Press conference, Parliament House Canberra

Transcript, E&OE, proof only

Subjects: Japanese earthquake, Libya, Bahrain, Rebiya Kadheer

18 March 2011

KEVIN RUDD: Morning all. I'd like to talk about Japan and then Libya. Last night at 10.45pm the Government adjusted its travel advice for Japan. We did so after two meetings yesterday of the National Security Committee of the Cabinet.

As a result of those meetings and the advice that we obtained from government experts, we made a number of adjustments to the pre-existing travel advice.

Firstly, we indicated that the Government's nuclear regulatory agency, ARPANSA — the Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency of Australia — recommended that Australians within 80 kilometres of the Fukushima nuclear power plant move out of the area as a precautionary measure.

Secondly, the recommendation contained in the travel advice is that Australians should not travel to Tokyo and northern Honshu due to disruptions in infrastructure, strong aftershocks and the continuing uncertainty about the status of the Fukushima nuclear plant, unless their presence was essential. Thirdly, we recommended that Australians in these areas — that is Tokyo and northern Honshu — unless their presence in Japan is essential, make arrangements to leave either to southern Japan or elsewhere in the region or back to Australia.

Furthermore, we have said that if you are in Japan and you require consular assistance you should contact the Australian Embassy which will in turn forward your call to the crisis centre in Canberra, and all practical assistance will be provided on the ground.

Furthermore, our advice is that there is currently a good availability of commercial flights out of Japan to Australia and elsewhere in the region, including Seoul, Hong Kong, and Singapore. We continue to have an embassy consular team present at Narita airport to provide practical assistance on the ground.

The Government continues to monitor the availability of commercial flights and will remain in contact with commercial airlines about the need for additional commercial services, should the need arise.

As far as those commercial services themselves are concerned, we have also an arrangement with Qantas whereby they can supplement ongoing commercial availability and the plans we have in place with Qantas that would allow us to arrange additional flights within 24 to 48 hours.

We're also advised that there's good seat availability on a commercial basis — remains available now. Qantas and Jetstar, I am advised, alone have several hundred seats available over the next few days. We will continue to monitor this situation closely. Furthermore, we've been in contact with the airlines in terms of any accusations concerning price gouging of the type that I heard this morning in various media interviews.

We are advised by Qantas, and they assure us, that Qantas is being flexible, as flexible as possible, in assisting people who wish to leave Japan by helping those who have existing bookings to re-book and by providing seats across a range of fares including fares in the lowest category.

Furthermore, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade will be providing consular loans to any traveller in financial difficulty so that they can leave Japan.

The best estimate from the Australian Ambassador to Japan, Murray McLean, is that we have up to about 1500 Australians remaining in the greater Tokyo area, including the northern prefectures.

Ambassador McLean assesses that large numbers of Australians have already departed Tokyo for Osaka regional hubs or have returned to Australia.

In terms of the numbers of missing Australians, or more accurately unaccounted for Australians, that number has now been reduced to 12. Our consular teams have been very active in the field as has our consular crisis centre in Canberra which, as of this morning, has taken just under 10,000 calls.

This number, 12, still concerns us and we will continue to use every effort to identify where those 12 unaccounted for Australians are.

Again I appeal to the Australian public, if you have made successful contact with your friends, family and loved ones, but as yet have not contacted Australian consular officials in Canberra or in Japan, please do so as that enables us to bring this number down lower. We are determined to do everything humanly possible to reduce that number right down.

On the question of Libya, could I make the following remarks.

Today the United Nations Security Council finally adopted a resolution authorising UN member states to deploy all necessary measures to protect Libyan civilians under threat of attack by the Libyan regime, and a resolution which also includes provision for a no-fly zone.

Let us all hope and pray that this final resolve of the international community is not too late for the people of Libya. This is an important step in the diplomatic battle. It has been long fought. Now the military battle on the ground is being joined. And therefore, in accordance with the provisions of the UN Security Council resolution, we would support the implementation of the provisions of this resolution.

The operational clauses of the Security Council resolution may be found primarily at clauses four and eight, and I draw them to your attention.

These clauses call for all necessary measures to be deployed to the end stipulated in the resolution. The resolution explicitly rules out an occupying force.

The resolution also establishes a regime to administer an arms embargo against the Libyan regime and, furthermore, a regime for the freezing of regime assets as well as expanding the list of names to which the various sanctions identified in the earlier UN Security Council resolution now applies.

It's also important to note that in the context of this UN Security Council resolution, that it refers explicitly to the position adopted by the Arab League last Saturday, as reflecting the view of Arab states that a no-fly zone should be imposed in order to protect the civilians of Libya.

We welcome the fact the UN Security Council has adopted this resolution. It has been the product of sustained diplomacy on the part of many states. We have been engaged in that diplomacy as well over a period of time.

I reiterate the position I put earlier, and from the beginning of this debate, on a no-fly zone.

If a no-fly zone was imposed in this part of the world, Australian assets would be considered as a possible inclusion for any such UN operation and we would have considered that possibility.

This is in North Africa; it is adjacent to the NATO zone; it is across the Mediterranean from the NATO zone; this is primarily a responsibility for adjoining states.

That position we have been clear on from the beginning.

I'm happy to take your questions.

QUESTION: Mr Rudd, how much influence, if any, do you think that you and the Prime Minister had in building some international consensus?

KEVIN RUDD: I don't think that question is relevant today. The question which is relevant today is the implementation of the resolution which has just now been adopted.

The diplomatic battle has been tough. You know from the public reporting how tight the military situation is on the ground, therefore the critical question now is the operationalisation of this resolution in order to make a material difference on the ground. That's where the focus of the international community should be today.

On that question we are in close contact with our friends, our partners and our allies as to what measures may be taken and when.

QUESTION: Could you, Mr Rudd — do you have any detail… I mean, I know it's… too early. Do you have any detail who will be — whose planes will be involved? Has that been sorted out yet or — like, French planes, British planes, American planes?

KEVIN RUDD: The provisions for coordination are outlined in broad terms in the Security Council resolution itself. It requires forms of notification of the UN Secretary-General as well as to the Secretary General of the Arab League. In terms of the specific military arrangements within that, that is yet to be made public.

QUESTION: How long do you think it's going to take to organise this? There's a suggestion on the wires this morning that the French were saying they could be ready to start operations within hours. Is that your information or…

KEVIN RUDD: I'm not prepared to comment on that, and the reason being is we are involved in a tactical military situation involving the Libyan regime who are throwing everything they've got at the good people of Benghazi as we speak.

So I'm not about to provide any comment nor I hope do any of my colleagues around the world provide any comment as to what those operational characteristics may be or when they may be put into effect.

QUESTION: Mr Rudd, just on that question without trying to give away any operational detail, does the UN authority provide just the [indistinct] of in-the-air or can whatever forces take action on the ground as well?

KEVIN RUDD: My advice in terms of the content of the UN Security Council resolution is it applies to a no-fly zone, but it is also wider than that in the proper protection to be delivered to — and I use the terms from the resolution itself — Libyan civilians under threat of attack from Libyan forces.

QUESTION: Yes, Mr Rudd…

KEVIN RUDD: I'll just draw your attention to the text of the resolution, it is worthwhile reading. Over here, and I'll come to you …

QUESTION: Mr Rudd, pending the stridency of your support for a no-fly zone, does it make you look untidy and does it make Australia look untidy if we don't make a military contribution?

KEVIN RUDD: Do you know something? When it comes to the business of international diplomacy, there are — they've been 1 973 resolutions of the UN Security Council since it first came into being in, I think, 1946 — Australia, by the way, was the first President way back then.

And do you know something? Those resolutions that we have supported over that time have not necessarily as a result produced Australian military engagement when they have dealt with peace and security measures.

There are matters for our diplomatic engagement to harness the resolve of the international community to act, and there are matters which should therefore directly engage our military assets as well.

If you look at the particular example of Afghanistan, it comes to mind. If you look also at the significant number of UN peacekeeping operations in which our forces are currently deployed — Timor, under a separate arrangement, again, in terms of the Solomons, but then also in places like the Sinai, Sudan, to name just a few — we are well committed and well supportive of UN Security Council resolutions.

But I'd ask you to address the primary logic of it.

There's 1 973 resolutions in the history of this body. What you do is you make calculations about where you can most profitably deploy your assets. There is nothing new in the position that I am putting; it has been put by the Australian Government since day one.

That, however, does not compromise or undermine the importance of diplomacy to harness the resolve of the international community in support of a civilian population, who in the absence of international intervention of this type, run the huge risk of being butchered.

QUESTION: Minister, how critical to…

KEVIN RUDD: … and then back to you.

QUESTION: Thank you very much, Minister. How critical was it to the resolution not only that the Arab League called for it and supported it, but that nations from the Arab League would participate in enforcing the no-fly zone? Qatar, for example, has been mentioned.

KEVIN RUDD: Well, first of all, as I said before, the meeting of the Arab League last Saturday in Cairo was critical. It is noted explicitly in one of the operational clauses of the Security Council resolution, in fact, one of the pre-ambler clauses, I should say, at the beginning of page two.

It therefore represents one of the heads of authority which the Security Council draws on.

Often the Security Council draws on the heads of authority of the state of positions of regional organisations. And the Arab League is the relevant regional organisation. This was a hard-fought debate within the Arab League.

Certainly, my discussions with Secretary General Amr Moussa and foreign ministers in that part of the world, this was a difficult proposition. And, of course, there was some opposition from the Syrians, unsurprisingly.

But that position hasn't been taken as I've said in previous discussions with many of you; it was a necessary precursor for the UN Security Council being able to operate and to deploy its resolve through this resolution. Had that not happened, I think we would have been in considerably more trouble.

The other point that you ask is about Arab League participation. Again, I answer in the same way as I responded to Dennis and others before, and to Phil; I don't think it's productive at this stage to speculate in either composition of forces which may be deployed to give effect to this resolution, the shape of it and the timetable for it.

QUESTION: Minister…

KEVIN RUDD: These are operational matters.

QUESTION: Foreign Minister, there have been occasions when we have supported military action and not provided troops, but we have provided finance or some other, sort of, kind of support in kind. Is the government contemplating anything like that?

KEVIN RUDD: Well, remember, the Security Council resolution and its predecessor deal also with the provision of humanitarian assistance to the people of Libya and those seeking to exit Libya.

Australia, as of when I looked at the numbers, I think, yesterday, is still within the top five contributors globally to this humanitarian assistance effort, contribution up front of some $11 million.

That has gone to the International Council for the Red Cross and its associated Red Crescent organisations in the Muslim world, together with the High Commissioner of Refugees, also to the World Food Programme.

Now, those resources are not just drawn upon for contingencies at either border — the Tunisian and the Egyptian border — but also for direct provision of humanitarian assistance through those agencies into Libya itself. And the ICRC right now is absolutely critical.

QUESTION: Mr Rudd, are you fearful that this has come too late for the poor people of Benghazi?

KEVIN RUDD: Well, let's hope and pray not.

As you know, we've been banging the drum on this for quite a while; and others have too, in the international community; it's not just us, it's others too.

The Gulf states when I was there, you know, 10 days or so ago, and Gulf foreign ministers. And so, let's hope and pray it's not too late. I said something like that, I think, in my opening remarks.

The diplomatic effort has been torturous. The military effort is now critical against the humanitarian needs of the Libyan people.

We must, as an international community, learn from recent history, whether it's Rwanda, whether it's Darfur, whether it's the Balkans. You can't sit around and cheer lead for people when they rise up against someone like Qaddafi, and as an international community then say, well, it's all too hard diplomatically.

It's important that we get in behind in a way in which is suggested in the UN Security Council resolution and by other humanitarian needs.

QUESTION: Mr Rudd, what do you make by Qaddafi's threats in response to this? He's talked about the dangers to air and sea movement in the Mediterranean and things like that; it doesn't sound like he's going quietly.

KEVIN RUDD: First of all, Qaddafi has already been referred to the International Criminal Court for possible crimes against humanity. Second, Qaddafi in my experience has never been a keen student of international law.

The fact that you have the UN Security Council acting in accordance with the UN Charter, which is — of which Libya is a member state — means that the full force of international law has now been deployed against a Libyan regime.

These are difficult things to achieve diplomatically.

I saw some earlier report from a spokesperson for the Libyan regime who described this as an illegal act. Give us a break. I mean, when it comes to the full legality which is alive in the UN Charter and in this document which invokes chapter seven, which refers specifically to threats to peace and security, this is a very strong resolution.

In terms of what else Qaddafi would do, what we know from his behaviour so far is that he does not respond to anything approaching either international moral, or legal norms.

QUESTION: Mr Rudd…

QUESTION: Mr Rudd…

KEVIN RUDD: Michelle.

QUESTION: You said that the resolution provided that there should be no occupying force, but after this military action, how does the UN, or indeed how do you foresee the situation playing out if Qaddafi is stopped from his actions and there is change of a regime — how does that operate in practice?

KEVIN RUDD: As far as the future is concerned, we do not know the outcome of the military battle. We just don't. Let's just be honest about that. I notice, however, that in the UN Security Council's resolution, it says, as we would expect, that the UN Security Council has decided to remain actively seized of the matter; that is diplomatic language for meaning that it would be revisited again.

The immediate challenge, however, is what happens on the ground now, both at the humanitarian level, where we are actively supporting, and the military level, where the UN Security Council has now provided authorisation for action. Phil?

QUESTION: Can …  can people in other nations in the region are — they're taking this as a precedent — I'll say Bahrain for example — which we're seeing. You know, really crackdowns and oppression of people, the pro-democracy people. If that turns into an ugly situation like Libya, could we revisit this in the UN Security Council for people like that? Do you see this widening across the region?

KEVIN RUDD: Well let’s set back a bit for the principles which have been — underpinned the first UN Security Council resolution on Libya and the earliest statement, joint statement unanimously by the UN Security Council a few weeks ago.

For one of the first times in international relations and international law, the international community invoked the principle of the responsibility to protect. The responsibility to protect goes to the protection of a civilian population. Normally under the provisions of chapter seven of the UN Charter, what you're on about is the action by states in response to the invasion of one state by another, or military actions by one state against another.

And the responsibility to protect has taken that now to a new level. It's where you have the threat of crimes against humanity, acts of mass violence against a civilian population by its own regime, that this new principle is being embraced.

Now let us go to the question of Bahrain which you raise; firstly, the position of the Australian Government is one of deep concern that we have seen violence on the streets of Bahrain and in Manama in particular.

Secondly, I was scheduled to speak with the Bahraini Foreign Minister the night before last, but because of the continued political crisis there, that conversation has been postponed by the Bahrainis. I've spoken, however, with the Foreign Minister of the United Arab Emirates and the Emiratis, as you know, are deploying police and security forces to Bahrain at the request of the Bahraini Government.

Saudi military forces have also moved in at the request of the Bahraini Government. Therefore, there is one important principle which is alive here and that is that the arrival of those two sets of forces have been at the express request of the Bahraini Government.

Let us now look at the situation on the ground. I think it's one which the international community will continue to monitor. You have seen the statements by the US Secretary of State and others in relation to Bahrain. We are following this closely ourselves.

We have ourselves, at the consular level, consular officers on the ground, in Bahrain. We have something like 500-plus registered Australians in Bahrain. Our estimate is something like a thousand-plus Australians actually resident there. And so consistent with activities over the last several months, we are examining all those contingencies when it comes to the safety and well-being of Australians.

QUESTION: What…

KEVIN RUDD: So, therefore, we will continue to monitor closely what is occurring there. We have expressed concern and we do express concern about the violence.

We express concern about violence which has been evident in certain parts of these demonstrations and violence which has been deployed against the demonstrators. We will continue to monitor this closely.

QUESTION: On Japan, Mr Rudd, obviously you made the decisions last night, at 10.45, the travel advice is becoming far more definite about leaving Tokyo or Japan. When do you next have a meeting scheduled to look at up-to-date events and do you expect the precautions that you put in place, extra Qantas flights and so forth, do you expect — what's the likelihood of them actually coming into play?

KEVIN RUDD: Firstly, in terms of the scope of the travel advice on Japan, it covers both — it covers Tokyo itself and the northern prefectures. Let's be clear about it. We've been quite explicit about that. As our advice recommends that unless your presence is required as an essential matter in those parts of Japan, then you should leave either to other parts of Japan, or elsewhere in the region, or back home to Australia.

The second point I'd make in response to your question, is that the interdepartmental emergency taskforce is meeting on a continuing basis and I am in continuing contact with my own department which chairs that taskforce in terms of the provision of support for Australians seeking to leave the country. In fact, I have been in contact with them on multiple occasions, during the course of this morning.

And it will lie, of course, within the discretion of the Prime Minister and the Acting Prime Minister, as to the frequency with which we reconvene the National Security Committee. This has been necessary, and I draw attention again to what's in the travel advice:

one, so much of the infrastructure, in the slice of Japan we're talking about, just isn't working and it's getting harder and harder for people. Two, there's a continued risk of aftershocks. And three, there is continuing uncertainty about the status of the Fukushima nuclear plant.

Our view, as the Australian Government, is the prudent cautious approach is to take this position that we have, in the travel advisory which was issued in its current form at 10.45 last night. Yeah, over there.

QUESTION: Mr Rudd, will you be in London during the royal wedding and what business do you have there, while you'll be there?

KEVIN RUDD: I'm not going to the royal wedding. [Laughs] And…

QUESTION: Are you going to be in London when it's on?

KEVIN RUDD: There is a Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group meeting, I think, in the days before that, which has been convened by the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth.

We, Australia, together with eight other countries, I think, are members of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group. I think once that meeting's concluded, I'm looking desperately to my staff at this point, sometime around about then, I think I'm off to Berlin.

KEVIN RUDD: Yeah, thank you — to do something else.

QUESTION: Mr Rudd, about Fukushima…

KEVIN RUDD: Just a couple of folks haven't asked a question — yeah, there.

QUESTION: You talked about extra flights from Japan. Is the government urging Qantas to put on extra flights, or is the government going to charter or subsidise extra flights?

KEVIN RUDD: The individual — the flexible arrangements we have with Qantas — and we have been working with them on these contingency plans since day one, okay — and these are flexible arrangements whereby the Qantas would surge capacity as it became necessary, and we are looking at the rolling data in terms of people's booking on flights — and not just them, but others as well — in order to provide any further back-up assistance.

And I emphasise again the point I made about consular loans; for any Australians, backpackers, students, teachers, or whatever, having a bit of strife over there — and there's a fair bit of strife to be had over there at the moment — then we've got a consular team at the airport and they've been there from day two, 24 hours a day, there to assist in this practical on the ground circumstances. There's someone who hasn't asked a question I think.

QUESTION: Minister, do you have any plans to meet…

QUESTION: He's asked three questions — I've only asked one, so it's just not fair.

QUESTION: …to meet Rebiya Kadeer while she's in…

KEVIN RUDD: Have you asked a question already?

QUESTION: Discrimination.

QUESTION: …Canberra next week?

QUESTION: Do you have any plans to meet with Rebiya Kadeer when she's in Canberra next week?

KEVIN RUDD: No, I won't be meeting with Rebiya Kadeer, but I did provide the authorisation for her visa, consistent with Australia's universal principles on human rights.

QUESTION: On Fukushima, are you now completely satisfied that the Tokyo Electric Company and the Japanese Government have been fully frank about the situation there?

KEVIN RUDD: Well you know the history of TEPCO and I've made reference to this before.

In 2004, they were not transparent — that's just a fact. I note also, as a fact, that the American Nuclear Regulatory Agency, the NRC — Nuclear Regulatory Commission has now got staff embedded within the Japanese Nuclear Advisory Agency [sic] itself. IAEA staff are either there, or on the way.

But I made this point very clearly Paul and it's stated explicitly in the travel advisory; because of our continuing concerns over uncertainty about the status of the Fukushima nuclear plant, we believe that out of an abundance of caution, it's appropriate and prudent for the Australian Government to provide the travel advisory that we have.

Thank you very much.

END

Media enquiries