E&OE
26 May 2009
Press Conference – Canberra
Subjects: Nuclear testing by North Korea, Heads of Mission, Nigel Brennan
STEPHEN SMITH: I've just come from a meeting of the National Security Committee of the Cabinet, and I'd like to start by updating on the meeting of the United Nations Security Council early this morning Australia time.
Firstly, we welcome very much the unanimous condemnation by members of the Security Council of North Korea's underground nuclear test. We also welcome very much that the Security Council has agreed to start immediately work on a resolution of the Security Council.
I spoke this morning to our acting Ambassador to the United Nations, and instructed him to make contact with all members of the Security Council, permanent and temporary, all 15, to reinforce and underline Australia's foreign policy position in this matter.
Firstly, we share the Security Council's condemnation of North Korea's actions. Secondly, we look forward to a strong and robust resolution, reinforcing all the provisions of Security Council Resolution 1718, but also looking to new and additional measures to reinforce the condemnation of the international community.
Thirdly, to urge North Korea to immediately resume the Six Party talks.
Can I also indicate that last night, Canberra time, I spoke to Minister Yu, to South Korea's Foreign Minister. I reinforced these points with him. I indicated that Australia strongly supported the moves by Japan, supported by Korea, to see the Security Council meet urgently.
Let me make a number of general points about North Korea's conduct. In 2006, we saw North Korea attempt a long-range missile launch. That was not successful. In October 2006, we also saw a small nuclear underground test by North Korea.
Two years later, we have seen a larger underground nuclear test by North Korea and last month a more successful long range missile launch.
And so the great concern for Australia and the international community is North Korea's developing capacity. We're not necessarily asserting that North Korea has a nuclear weapons capability, but it is their progression along this path which is the cause of great concern to Australia and to the international community.
So we welcome very much the meeting of the Security Council overnight. We welcome that all 15 members have expressed their strong condemnation of North Korea's conduct, and we look forward to the Security Council commencing its work in terms of a new resolution so far as North Korea's conduct is concerned.
Let me make a final point, then I'm very happy to respond to your questions. There's no doubt that North Korea is a difficult member of the international community. Indeed, one of the words I've used to describe North Korea is that, often, they seem impervious to the views of the international community and the views of the Security Council.
That is not an argument or a reason for doing nothing. On the contrary, given the worrying state and progression of their development, it is an argument for the international community to do more.
Having said that, there is always a path of dialogue. There is always an opportunity to speak and Australia's very strong view is that that dialogue should resume immediately in the Six Party talks.
QUESTION: Minister, what - how - what is your advice on the feasibility of North Korea matching up a missile [indistinct]?
STEPHEN SMITH: As I say, we're not asserting that they have a nuclear weapons delivery capability. But the point I make, and the point which is of increasing concern to Australia and the international community, is the progression that we've seen.
Whilst it is the case that last month in April their missile launch was not an unambiguous success, it was certainly much more successful than their failed attempt in 2006.
When it comes to the underground nuclear test, in 2006, it was a small explosion.
Most analysts took the view that that was a small explosion because a larger explosion had failed. On this occasion, the estimates are a much larger explosion in the range of the bombs that we saw in Hiroshima, the bomb that we saw in Hiroshima.
So the worrying feature is their progression, and that is what they need to desist from and that is what the international community needs to act against.
QUESTION: What further measures could be taken against North Korea?
STEPHEN SMITH: Resolution 1718, which the Security Council adopted unanimously after the test in October 2006, puts a ban on the provision of weapons to North Korea, puts a ban on the provision of materials that can be used for nuclear development, and also bans luxury items.
Australia has gone to the outer limit of those bans. We have also, as a number of other nations have, affected autonomous sanctions, in particular travel sanctions. In the past, the United States, for example, has contemplated financial sanctions.
I think there are two areas that we need to contemplate. One is more members of the international community fully implementing the provisions of 1718, and secondly, whether it is open to the international community through the Security Council, to contemplate greater and additional sanctions, in particular, financial sanctions.
QUESTION: The Australian cameraman in Somalia, Nigel Brennan, do you have any update on that situation?
STEPHEN SMITH: Let me make a point that I've made before. I don't think media reporting in Australia or internationally helps Mr Brennan or his family. The Australian Government continues to do everything that it can to assist his family and to bring him home to his family. And publicity about his circumstances, in my view, are prejudicial to those efforts, and I'm not proposing, as I have in the past, to make any further comments about it.
I remind all Australian media outlets of the materials that I have provided them with and the urgings I have made to them to bear that view uppermost in their minds when they come to the reporting of this matter.
QUESTION: Foreign Minister, can you tell us how many head of mission positions have been held up by the Prime Minister because they don't meet his language requirements?
STEPHEN SMITH: Let me make some general remarks about appointments of our Ambassadors and High Commissioners overseas.
Firstly, I make recommendations to the Governor-General in Executive Council. That is my recommendation to the Governor-General. And that is the longstanding practice of Australian governments, which this government follows.
I of course consult from time to time with the Prime Minister over important positions or positions where I think there is an important interest so far as Australia's national interest is concerned, and we will discuss these matters. And that is also the longstanding Australian government practice. So I put forward recommendations to the Governor-General in Executive Council.
Language is an important criterion. It is an important criterion; it's not the only criterion. And from time to time, the capacity of a language of an individual is very important.
As I said in recent days, I don't propose to get into a conversation about who may or may not have been considered and various attributes which people have or don't have. I'm very happy with the range, array and quality of our Ambassadors overseas, and I'm very happy, for example, with the appointment of Mr Borrowman to Sweden. It's an important post and he'll do a good job.
QUESTION: I'm not asking about individuals, Minister, I'm asking how many head of mission positions are being held up because they don't meet the language requirement which the Prime Minister made quite clear yesterday are his requirements?
STEPHEN SMITH: Well, as I said, language is a very important criterion. It's not the only criterion. That's the first point. Secondly, last time I looked, Australia was represented overseas in just about all of its missions by an Ambassador or a High Commissioner other than in Sweden where there was an early retirement, which is why I moved to appoint Mr Borrowman.
I don't accept the assertion that there is any delay or lag in our appointments or any gaps in our appointments.
QUESTION: Minister, would you look at suspending the relationship with North Korea altogether? Would you go that far? And also aid to North Korea, some aspect of aid?
STEPHEN SMITH: Firstly, we have diplomatic relations with North Korea. Our Ambassador to South Korea has representation rights to North Korea. We propose to continue that, because, as I have said, whilst North Korea may often appear to be impervious, there is always a point to having a dialogue, even if that is only to put a view that the other party strongly disagrees about. That's the first point.
Secondly, despite all of our condemnation of North Korea in the past, we have continued as appropriate to render humanitarian assistance to North Korea, particularly when it comes to food aid. And we will continue to conduct ourselves in that manner and discharge our obligations as a good international citizen.
Can I make this point: there would be less requirement for Australia to render humanitarian assistance by way of food aid to the people of North Korean if the North Korean regime spent more money on food and food security than they do on their nuclear program.
QUESTION: What's the latest intelligence on the food situation in North Korea? Is it a case that they could be - part of the nuclear weapons testing could be triggered by internal…
STEPHEN SMITH: Firstly I never talk about intelligence. Secondly, the food position in North Korea is always precarious, is always precarious for both economic, climatic and regime factors.
QUESTION: Minister, what role do you see China and Russia playing in influencing North Korea?
STEPHEN SMITH: We welcome very much the comments from both China and Russia. We welcome very much the remarks of the Russian Chair of the Security Council, and we welcome very much the comments which have come from China.
And when the Security Council met, in the first instance, the P5, the permanent five members met initially with Japan and Korea. Japan, of course currently a temporary member, had requested the meeting of the Security Council supported by the Republic of Korea. China, Japan and the Republic of Korea are of course the most immediately affected nation states in terms of borders and geography.
So the P5 met with Japan and the Republic of Korea and then the 15 met as a Security Council. All, including Russia and China, condemned North Korea's actions and the agreement of the Security Council was to move to the preparation of a resolution, which we hope emerges in the next few days.
Thanks very much.
[Ends]
Media inquiries
Foreign Minister's office (02) 6277 7500