E&OE
30 March 2009
Media Conference, Perth
Subjects: Visit to the Netherlands, UN conference on Afghanistan, China
SMITH: Later this afternoon I'll be leaving Perth for The Hague, in the Netherlands, where I'll be attending the United Nations sponsored conference on Afghanistan. The conference is hosted by the Netherlands and sponsored by the United Nations.
This will be an important conference on Afghanistan. Particularly important will be the fact that this conference seeks, for the first occasion, to broaden the net of international community support - not just NATO nations, not just the International Security Assistance Force nations like Australia but also, importantly, regionally.
What's occurring in Afghanistan, what's occurring in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border area has very serious implications for the region itself, for South and Central Asia and, of course, for the international community. So it's an important conference.
At that conference I'll be indicating Australia's continuing resolve to stare down terrorism in Afghanistan, in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border area.
I'll also be making the point that Australia welcomes the review announced by US President Obama over the weekend. We welcome very much the fact that the United States review leads to similar conclusions that Australia has been working on for some time, namely that the objective in Afghanistan has to be to confront the current hotbed of international terrorism. It's quite clear that Afghanistan, the Afghanistan/Pakistan border area is where, in the recent period, threats from international terrorism have arisen.
Secondly, we very strongly agree with the results of the review that Afghanistan can only be addressed in a military sense, in a civilian reconstruction capacity wielding sense, and also ultimately in a political dialogue sense. So we agree that the approach cannot be a military solution, or approach, alone. There has to be a substantial civilian capacity building reconstruction and political dialogue effort as well.
We also welcome very much the fact that the difficulties that we face in Pakistan have been clearly identified by the United States review. For some time Australia has been saying that the issues and the problems in Pakistan are not linked, or are not restricted to the Afghanistan/Pakistan border area, but also include threats to Pakistan itself. And earlier this year I spent some time in Pakistan and made these points clear, both in Pakistan and upon my return.
While I'm in The Hague, in addition to attending the conference, I'll also be having a formal bilateral meeting with my Netherlands counterpart Maxime Verhagen. You might recall that Mr Verhagen visited Perth in January of this year, so we'll be doing the return formal bilateral meeting with him.
I'll also take the opportunity while I'm in The Hague, of meeting with members of the International Court of Justice, International Criminal Court and the Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslav Republic. And this reflects Australia's support of these institutions, but also reflects our very strong attachment to international norms. And there is a Western Australian connection - former Supreme Court Justice Kevin Parker is, of course, a Vice-President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslav Republic.
On my way home I'll transit through London, where I'll take the opportunity of meeting with Commonwealth Secretary-General Sharma. We will discuss a range of issues of interest to the Commonwealth, but in particular Fiji. And I'll return to Australia effectively for Friday.
So I'm happy to respond to your questions on those matters, or other matters.
Thank you.
QUESTION: Is the only answer a troop surge? Does there need to be more troops sent into Afghanistan?
SMITH: Well the United States review, the Obama Review conducted by Mr Riedel makes, I think, two fundamental points clear. Firstly, that the problem that we're addressing in Afghanistan requires not just a military enforcement component, but also a civilian, or capacity building component; and also, at some stage, a political dialogue amongst the Afghanistan political leadership.
Australia has been saying this for some time. We have nearly 1100 troops in Afghanistan. We have not received a formal request from the United States to increase that. But I think there is an expectation, as the review makes clear, that the United States is looking for additional contributions from the international community.
I've also made it clear in the past that we, having made already a substantial civilian capacity building contribution, including the training of Afghanistan army and police personnel, that we are in the market to increase that contribution. And I've also previously made it clear that at some point in the cycle there has to be a political dialogue amongst the Afghan political leadership.
QUESTION: So when we will know if Australia will commit more troops?
SMITH: As the Prime Minister has made clear both in Washington and on his arrival in London we haven't yet received a formal request. It'll be no surprise if that comes. If and when that does come, we will consider that on its merits.
But we will also, as I've made clear in the past, as the Defence Minister Mr Fitzgibbon has made clear in the past, and as the Prime Minister has made clear in London and Washington, we won't be allowing any potential additional contribution from Australia to be used as a reason, or an excuse, from other members of the international community, to not make an appropriate contribution themselves.
QUESTION: How concerned are you at the declining levels of public support for our troops involved in this?
SMITH: Well we've seen terrible losses in the last period. Two recent deaths, two in one week, this has a terrible adverse impact on the families, but it also has a terrible adverse impact on the Australian community. No one wants to see deaths occurring and we now have 10 casualties in Afghanistan.
We continue to very strongly make the point that our presence in Afghanistan is very much in our national interest. It's also in the interests of the region and the interests of the international community.
The United States review comes to a very clear conclusion, and this is a point that the Prime Minister and I have made before, that the Afghanistan/Pakistan border area is currently the hotbed of international terrorism and that has to be confronted. If it's not confronted, then we don't confront it at our peril, as we've seen recently with a number of Australians very, very fortunate not to be seriously injured or killed in the recent attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team. And the terrible events in Bali in recent years. Let alone the attacks we've seen in Europe itself, or originally, of course, in the United States on 11 September.
So we believe very strongly, it's in our national interest to be there. But we also believe very strongly the objective has to be to confront that international terrorist threat. The solution can only be a combination of military, civilian and political dialogue.
QUESTION: Is it your understanding that Mrs Clinton is turning up at The Hague?
SMITH: The United States will be represented, and my understanding is that Secretary of State Clinton will be there, together with the President's Special Envoy on Afghanistan and Pakistan, Ambassador Holbrooke.
QUESTION: It is likely to turn into a conference very much on numbers, on troop numbers.
SMITH: I don't think that's right. There is a twofold approach, I think, to the conference.
One is that for the first occasion there's been a deliberate effort by Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary General, and the United Nations, and the host nation Afghanistan, to invite and bring into the fold a number of regional countries who haven't necessarily previously been involved. To make the point that what's occurring in Afghanistan, what's occurring in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border area has very serious adverse implications for the South Asian and Central Asian region as well as the international community.
So for example, Iran has been invited. That's a very sensible thing to do.
The second point which I think will come from the conference will be a focus on the United States review, which makes the point that this can't be a military contribution solution alone; it has to also go to leaving the Afghan people, the Afghan nation, the Afghan Government, in a position where they can manage their own affairs. That means building their state institutions, training their army, their armed services, and also training their police forces and training their law and justice administration institutions. I think they'll be the two focuses of the conference.
Of course, that is in the context of both NATO and the United States review making it clear that they are looking to the international community for additional contributions. I think that'll come at a later stage, and as the Prime Minister has said, if and when we get a formal request from the United States, we'll consider that on its merits in a deliberative way. And we'll also take into account what other nation states are doing in terms of their own contribution, additional or otherwise.
QUESTION: Mr Smith, is Mr Tanner right when he says that Mr Turnbull's comments about the Fitzgibbon-Liu issue, that made Australia look as if - the Rudd Government made it look as if the Government's a puppet of China and revived the yellow peril issue?
SMITH: I'm not quite sure what Mr Turnbull is saying. At the end of last week and over the weekend, we had Mr Turnbull and some of his senior frontbenchers out there effectively beating an anti-China drum.
Now today we have Mr Turnbull saying that a relationship with China is very important.
It's no wonder the polls today are very adverse on Mr Turnbull. He says one thing on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, and a different thing on Monday.
Let's be very clear, very clear about Australia's relationship with China. It's absolutely essential, in the course of this century, that Australia have a very strong relationship with China. We know that this is the century of the Asia-Pacific - the rise of China, the rise of India, the rise of the ASEAN economies combined, and also the ongoing significant influence of the United States. This is all occurring in our region, the Asia-Pacific region.
So it's essential that Australia has a good relationship with China, just as it is essential that we have a good relationship with the United States with our ongoing alliance; but also good relations with, for example, Japan and India. And we are moving very strongly to enhance our relationship with India.
This is all in Australia's national interest. And so contact by ministers including me, I spent four days in China last week. I visited two of their major western cities, Chengdu and Chongqing. I met not just with my counterpart, Foreign Minister Yang but also Vice-President Xi, and Standing Committee member Zhou.
Doing these things, having these contacts, making these visits, building these personal and political and national interest relationships are very, very important.
Mr Turnbull should take a long, hard think about what he has been doing. It's quite clear that the public don't respond to his negativity; the public don't respond to his flip-flopping. He needs to start making judgments and making statements that reflect Australia's long-term national interests, not some cheap political points that he makes on a Friday and then retreats from on a Monday.
QUESTION: So how will this debate be received in Beijing?
SMITH: Well, I was in China, as I say, Tuesday to Friday, and I made a range of points to the Chinese leadership and we discussed all of the issues reflecting upon the bilateral relationship between Australia and China, including the need for a free trade agreement, including...
QUESTION: Did they express concern?
SMITH: No, these things would not come up in meetings between me and my counterpart, or me and the Chinese leadership. It'll be a matter for the Chinese themselves to form a view about what Mr Turnbull has been saying. But then again, what he was saying on Friday is completely different to what he's saying on Monday.
QUESTION: Has it revived the yellow peril, though?
SMITH: Sorry?
QUESTION: Is it right to say that it revives the yellow peril issue?
SMITH: I think Australians understand very much that having a relationship with China is very much in our national interest. But when we have that relationship with China, what we do is put our national interest first.
There are a whole range of issues where China and Australia might not necessarily agree, where we believe that a position, a policy position we adopt is in our national interest. And there's a classic illustration which was the Treasurer's decision on Friday in respect of OzMinerals and Minmetals. There's a qualitative difference between having a relationship with a country in your national interest and making decisions which go against your national interest.
What Mr Turnbull can't identify is any decision that the Government has made which is against our national interest. He might try and score a cheap political point, but he can't point to anything where the Government has done anything which is not in our national interest. Having a relationship with China is clearly in our national interest. Making decisions which protect and defend our national interest is also clearly a sensible thing to do.
So I think Mr Turnbull needs to take a long, hard look at the way he has been conducting himself. He sends his [shadow] ministers out on the weekend to make cheap political points, trying to encourage a cheap political response in the community. And today when he's sprung, he starts to talk about the importance of our relationship with China.
And I think the poll that you find out today where he does very badly, reflects the Australian community's view of his negativism and his flip-flopping.
QUESTION: What about this report that Chinese spies have gained access to hundreds of government computers around the world. Are you concerned with that...
SMITH: Well, I...
QUESTION: ...how many is Australia...
SMITH: ...I never make comments about intelligence or security matters in that context. That's the first point.
But secondly, as a general proposition, let me make this point. The Australian Government, indeed successive Australian governments, have ensured that a lot of resources, a lot of time and a lot of effort goes into ensuring that Australia's intelligence communications networks are very secure.
And of course we appreciate that there are threats to intelligence and security, as a result of cyber operations. I don't make a point about one particular report, one particular country, or one particular threat.
As a general proposition, the Australian Government is very well aware of these potential threats to our security and intelligence arrangements, and we devote a lot of resources to making sure we rebuff them appropriately.
QUESTION: So you're confident Australia would have been one of those countries?
SMITH: I am confident that we do everything we can to protect and defend our intelligence and security communications in a way which protects our national interest, and our national security interest.
QUESTION: So you can't say if you're aware or not whether Australia at any point was accessed?
SMITH: Well, as I say, I don't talk about any of those matters in detail. We've put a lot of time, effort and energy and resources into protecting our communications, and I'm confident that we do everything we can to ensure they are appropriately protected and defended.
QUESTION: Mr Smith, you made reference to Mr Turnbull's low standing in the polls, what do you attribute Mr Rudd's high standing in the polls for, at the moment?
SMITH: Well, he's getting on with the job. He's getting on with the job of protecting and defending Australia's national interest. He's making the point that a response, a global response to the global financial crisis, is essential. That's why we've been out there with our own domestic stimulus package, that's why we've been out there saying there needs to be reform to the international financial institutions, that's why we've been very active in this area.
And again on the global financial crisis, I can't work out whether Mr Turnbull is supporting the stimulus packages that we've put in place, or whether he's opposing them. One day he says he's supporting them, the next day he and the Liberal Party and the National Party vote against them in the Parliament.
QUESTION: How long will it last?
SMITH: How long will what last?
QUESTION: The '70s popularity last?
SMITH: Well, these things always go in cycles. I'm making the point that I think today's poll is a reflection on Mr Turnbull's negativity, on his flip-flopping, and on his refusal to put cheap political points ahead of our long term national interest.
QUESTION: I'll just ask you about sponsored travel too, Nick Xenophon has suggested that perhaps MPs who have sponsored travel, should declare it within 60 days, is that something that's got merit?
SMITH: Well, there's already a requirement that if you have sponsored travel as a member or as a senator, that you declare that to the Parliament within a prescribed timetable. I'm happy to be corrected on the record, but I think in the House it's 28 days from receiving the sponsored travel.
The key thing here, I believe, is the declaration. It's not the sponsoring of the travel which is the problem, it's making sure that that is declared so that it's open and transparent, and people can make inquiries, and ask questions about it, if they want to. I think the best opprobrium in all of these matters, is the opprobrium that comes from the Parliament, or from the community, when people either fail to make the disclosure, or where there's a clear conflict of interest.
QUESTION: What about some of the funding for MP'S travel, particularly say, your opposite number the Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister, should there be more - a bigger pool of money for public funding, especially for your opposite number?
SMITH: Well I believe it's in Australia's interest for Members of Parliament to travel internationally, to become aware of a range of international issues, being aware of that again, is something which is in our national interest. That's the first point.
Secondly, there are limited travel arrangements for Members of Parliament. In terms of the travel arrangements for the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, could I make this point? This same point was made as long ago as when Laurie Brereton was Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs in a previous time, when the Howard Costello Government was in office, and the Howard Costello Government, and all his ministers, including Mr Turnbull, including Julie Bishop, saw a request from the Shadow Foreign Minister for more expensive travel arrangements, fall on deaf ears.
So let's precisely understand the context in which it is given. For myself, I'm very happy to give consideration to additional travel entitlements to Members of Parliament in a limited sense, in a very limited sense, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, Shadow Minister for Trade, for example, where travel is obviously of advantage not just to the member concerned, but to the national interest. But people should clearly understand what view of the Liberal and National Party was, for 11 to 12 years.
QUESTION: But I mean did you see the justification for loosening the purse strings, and then you don't get caught up in the Mr Fitzgibbon issue?
SMITH: Well, Mr Fitzgibbon himself has said that he's made a mistake. The mistake he made was not disclosing, not declaring. There's only a problem in my view, with private sponsored travel if there's no declaration. All of the examples we've had of private sponsored travel causing public controversy, or causing difficulty, is where there's been a failure of disclosure. When the disclosure is made, it's open, it's then there for people to make inquiries about, to subject the member concerned to criticism, or the like. The key thing in my view is disclosure.
QUESTION: Mr Smith, just on the Chinese, in your discussions with the Chinese officials, can I just clarify that there was no raising of the topic of the Fitzgibbon matter?
SMITH: No. No. There was no raising of the topic of the Fitzgibbon matter, nor was there any raising of any of Mr Turnbull's or Mr Abbott's or Mr Hockey's comments, and I wouldn't expect them to be raised.
QUESTION: Nevertheless, it'd be well known, wouldn't it, by the Chinese Government?
SMITH: Well I've seen in some newspapers today referring to how active the Chinese Embassy in Australia is, and I'm sure they report back to their home nation, as Australian posts report back to our home nation, and other posts report back to their home nations. That's why nation states have embassies and missions.
QUESTION: Could it in your view have any impact on Australia/China relations?
SMITH: It certainly won't have any impact on the way in which the Government, the Australian Government, pursues our relationship with China in our national interest.
Thank you.
[Ends]
Media inquiries
Foreign Minister's office (02) 6277 7500