Transcript - E & O E
21 September 2009
Press briefing, Beekman Hotel, New York
Subjects: Afghanistan and the Trilateral Strategic Dialogue Ministerial Meeting.
SMITH: I thought I'd quickly go through some of the things I've done today and then I'd be happy to respond to your questions.
I started off the day by signing an agreement between Australia and United Nations AIDS for an Australian contribution of $25 million over four years to help the United Nations in its HIV/AIDS preventative work, and I've released a statement with the detail of that.
Secondly, I met with Helen Clark in her new capacity as the Executive Director of UNDP, United Nations Development Program, where we spoke about Australia's contribution to development assistance, particularly in some difficult destinations, for example, Zimbabwe.
I also met and had a bilateral with the new Secretary-General of NATO, Secretary-General Rasmussen. We had a good conversation about Australia's increasing engagement with NATO as a consequence of our contribution to Afghanistan, and obviously we spoke in some detail about Afghanistan. I also formally advised the Secretary-General that, from February, he would have a new ambassador to NATO, Ambassador Nelson.
I've just come, as you know, from the Trilateral Strategic Dialogue between Australia, Japan and the United States, with Secretary of State Clinton and the new Japanese Foreign Minister Okada.
It's not the first occasion I've met him. I met the new Foreign Minister when I was in Japan at the end of 2008 when he was a leading figure in the opposition. And we're very pleased to have made such a high level engagement with the Foreign Minister so early in his time as Foreign Minister. And the Trilateral Strategic Dialogue is a very important part of the engagement between two allies with the United States.
Earlier in the day, the Trilateral Strategic Dialogue was my second engagement with Secretary of State Clinton, we had lunch together with other Leaders and Foreign Ministers from the Pacific, which reflected the United States' desire to enhance more strongly its engagement in the Pacific. We spoke not just about the need for the United States to engage strongly in the Pacific, but also spoke about climate change and the particular difficulties climate change causes Pacific Island Nation States.
I'm happy to respond to your questions on those or other issues.
JOURNALIST: You probably have seen the story today about the American General warning that unless they get more troops in Afghanistan urgently, they're going to lose the war. Have we been asked to provide more troops, and if not, would we?
SMITH: You're referring to General McChrystal's report or review. We've recently received a copy of that report. We're in the process of studying it carefully, and will do that not just in consultation with the United States, but also in consultation with NATO - a point I made to Secretary-General Rasmussen - and also with other ISAF nations.
We have not received a request for a further troop or military contribution, and I'm not anticipating one. I think it's also important to make this point: we're not expecting that any decisions will be made quickly in the aftermath of General McChrystal's review.
As President Obama made clear recently, this is essentially looking at whether any changes need to be made to strategic implementation. It's not something the President himself believes will be affected quickly. And it's certainly something that needs to be done in conjunction with the troop-contributing countries. So we haven't received a request for an additional contribution, and as I say, I'm not expecting one.
JOURNALIST: Has this war been mismanaged? I'm mean; we're what, eight years into it? Numerous lives have been lost, and including Australian lives?
SMITH: This is a difficult and dangerous exercise, and we've recently enhanced our own contribution to some 1500 troops and, in addition to an enhanced military contribution, a substantially increased training or civilian capacity contribution.
The reasons why we are in Afghanistan continue. Here we are in New York, a few days after the most recent anniversary of September the 11th . We continue to strongly believe that Afghanistan and the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area remain the hotbed or the training ground for international terrorism. And we believe that it is in Australia's national interest to make our contribution to seek to stare that down.
JOURNALIST: Putting the same question a slightly different way: do you agree - or does the Australian Government agree - with the United States President that the war in Afghanistan is a war of necessity? And if the Australian Government does indeed believe that it is a war of necessity, would you exclude the possibility of sending additional troops?
SMITH: I'll let the President use his form of words and I'll use my form of words. We're in Afghanistan because we believe it's in our national interest to be there. And that is a direct response to the dangers of international terrorism. Our objective in Afghanistan and in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border areas is to reduce, if not eliminate, the prospects of that area continuing to be a breeding ground or training ground for international terrorists.
And Australia has, regrettably, been on the receiving end of such international terrorist activity, the most recent being the Jakarta Hotel Bombings, where we lost three lives; and we can date that terrible activity back as early as the first Bali bombing.
We would, of course, much prefer historically not to be there. That would be the view of every contributing nation. But we strongly believe that it is in our interest, and in the international community's interest, to be there.
As I say, we've recently received a copy of General McChrystal's review or report. We'll study that carefully; we are studying that carefully. We'll consult, not just with the United States, but with NATO and individual contributing countries. We have not received a request for an additional troop contribution. As I've said earlier, I'm not anticipating one.
JOURNALIST: But you wouldn't necessarily exclude the possibility of making an additional contribution?
SMITH: In recent times, I think as late as yesterday New York time the Prime Minister, the Defence Minister and I have all said we believe our current contribution, increased to 1500 or so in recent months, is an appropriate contribution.
JOURNALIST: Do you share the General's concerns, though, about there not being enough troops on the ground?
SMITH: Well, I haven't yet had the opportunity of reading his report or his review, and just as our officials are studying it carefully, so will I. But as the President has made clear, what this is essentially aimed at is a strategic assessment, a strategic assessment as to whether any strategic modifications need to be made to the fighting in Afghanistan.
Now, I think we're a long way from conclusions being drawn about that, and a long way from any conclusions being drawn about an additional contribution, so far as troops are concerned, by contributing nations. But I again make this point advisedly: we have not received a request for an additional contribution, and I'm not anticipating one.
JOURNALIST: I understand that, but are our Defence Chiefs giving you the same sort of information and concerns?
SMITH: As I say, we have only recently received the report; our officials are studying it, as will I and the Government.
JOURNALIST: But have they expressed similar concerns?
SMITH: In what respect?
JOURNALIST: That there aren't enough troops on the ground? Are we getting this intelligence from our own people?
SMITH: We are making a substantial contribution. We are the largest non-NATO contributor. We're the tenth largest contributor overall. In recent months we've substantially increased both our military and our civilian capacity-building and our training contribution. We're doing that in Oruzgan Province, and we regard our contribution as being an appropriate one.
JOURNALIST: On that last point, is it possible that we'll actually increase our contribution, not through troops - as you say - but through other means, and perhaps a changing role?
SMITH: Well, in terms of other means, by that if you're referring to continuing to contemplate additional or further capacity-building, or civilian capacity-building, or nation-building matters, that's something I'm happy to give ongoing consideration to.
We announced a substantial increase in terms of our development assistance and also training. But we need to leave the Afghan people and the Afghan nation in a position to manage these matters for and by themselves. So I'm certainly open to consideration about assistance in those areas — and I'm happy for that to be the subject of ongoing review.
JOURNALIST: Minister, you said the issue is making sure that Afghanistan is not a breeding ground for terrorists. Is it possible to achieve that aim without defeating the Taliban?
SMITH: Well, there are three legs, if you like, to what the Australian Government believes is the appropriate strategy in Afghanistan. One is a military or combat-enforcement strategy. The second is a capacity-building or training strategy, particularly so far as the Afghan Army, the Afghan Police Force and its law and justice administration institutions are concerned. The third point, which Australia has consistently made, is that we also need to see a political reconciliation, a political rapprochement.
That can only be done by the Afghans themselves, can only effectively be done by the Afghan government, by the Afghan political process itself.
But we have made the point on a number of occasions that we believe there may well be people in Afghanistan who are associated with the Taliban, because they believe there is no alternative or no better way — and we certainly think that, in that area, efforts can be made to seek political reconciliation with sections of the Afghanistan people.
That, of course, realistically, could only be done once the election outcome — and any new Government flows from that has — been determined by the Afghan processes.
JOURNALIST: In relation to the trilateral talks, in your first formal meeting, are there any signs of a shift in Japanese policy since the election? Did you discuss any concerns, particularly in relation to North Korea?
SMITH: Can I say just, in terms of the subject matters considered at the Trilateral Strategic Dialogue, we considered what you would expect would be a usually anticipated range of regional and global security and strategic concerns.
Afghanistan and the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area was one; Iran and its nuclear program was another; and the DPRK - North Korea - and its nuclear program was another.
And, the new Japanese Foreign Minister expressed very similar concerns so far as the North Korean nuclear program is concerned. So we discussed those strategic regional and global issues.
I'm having a formal bilateral with the new Japanese Foreign Minister in the course of the week. So we'll have a much better opportunity of traversing the range of issues that touch upon the Australia-Japan relationship; and also, in more detail, deal with some of the regional and other issues.
Certainly on - and it's not for me to put words or views into the mouth of the Japanese Foreign Minister - but certainly, on North Korea, I did not detect any lessening of strength of view so far as Japanese concern about that matter is concerned.
JOURNALIST: Did he indicate that he wanted to talk to you about another curly issue: whaling?
SMITH: Whaling was not mentioned in the Trilateral Strategic Dialogue. I would expect that we'd discuss that in the course of our meeting later in the week — and I'm very happy to confirm that once we've had that meeting.
JOURNALIST: In the immediate aftermath of the Afghanistan election, Defence Minister Faulkner and Mr. Rudd appeared to describe the election as a success. Does the Australian Government still believe that the election was a success, and do you have confidence in Mr. Karzai?
SMITH: Well, a number of points. Firstly, I wouldn't categorise the Prime Minister's or the Defence Minister's or my comments - which were all along the same lines - as being definitive in terms of success or failure.
We've all made the point that we are very much respecting the request of the United Nations Special Representative, Kai Eide, to not make a final conclusion about the election until the Afghan election process itself has completed. And there is still work being done by the Afghan Election Commission and the Afghan Election Complaints Commission.
And so, whilst both the Defence Minister and I, have expressed concern about allegations of fraud, we are awaiting the final determination of those Afghan processes, bearing in mind - and I think I've used this precise formula - this was never going to be a perfect process: the first Afghan-run election in I think, from memory, 30 years, essentially in the context of a war or war-like environment.
But, we'll wait, the original timetable was, from memory, the 17th of September - we're expecting that now closer to the end of this month.
I have made the point, and I made the point advisedly, both before and after the Afghan election, that, in my view, in the last 18 months or so, there has been an ebbing of confidence in the international community so far as President Karzai and his Government are concerned.
Whoever wins the election or whatever the outcome of the election and any political processes which follow, it's absolutely essential that the new Afghanistan Government - whether it's a re-elected Karzai Government or a Government of a different nature -that substantial progress is seen to be made on some crucial issues: anti-narcotics, corruption, and respect for human rights, particularly respect for women so far as human rights are concerned.
Both before and after the election, I've made the point that unless we see, that unless the international community sees, progress on those fronts, then the political support in individual countries' domestic constituencies will ebb very significantly. So that's a challenge for the new Government, whether it's President Karzai, Mr. Abdullah, or a combination of the two, or more.
JOURNALIST: On elections, would you feel comfortable facing an early double dissolution election in Australia?
SMITH: I'm not an early election man. Three years is too short, and I have to say that my colleagues and I, including and in particular the Prime Minister, are much more concerned about getting on with the job and getting decent outcomes, than we are about elections early or otherwise.
If your point is directed to the question of an early election or a double dissolution on the matter of climate change, we're much more concerned about getting a decent emissions trading system in place domestically, and also much more concerned about getting a decent outcome internationally from Copenhagen, than the timing of an election. But I think my colleague, Penny Wong, is due to appear before you, so I'll leave any more detail of that to her.
But elections are hard to win at the best of times, and given that we're on a three-year-short timetable, my instinct has always been to try and use as much of that as humanly possible.
JOURNALIST: Minister, you hosted Condoleezza Rice in Perth; did you extend a similar invitation to Hilary Clinton?
SMITH: Well, this may or may not be a rule of diplomacy, but often you're best off not using the same trick twice. The Secretary of State has a standing invitation to visit Australia at a time of her convenience. And she's welcome on the East Coast just as she's welcome on the West Coast.
JOURNALIST: If officials from the Gaddafi or Ahmadinejad regimes wanted to meet you, would you then meet them?
SMITH: Well, I haven't had such a request, and I don't deal in hypotheticals.
Thank you.
[ENDS]
Media inquiries
- Minister's Office: (02) 6277 7500
- Departmental Media Liaison: (02) 6261 1555