia's desire to enhance its engagement with Europe and the European Union, generally. When Prime Minister Rudd came to Europe in April he met with President Barroso and agreed that Australia and the European Union should enhance its engagement. And very quickly, we followed that up. And so, in October in Paris, with French Foreign Minister Kouchner, we and the French Presidency presented the Australia-European Union Partnership framework.
So it really sets the scene for the modern relationship between Australia and the European Union. I think it's true to say that if you wanted to characterise the perception of Australia's relationship with Europe, until recently, it has been a long-withstanding historical relationship with the United Kingdom for all the obvious reasons. But then, secondly, our view of the Common Agriculture Policy. We want to, the new Australian Government wants to, engage much more comprehensively with Europe and the Partnership Framework will give us the opportunity to do that.
What we have discovered is not only the importance of trade and investment matters. As an entity, the European Union is the largest single investor, capital investor in Australia. So, there is a significant trade, investment and economic relationship. But it's not just that. What we are discovering, as we engage with the European Union and with its member states, that very much Australia's approach is like-minded. Our commitment to multilateralism, our commitment to working through international institutions and regional institutions to address significant international problems, whether it's climate change or whether it's a global financial crisis.
So, in that context, I met with Environment Commissioner Dimas, Stavros Dimas, and made the point that one of the first acts, the first act of the Australian Government was the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. And now, we're working very closely, not just in conjunction with the European Union, but also with other nation states, to address international climate change and indicated that we're expecting on 15 December, in a couple of weeks time, to formally announce the shape of our emission trading scheme.
The second meeting I had was with Commissioner Fisher Boel, and we signed the Australia-EU wine agreement. This is a significant agreement. The first Australia-EU wine agreement was in 1994. But this agreement is a substantial improvement on that agreement. It has been welcomed very strongly by the European wine industry and also the Australian wine industry.
It protects the so-called geographical indications for the European wine producers, but also recognises a range of new production techniques as far as the Australian producers are concerned. And it gives Australian wine industry ten years to make a transition from some of the European labels to new Australian labels. So, for example, there is a ten year space for the Australian wine producers to market and label Tokay differently. So, there is a transitional period of access to the European market, the European market is already our largest single market as far as wine is concerned. But it's also a reflection of the world quality of the Australian wine industry, standing on its own feet, being recognised in the same right.
It's a significant advancement, and Commissioner Fisher Boel and I signed that yesterday. And it's a significant agreement and it reflects the sort of things we are now doing under the Partnership Framework. In the course of this year, we have agreed with the European Union a passenger name records agreement for air travel purposes, the wine agreement I just referred to, and we are working very hard on an air services agreement between Australia and the European Union for air travel generally between Australia and Europe.
Now, this morning, I'm seeing Commissioner Solana, the High Representative for Foreign Affairs. Then, I'm seeing Baroness Ashton, the Commissioner for Trade. With Dr Solana we'll cover regional and international issues we have mutual interest in. With Baroness Ashton, of course, it will be a meeting where I, on Australia's behalf, will impress the importance of making advance on Doha and trying to bring the Doha Round to a successful conclusion. And then, my last meeting this morning will be, before I leave for Oslo, with Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner, the External Relations Commissioner. And this will be a follow-up of my meeting with her in Paris when we presented the Australia-EU Partnership Framework.
So, it's a visit which touches on three important Australian interests in Brussels: Belgium itself, European Union and NATO. And I'll leave midday to Oslo, and tomorrow or Thursday, we sign the cluster munitions convention. A number of Foreign Ministers of NATO, I understand, are also travelling to sign the convention which is a very important convention from a humanitarian point of view. So, I'm sorry it's a bit long but that's my two days in Brussels. I'm happy to respond to your questions on those or any other issues.
REPORTER: NATO Foreign Ministers meeting today. One of the issues that's going to be discussed over the two days at least is Afghanistan, a comprehensive approach, and how that's working, and how that seems to be - they seem to be struggling a little bit. So, if I could get your perspective on a comprehensive approach, what Australia thinks is needed, particularly in the South. Then, there is a question about the drug issue, the idea where certain countries are willing, are going to go after the drug king-pins and so on, whether Australia has a role in how that's working?
SMITH: So far as Afghanistan is concerned, the course of this year, we have seen two significant international meetings. We had the Bucharest Summit which really dealt, if you like, with a military peace and security aspects. And then, we had the Afghan donors' conference in Paris which dealt with the nation building or the civil reconstruction, or the contribution to the capacity of the part of the Afghan people and the Afghan Government to manage its own affairs.
Australia's attitude is, we think that there needs to be a comprehensive approach. The difficulties and the problems we face in Afghanistan can't be met simply with military force or military action. So, we need to have a military contribution to seek to have peace and security, but we also need a substantial civilian contribution to build the institutions, particularly the Afghan national army, the Afghan national police, but the institutions of society to enable the Afghan people to manage their own affairs.
And thirdly, at some stage, there needs to be a political discussion, a political dialogue with the political leadership in Afghanistan to seek to resolve any political differences in Afghanistan, so there's a capacity for a long-term enduring peace. We have 1100 troops in Oruzgan province. We made it clear that we're not proposing to increase that amount of troops. But at the Afghan donors conference, we substantially increased our civilian contribution and we have now made a contribution of about $600 million over the last four, five years, a significant contribution. And we remain open-minded if there's more we can do on that front.
REPORTER: Excuse me. $A6 million?
SMITH: $A600 million.
We, in the course of next year, Australia thinks it's appropriate that we review where we got to in Bucharest and in Paris, just to see how much progress will there be. I think that there are four substantial issues or problems, and you've touched on one of them. First, not in any order, but the first is getting environment right in terms of peace and security, and that requires substantial military or combat contribution. And we have seen the comments of President-elect Obama in the course of the US election campaign that he's looking at a substantial additional contribution. Secondly, building the Afghan institutions, whether it's law and administration, whether it's police, whether it's education, whether it's health, building the institutions of state. Thirdly, it's government issues, making sure that there is good governance in Afghanistan. And then, fourthly, is the very difficult issue of narcotics.
All of those four issues have to be addressed. If there was an easy answer to the narcotics problem, then, it would have been found a substantial time ago. So I think there are two points I'll make about those problems. One, Australia thinks in the course of next year that's appropriate to do a review to see the progress we are making; secondly, and this is a point which Kai Eide, the UN Special Representative, has made, we have to make sure that what we do is properly coordinated, coordinated across Afghanistan itself and not just coordinated with a particular province.
Australia is very pleased with the coordination we find in Oruzgan province with the Dutch for example. But we need to ensure that what is occurring province by province does happen across Afghanistan, coordination-wise. We made no secret of the fact that we think that Afghanistan is very difficult, it's very dangerous, and it's a long-term struggle.
But our very strong view is that it's in Australia's national interest to be there, just as it is in the regional community interest and the international community's interest, for there to be a presence in Afghanistan. We regard that as one of the areas in these modern days, where it's the breeding ground for international terrorism, the Afghanistan/Pakistan border area, and we think there needs to be a significant international contribution to meet that.
And of course, it's also the case these days that we are dealing here with problems which are not just Afghanistan in isolation, it's also related to Pakistan and the border areas. And we've seen regrettably both in Pakistan in the course of this year and in India recently terrible terrorist attacks.
So, there needs to be a significant international and regional community effort to confront that. But it can't just be military, it needs to be military contribution to try to get peace and security, but also a civilian reconstruction contribution, and also, at some point in the cycle, there needs to be a political dialogue to bring a political contract.
REPORTER: Have you ruled out sending more troops?
SMITH: Yes. The Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence and I have ruled out an increase in our troops. We are the largest non-NATO contributor, it's nearly 1100 troops. So, it's a substantial contribution - it's larger than a number of NATO countries. So we think we're making a substantial contribution. As I said, we are open-minded. And we are happy to contemplate further contributions on the civilian capacity building front. And we think, if you like, that the balance of our contribution is significant and appropriate.
REPORTER: There's no attempt to reduce that number?
SMITH: No. At this stage, we are not proposing to reduce our commitment to Afghanistan, which is a long-term commitment. Of course, we have obligations in our own more direct region: we've got troops [as] part of the regional and international peacekeeping arrangements both in East Timor and the Solomon Islands. And you may well be aware that we came to office with a commitment to withdraw our combat troops from Iraq which we did in the course of this year, June, July this year. Some 500 to 600 combat troops we withdrew from Iraq. We are not proposing to reduce the number of troops we have in Afghanistan. But we have no obligation to increase that number.
REPORTER: And do you plan to send troops in Africa, for instance to East Congo?
SMITH: No, no troops. One of the discussions I had with Foreign Minister De Gucht was Africa and the Congo. When the current Australian Government came into office, we had, if you like, from Opposition to Government what we described as three pillars of our foreign policy: engagement in our region, in the Asia Pacific; engagement in multilateral institutions, in United Nations and others; and our allied relationship with the United States. What, of course, we've discovered in our first twelve months is that there's a lot more that we need to do. And whilst our priorities are regional, our interests are global. And so, just as we've come quickly to a conclusion that we need to enhance our engagement with Europe and the European Union nation states, so we came to the conclusion that we need to enhance our engagement in Africa.
We're not proposing to supply or to provide troops to the Congo. We've had a long-term United Nations contribution there, and a long-term European contribution there. But we have, as I say, in recent times announced substantial humanitarian relief in the Congo. We regard as appropriate for those nation states that have been contributing to the UN peacekeeping force to continue to do that. And, of course, there's been an additional complement to that, and a number of European states are contemplating whether they should be making additional contributions. We wouldn't regard it as appropriate for us to make a troop contribution to the Congo. But certainly, we're keenly interested and happy to assist with humanitarian relief.
REPORTER: May I ask you a question about trade and Doha. I know it's your colleague Simon Crean who covers it. How confident are you that there could be a ministerial meeting by the end of the year and can it succeed?
SMITH: Well, trade, of course, is one of the issues that I've been speaking about with my counterparts for some time. Can I first make a point about Simon Crean, my trade colleague. Very sadly, Simon's father, Frank Crean, died overnight. Simon's father, Frank, was a former Treasurer of Australia. We are very sad at Frank's passing and have expressed our condolences to Simon and his family today. So, it's a sad day for Simon.
But Simon has been working relentlessly on arguing to his counterparts, to the trade counterparts, that we need to get to a conclusion to the Doha Round. It's one of the significant action points out of the G20 meeting in Washington that trade ministers have been directed to try and bring the Doha Round to a conclusion. That was followed up by the APEC ministers, Simon Crean and I, were both in Lima when the trade and foreign ministers met in Lima. As APEC ministers, we essentially resolved the same thing, that we had to try and bring the Doha Round to a conclusion.
As we speak, officers are in Geneva seeking to do more work on it. And there is a real prospect that ministers will be invited to Geneva before the end of the year. We strongly support that. We think that's a sensible thing to do. We were very disappointed when Doha fell over a few months ago. And the arguments in favour now of bringing the Round to a conclusion are even more pressing than they were then. One of them, it's quite clear, that in the face of global financial crisis, this is the last time we would want to retreat to protectionism. But more importantly, it's also the very time we've got to advance openness and access.
So we strongly support that sentiment, we strongly support the notion of a ministerial meeting to try and bring trade ministers to bring the modalities to an agreement before the end of the year. We think it's very much in international community's and international economy's interests to get successful conclusions and a successful outcome.
REPORTER: The Poznan conference on 15 December. You said you're hoping to have some sort of shape of the ETS scheme. What do you see as main obstacles in Poznan next week?
SMITH: The first thing I did as Foreign Minister was to sign off on the credentials of our delegates to the Bali conference. And the first act of the Government was to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. So, we have been working very hard with the regional and the international community to advance the international effort against dangerous climate change. The discussion, all of the discussions about climate change, because you've got, even if the objective is shared, there will be different views about how we get there. So, the discussion at Bali was a difficult discussion and negotiation, but ultimately, there was a successful conclusion. The discussion on the Kyoto itself was a difficult negotiation. But ultimately there was a successful conclusion. And some people have been around long enough to remember the Rio conversation, and it was likewise. So, we expect Poznan to be the same.
But the important point, we think, is that at each of these meetings we make progress, that we share the objective to reduce the emissions, to combat dangerous climate change. We're hoping that on 15 December, we'll release our emission trading system proposal. That's our current intention and we're expecting that Penny Wong, our Climate Change Minister, will, of course, go to Poznan for those discussions. So, we think it's important to keep on advancing the arguments, even though there'll be different views, and there'll be difficult negotiations. But the important point is to share the objective of a need for reduced emissions and to confront dangerous climate change as an international community.
The nature of climate change is another example of a substantial difficulty we have where you can only address the problem by working together, by acting together. It's equally futile to do nothing as it is to try and act alone. You need to be acting in concert with the international community. But I suspect there will be a lot of work that's done in the international community, both in the run-up of Poznan and after Poznan, to try to bring these issues to a successful ultimate conclusion.
[Ends]
Media Inquiries: Foreign Minister's office (02) 6277 7500