E&OE
18 March 2009
Sky News: Interview with Ashleigh Gillon
Subjects: Afghanistan, DFAT resourcing, foreign investment
HATCHER: It's been revealed the ninth Australian soldier to die in Afghanistan became a father just days ago.
McKENZIE: According to newspaper reports, the recently married serviceman was a corporal with the operational mentor and liaison team. The latest Australian soldier killed in Afghanistan died in a fierce gun battle with the Taliban, just north of Tarin Kowt.
Despite his death, more Australian troops could be sent to the war zone with the Government not ruling out committing more resources at America's request.
HATCHER: For more we'll take you to Canberra where Sky News political reporter Ashleigh Gillon is speaking with the Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith.
GILLON: Thanks, Leigh. Foreign Minister, good morning. We now know that the latest Australian soldier to be killed in Afghanistan was a very young man with a new baby. Should the country brace itself for more tragic news like this in the coming months?
SMITH: Well, first, it is a tragedy that we've lost another young soldier. The family circumstances and the family consequences are always devastating and terrible and they're also terrible for the nation. But the Prime Minister, the Defence Minister and I have made it clear this is difficult and dangerous. We very much strongly believe we're there in our national interest but we have to expect that we're not going to get through this without more casualties.
The Prime Minister, I think, has used the phrase previously: we have to steel ourselves for more casualties. We've now had nine. Other countries, for example, like Canada, have had over 100. But any one fatality is a tragedy for the family concerned and a tragedy for the nation.
GILLON: How many young soldiers need to die before this war becomes too great a cost for Australia to bear?
SMITH: We continue to very strongly believe it's in our national interest to be there. The consequences of not making a contribution, the consequences of leaving far outweigh the adverse consequences or the consequences of staying.
And we've been on the receiving end of terrible terrorist attacks: Bali, more recently we saw Australians involved in the attack on the Sri Lankans. This is the hotbed of international terrorism and we have to play our part.
Our contribution is not just a military contribution it's also a nation-building or a civilian reconstruction and capacity-building. And also at some point the Afghanistan political leadership has to engage in a political dialogue to resolve these issues. But we're there together with the international community. The alternative is to do nothing and the consequences of that far outweigh any of the consequences that we see in Afghanistan itself.
GILLON: The Dutch are our partners in Oruzgan Province. By next year they've made it clear that they don't want to be playing a leading role. Does Australia have the capability and the will to step up in the region?
SMITH: The Netherlands, the Dutch, have made it clear they don't propose to lead in Oruzgan Province after next year. Whether they remain in a different capacity, time will tell.
And this will be one of the things which will be caught by the overarching review that we now see being done by the United States Administration, by Mr Riedel, which is looking again not just at the military contribution and the allocation of that, whether it's done generally across Afghanistan or done regionally or province by province but also, as I say, the civilian contribution as well.
GILLON: The Financial Review today cites Australian officials as saying that Kevin Rudd is leaning towards a bigger troop commitment in Afghanistan. The report says a new deployment of troops could run into the hundreds over the next year or so. Is that a realistic proposition?
SMITH: We haven't received a formal request from the United States Administration and I've made it clear I'm not proposing and I don't think it helps for us to engage in speculation. We're simply looking at whether, if and when we receive a request, and we won't be surprised by a request if and when we receive it, we'll consider that on its merits. But on a regular basis we continually review what we're doing, we continually review our operations, and we continually review the manner in which our forces are engaged.
We won't be surprised by a request and we'll consider that on its merits and I've seen any number of suggestions by so-called military planners, both within and outside the system. I think it's best just to wait and see whether we receive a request and what the Government's actual decision is.
GILLON: Well, can you explain to us what the deciding factors will be for the Government when it considers sending more troops?
SMITH: Firstly, we very much welcome the strategic review that's being done by the United States. That's very important. So obviously any decision we make will be done in that context and the context of an overarching and better strategic approach.
Secondly, we don't want anything that we do to be an excuse for other countries not to make their contribution as well. Joel Fitzgibbon, the Defence Minister, in particular has made it clear that when it comes to other countries, particularly some NATO countries, we're looking to them to make a greater contribution. We've made no bones about that.
So we don't want the substantial contribution that we make - we're the ninth largest contributor, we're the largest non-NATO contributor. We don't want our contribution - current or any future contribution - to be an excuse for others not to put their shoulder to the wheel as well.
GILLON: So, when you say you're waiting for this report to come out of America, does that mean that we're really looking to America to give us the lead on this? If this report says the more troops are needed, is that the deciding factor?
SMITH: Well, it's obviously a relevant material factor. This is an United…
GILLON: What are some of the other factors though?
SMITH: Well, this is an United Nations sponsored effort. This is an international security assistance force - it's sponsored, it's mandated by the United Nations. But everyone - there's no point pretending this is not the case - the vast bulk of the international community look to the United States to take the lead. Which is why we welcomed the appointment of the United States envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and we welcome the review. We'll have a conversation with the Americans but also with the NATO partners as well.
So, the overarching review - what we believe, is the better or most effective strategic approach is very important, and we'll make a decision on its merits in that context.
GILLON: Has any decision been made yet about whether or not Australia should provide more troops prior to the country's national elections?
SMITH: We've received a separate request from NATO, as all of the so-called ISAF countries - International Security Assistance Force countries - have, to provide additional security arrangements, or an additional security contingent for the purpose of the election in August.
We're giving that separate consideration. I'm not tilting the lever one way or the other. We will give that consideration, as all the International Security Assistance Force countries have been asked to do by NATO.
GILLON: What's…
SMITH: What we've also done of course is I announced recently a $3 million contribution to the running of the actual election, with the contribution to the Afghanistan Election Complaints Commission, to do our best to ensure that it's a full and free and fair election. But the security arrangements, of course, will be very central to that.
GILLON: What's your assessment of the progress being made in Afghanistan? Do you agree with doubts emerging from various quarters that this war is not being won?
SMITH: The phrase I use is a strategic stalemate. I've seen other people make the suggestion that the war's not being won. Strategic stalemate I think is my analysis, which is why I think the overarching strategic review. What is the objective? To me the objective here is to make sure that we reduce the threat, eliminate the threat in Afghanistan of international terrorism and its capacity to be mobile: quickly mobile to the north, a threat to Europe; and quickly mobile to the south, to be a threat to South-East Asia.
And we have to arm the Afghanistan people, the Afghanistan nation, their army, their police force, with the capacity to do that themselves as well, which is why our effort involves a substantial reconstruction and training contribution.
We can't be there forever. We're not an occupier. We've got to reduce, contain, and eliminate the international terrorist threat, but leave the Afghanistan people and their army, their police force, their instruments of state, the capacity to never again allow Afghanistan to become the hotbed of international terrorism.
GILLON: In other news today a Lowy Institute report has found that Australia's diplomatic service is over-stretched and ill-equipped to deal with new foreign policy challenges. Do you accept that there are serious problems in your department?
SMITH: Well, I think it's a very good report and we'll obviously give it very serious consideration.
It puts the resource question of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade but also the resource allocation to our diplomatic effort overseas generally, into a very good historical snapshot.
This is not something that has occurred over one year, or one budget or even one term of Parliament. There's been a long-term decline, that point's made clear.
But also the current Government wants to do much more than our predecessor. So we're acutely aware - and the Prime Minister himself, when he launched the National Security Statement late last year made precisely this point - and that features very prominently in the report itself.
GILLON: But last year the Government cut positions in various postings around the world. This report suggests opening no less than 20 diplomatic missions is now needed. Was that a mistake to do that in the last Budget?
SMITH: Well, we didn't like doing that but we had to make cuts across the board.
But to put it in its historical context, when the previous Government came to office, when you look at the gap in staffing between 1996 and 1998, where you can see the effect of cuts that were made in the then Howard Government's first year, there's something like a 500 staff cut across the board in terms of Australian staff and about 130 staff cut from overseas.
When you look at the gap from 2007 to 2009, it's something in the order of 20 or 30. Twenty staff in Australia, 20 to 30 staff overseas. We didn't like doing that but that was, if you like, a modest cut, compared with big cuts that had been made in the past.
But the real point I make is not a partisan political point. I could spend all of my time detailing the sins of our predecessors. The key point here is this is a good historical snapshot. It makes the point that the problem has not arisen in one budget, whether it's last year's budget or a previous budget, and we've now got to start the painstaking task of rebuilding.
We do need to have more resources. We do need to do more things. We can't do that in one budget in one year, or even in one term. So it's a very helpful contribution I think in that respect.
GILLON: Just finally, very quickly, we are almost out of time. On Chinalco, Barnaby Joyce is warning that Chinalco's bid for a larger stake in Rio Tinto could sour diplomatic relations with China in the future. For example, he says that a corporate dispute could flow into affecting government relations, because of the Chinese government's interest in Chinalco. Is that a concern to you, as Foreign Minister?
SMITH: Well, I'm not quite sure what Barnaby Joyce is saying himself publicly, or through his adverts on TV, other than saying, don't do this. Like any overseas foreign investment, that'll be considered. The Treasurer will make a judgement about whether it's in our national interest.
We're a country that has traditionally been a prosperous country, as a result of being an attractive place for capital investment, whether that's overseas or domestic, and also being a great trading nation. But we have to make a judgement in our national interest.
This one will be a difficult decision for the Treasurer to make. But we've seen similar sorts of investments have to be subject to a national interest test historically in our past. When the Japanese became a great trading partner so far as our mineral resources were concerned, comparable issues arose at that time.
The key test here is: is this investment in our national interest. That's the test that we apply. And we're not in the business of running adverts as Barnaby Joyce is. We need to make a careful, deliberative decision, and the Treasurer will do that in accordance with our foreign investment legislation and regulation.
GILLON: Foreign Minister Stephen Smith, thanks for your time.
SMITH: Thank you.
[ENDS]
Media inquiries
Foreign Minister's office (02) 6277 7500