Transcript
20 September 2009
Interview - Today on Sunday with Laurie Oakes
Subjects: The global financial crisis; climate change; G20 Summit; Nuclear disarmament; Afghanistan; death of Noordin Top; recent appointments of Brendan Nelson and Kim Beazley.
LAURIE OAKES: ... Welcome to the program.
STEPHEN SMITH: G'day, Laurie, how are you?
LAURIE OAKES: I am not bad. I suppose you're aware from the news you might have seen today's newspapers that the Prime Minister swore at some Labor faction leaders.
STEPHEN SMITH: Laurie, I suppose there's as much chance of the Prime Minister swearing as you and I have sworn from time to time in the past. So, I wouldn't worry too much about that, all of us engage, regrettably, in that sort of language from time to time. I think the key point on this matter is, I think the Prime Minister was absolutely right in terms of the policy decision that he made and I think its best left there.
LAURIE OAKES: Well I can imagine that voters in New South Wales might wish that Nathan Rees spoke that way to his faction leader.
STEPHEN SMITH: In all of these issues, Laurie, it's a matter of progressing the correct policy decision and this was the correct policy decision, it was a good decision that the Government, supported by the Caucus, made.
Some members had some difficulty with it and they expressed their view but I think it was an appropriate decision. The Auditor-General's report drew attention to some areas where we needed to tighten up and we've done that and that's a good thing.
LAURIE OAKES: Well, I assume the Prime Minister will be more diplomatic in his meetings in New York and Pittsburgh this week. You and the PM will be at the UN but US President Barack Obama is also going to play a leading part, is this a sign of the American administration re-engaging with the United Nations after the Bush years?
STEPHEN SMITH: Yes it is and I think it's unambiguously it's a good thing. It's the first time that we've seen the General Assembly meet since Barack Obama became President. He's taking a leading role in the climate change debate which the General Secretary Ban Ki-Moon will kick off on Tuesday morning.
But also, for the first time, A US President will be sitting in the chair at the Security Council on Thursday when Barack Obama leads a debate on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.
So, in two areas where Australia has been trying to get an international conversation going, climate change and nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, the US president taking a leading role, that's a good thing and a good thing he's doing it through the United Nations, it's consistent with Australia's approach and we welcome it very much.
LAURIE OAKES: Do you think though that he can get anywhere on nuclear disarmament given the attitude of Iran and its apparent determination to have nuclear weapons?
STEPHEN SMITH: I think there are really two aspects here. Firstly there is trying to ensure that we don't allow proliferation to occur, and secondly, a long-term ambition of the abolition of nuclear weapons altogether and at a speech in April in Prague, President Obama outlined that general approach.
But I think we've got two issues, it's those nuclear weapons nation states who we need to not proliferate, who we need to see ultimately disarm completely, but at the same time we've got to stop the proliferation from some of the rogue states, for example North Korea and Iran.
And we're dealing separately with the Iran and North Korea, two difficult nation states but nonetheless, we're using separate mechanisms and processes to try and hold them to account -to make sure that we don't see the nuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula, and trying to hold Iran to account to previous United Nations Security Council resolutions.
LAURIE OAKES: You mentioned climate change, there's a lot of pessimism now about any real deal coming out of the Copenhagen climate change summit in December. Do you think the meetings this week at the UN General Assembly and the G20 can breathe new life into that process?
STEPHEN SMITH: Certainly we've got to try and use the meetings this week, both at the General Assembly and in Pittsburgh to try and get the political will for a good outcome at Copenhagen.
Australia has nailed its colours to the mast; we've got a very ambitious level of commitment that we've made and we want to try and encourage a good international outcome at Copenhagen.
But we have made the point, we're a long way from getting a good outcome but there is a prospect of seeing some political will occurring in the course of this week.
Firstly, at the General Assembly and secondly later in the week at Pittsburgh where the G20 hopefully will, as one of the items before the G20 have a look at what's referred to as climate change financing, the financial burden on poor and developing countries as they adapt to climate change.
LAURIE OAKES: Now that's supposed to be the deal breaker in Copenhagen, if that gets up do you think we'll then have a reasonable chance of a deal?
STEPHEN SMITH: The G20 we think, has got a very good role to play. We've strongly argued that the G20 had to be the international institution to deal with global, financial and economic matters but it does provide, in addition to the General Assembly this week, another vehicle for political will to try and get a good outcome at Copenhagen. And on that climate change financing point, it's a good vehicle or a good avenue or venue for that issue but it may well be that to get a good outcome at Copenhagen, you know, further meetings are required.
We have expressed our concern in recent times that if we're not careful we won't get a good outcome at Copenhagen. Of course, in climate change we are dealing with the United Nations framework for climate change so that's why the Secretary General, supported by the leaders including President Obama and Prime Minister Rudd, are strongly pushing that item first up this week at the General Assembly.
LAURIE OAKES: If Copenhagen turns out to be a fizzer, won't that strengthen the argument put this week by your own new ambassador to Europe that Australia would be crazy to go it alone with an emissions trading system.
STEPHEN SMITH: What Australia has done is we've said that we will unilaterally reduce, make a commitment to reduce our 2000 level commitments by five per cent by 2020 and if we see a good international outcome we'll go as high as 25 per cent on that reduction. We've also made the point that having legislation in place to reflect that does give us a good negotiating stance at the international table. But so far as Ambassador-designate Nelson is concerned, he's made it clear that as Ambassador he will, of course, represent the views of the Government. And both on the European Union front, which of course is acutely interested in climate change as Australia is, but also on the NATO front, Brendan will do that very well indeed.
LAURIE OAKES: Now the G20 in Pittsburgh. It's pretty widely accepted now, I think, that the worst of the global crisis is over, is the G20 meeting mainly about managing the recovery?
STEPHEN SMITH: No, I think, if you look at where the world is now, a lot of the assessments have been from the World Bank or the IMF that there's a long way to go. Australia is unquestionably doing better than most but even we are saying strongly, this is not the time for example to stop the stimulus packages.
Yes, we need to have a careful look at how the world exits from this global recession, our global financial crisis, but we continue to have to make sure that we're stimulating the economy internationally, we don't want the modest and small signs of a recovery to stall.
That's very important because if you're a trading nation like Australia, if there's an international downturn then economic growth and jobs and trade are at risk. So there's still along way to go. It is appropriate that the G20 start to contemplate the so-called exit strategy but we're a long way from that yet.
LAURIE OAKES: Talking about exit strategies, I assume one of the most important discussions on the sidelines in the meetings this week will be Afghanistan. Now, given the pessimism about what's happening there, seems to be an acceptance that the Taliban is winning. Are we looking at an exit strategy from Afghanistan?
STEPHEN SMITH: I wouldn't concede at all and I don't think the international community is conceding at all that the Taliban are winning.
Yes, it's difficult, it's dangerous and we've got to have a very cold and sober view at the forward, or the future, strategy. And the so-called McChrystal Review will enable both the United States, and the International Security Assistance Force, which is of course United Nations mandated - which includes NATO countries and Australia and others - it does give us a chance to take a very clear and cold look at the future strategy.
And of course we also want to contemplate the post-election aftermath. We are patiently awaiting the Afghanistan Election Commission and Electoral Complaints Commission to bring down a final report on that election. So yes, there are some important milestones coming up so far as Afghanistan is concerned, but we certainly wouldn't be conceding that - although we, of course, have acknowledged for some time it's difficult and it's dangerous and it requires an international commitment into the long-term.
LAURIE OAKES: We read today that General McChrystal who apparently wants 45,000 more troops is being told he shouldn't present that request at the moment because it's politically inconvenient to the Obama administration. Now is that the way to plan and fight a war?
STEPHEN SMITH: [General] McChrystal has presented his report to the US administration but President Obama made it clear a couple of days ago that he wants to take a long, hard, careful look at that in consultation and in conjunction with NATO and with other allies.
So, at some point we would be expected to, ourselves, have a careful examination of the McChrystal report and have an input into that. But President Obama has been making the point that, yes, it is difficult in Afghanistan.
The reasons we are there remain the same. We've recently just seen the September 11 anniversary and we're there to try and stare down the international terrorism which has had adverse consequences, not just for the Untied States where we are at the moment, but also for Australians whether that's been in Bali or London or elsewhere.
It is difficult, it is dangerous, but together with the United States and the NATO countries, we'll take a long, hard, careful look at it and see how the strategy can be improved.
LAURIE OAKES: Now one of the meetings you're having in New York will be with the Indonesian Foreign Minister, Wirajuda, can you tell me, what have you learned about the death of Noordin Top. Does that mean that Australians can now travel more safely in Indonesia?
STEPHEN SMITH: Well no. What it does mean is that a person who has been intimately involved in terrorist activities in Indonesia for more than a half a dozen years - has been involved in the planning of the attacks in Bali, the attack on the Australian Embassy and the attacks in Jakarta recently at the hotels in Jakarta which saw three Australians murdered - a person who's been intimately involved in that has now been killed.
He's been chased by the Indonesian authorities for some time and they've done a good job in eventually tracking him down, but it doesn't mean the threat has gone away. And the fact that the threat continues to exist, that it's not limited to one country, it's not just limited to Indonesia, of course reinforces our general strategic approach so far as Afghanistan is concerned - which we regard, as you know, as a hotbed and training ground of international terrorism - which we need to try and restrict. But we will continue to work closely with the Indonesians who have been very diligent and vigilant and successful in these matters for the last half dozen years.
LAURIE OAKES: Final issues; you mentioned the Brendan Nelson appointment, Kim Beazley was also appointed Ambassador to Washington, now that looks rather like a token Labor appointment amongst all the Liberals and Nats who'd been given jobs, what's wrong with Labor people, aren't they as clever and qualified as their coalition counterparts?
STEPHEN SMITH: I wouldn't necessarily agree with your analysis, Laurie. I think the appointment of Kim Beazley has been very widely, if not unanimously, acclaimed.
Brendan Nelson's appointment has also been very well received and that's because in our view, they're two quality appointments for ideally suited roles.
I've got no objection to appointing Members of Parliament or former Members of Parliament to roles in public life, provided they are appropriately qualified.
Not every Member of Parliament, past or present, is suited to diplomatic appointment. A small number are, and in the case of Kim Beazley and Brendan Nelson, we've got two very good ones. And the Prime Minister's made the point: it's about the quality of the individual not necessarily the label that they've worn in a prior life in domestic politics.
LAURIE OAKES: Well, Fairfax papers reported on Friday that the Rudd Government has appointed ten former Coalition pollies to embassies, commissions, boards and panels with Kim Beazley and Steve Bracks the only Labourites to get the jobs. That sounds as though Kevin Rudd has very little faith in ex-Labor politicians, much more faith in Coalition people.
STEPHEN SMITH: It's not someone's previous political label. It's whether they are appropriately suited for the task the Government wants them to do.
In my own patch, in terms of former Members of Parliament who've been appointed since we came to office, we've seen three. Brendan Nelson and Kim Beazley, who we've spoken about, and Tim Fisher to the Vatican, who we believe - the Prime Minister and I believe - was an eminently suitable appointment.
We'll make these judgements from time to time. Our appointments have been a mix of professional diplomats, other appropriate qualified people, industry or business people, and from time to time, former Members of Parliament or ministers who we know are up to the task. And that will continue.
All we ask, is that when we make a particular appointment, people make a judgement about the merits of the appointment on a case by case basis, because that's how the Prime Minister and I choose and select and recommend people for such diplomatic appointments.
LAURIE OAKES: Minister, we thank you.
STEPHEN SMITH: Thanks, Laurie. Thanks very much.
LAURIE OAKES: Back to you, Cam.
[ENDS]
Media inquiries
Foreign Minister's office (02) 6277 7500