Interview with Greg Hoy, ABC News 24, Newsline

Transcript, E&OE, proof only

Subjects: Libya; Syria; Japan

23 March 2011

GREG HOY: Libya's Colonel Muammar Qaddafi has appeared in public rallying his supporters and defiantly predicting victory against both the internal opposition forces and the continuing allied bombardment.

Across the region discontent with old regimes is fomenting. In Syria protesters and security forces have clashed as opposition mounts to the rule of President Bashar Assad.

Kevin Rudd is Australia's Foreign Minister.

Foreign Minister, thanks for joining us.

KEVIN RUDD: Thanks for having me on the program.

GREG HOY: Opposition to regimes in the Middle East and North Africa appears to be spreading. Syrian security forces are now firing on protesters. How serious is the situation in Syria?

KEVIN RUDD: Well, I've been briefed on that earlier this evening and, of course, there have been sporadic outbursts of protest activity across Syria over the last several weeks, however, things appear to be coming more focused in Syria as demonstrated by these new reports of the severity of the regime's reaction.

We seem to have reports of tens of people killed but I would like to get those reports corroborated first.

Again, in the case of the Syrian regime in Damascus, we would call upon them to exercise all restraint in responding to peaceful protest activity.

GREG HOY: This developing pattern of uprisings in the region though must be difficult to frame policy around, given repercussions for stability and oil prices, for starters. Is it?

KEVIN RUDD: Well, Australian interests are - and values - are deeply seized by what is going on in the wider Middle East. If the region becomes grossly unstable it becomes potentially a greater area, a more accommodating area for terrorists to operate.

The second point is that if instability is maximised in the region it probably means a better set of strategic opportunities for Iran which is itself a destabilising power which funds terrorist organisations and, on top of that again, if there's massive instability in the region it does over time lead to people movements out of the region, becomes a new push factor as people try to escape this instability and you've just mentioned a fourth interest which is, of course, instability, the oil price, global inflation. We've seen it in previous decades and we may be seeing it again.

GREG HOY: Meantime in Libya, of course, the attacks by the US and the allies have disrupted Qaddafi's forces but they're far from defeated so what is the endgame here?

KEVIN RUDD: Well, the endgame is as described in the UN Security Council resolution 1973. It's got two operational clauses, effectively.

One is operational clause four and the other is operational clause eight, from memory.

They're the two which authorise all necessary measures to be deployed by member states and what's the objective in each case?

In the first case, operational clause four, it says member states may deploy all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people from threat of attack by the Libyan regime. It's a very broad power.

And the second one, in operational clause eight, is more specific. It refers to protecting or, shall I say, bringing about arrangements to enforce a no-fly zone, again to protect the Libyan people.

That's what we're authorised to do through the international community. That should be the focus. I note since this has come into being and both the resolution and its implementation, Qaddafi's march on Benghazi, at least at this stage, seems to have been interrupted. What I feared most was the butchery of Benghazi had he been allowed to continue unimpeded.

GREG HOY: So should Qaddafi be targeted?

KEVIN RUDD: Well, if you look carefully at what the Security Council resolutions contain, it does not provide that language. It is as I've just described. Of course the position of the Australian Government, which I've articulated on many occasions, is that Qaddafi's time has come and it's time for him to go but if you look specifically at the provisions of the Security Council resolution which authorises, through international law, the military actions that are underway, they are quite specific in their remit and what therefore military forces should be deployed to do, which is to protect the Libyan people.

GREG HOY: The coalition though are effectively backing the opposition forces in a civil war. Could there still be a bloodbath even if the opposition was to win that war?

KEVIN RUDD: Well, as I said in the Australian Parliament only a day or two ago, and I've said more broadly, this no-fly zone, this imposition of a Security Council resolution, 1973, comes very late and let's hope and pray it doesn't come - it hasn't come too late.

We've seen some modest success when it comes to the advance on Benghazi not proceeding to the full occupation of Benghazi and the butchery which would then follow but I've also said consistently that this is a highly uncertain military environment, highly uncertain, and because of that it's a highly unpredictable political environment in terms of how it's going to unfold.

But whatever the respective political groupings may be in Libya, let's remember there are millions and millions of civilians who we, deploying a doctrine of the responsibility to protect civilians in armed conflict when their regime turns on them, that's what we're on about as the international community. That's why Australia backed the no-fly zone. That's why we backed UN Security Council 1973 and the military actions being taken.

GREG HOY: But this opposition is not very well-equipped. Should they be supplied with heavy weapons and transport?

KEVIN RUDD: Well, again, look at the provisions of the Security Council resolution, both this one, 1973, and I think the one which preceded it about two or three weeks back, from memory 1970, these outline what the international community can do and they were quite clear about it.

One thing the international community is entirely authorised to do is to provide humanitarian assistance to people within Libya who are under threat from the regime and that's what we in Australia are doing.

For example, right now across the entire world, Australia is the third largest global contributor of humanitarian aid to the needs of the Libyan people and to those crossing either the Tunisian or the Egyptian borders, third largest after the United States and the European Union.

GREG HOY: President Obama has indicated that the US will hand over command of the coalition to other air forces. Does that send any sign to Qaddafi of a lack of resolve, do you think?

KEVIN RUDD: I don't believe so. If you look at the formidable fire power, which is available to the United States, the world's remaining super power, as well as the capabilities of both the United Kingdom, and France and some other states, this remains a considerable force to be deployed. And the command structure, I understand, the US position, particularly in a post-Iraq environment, where the United States does not wish to be seen to be running this military operation, NATO is infinitely capable of providing that command structure.

The key thing is the assets, and in the case of the United States, often the unique assets which they can bring to the field in order to give effect to the Security Council resolution.

GREG HOY: The UN resolution excluded an occupation force in Libya. But ultimately, isn't that the only way to bring these hostilities to some sort of conclusion?

KEVIN RUDD: Well, as I said, the operation so far, and into the immediate future, is highly uncertain in terms of its military and political terrain.

We, in the international community, didn't go as far legally as the UN Security Council resolutions permit. That's the first point. But the second is, the Security Council also said at the end of resolution 1973 that it will remain seized of the matter.

What does that mean in layman's English or layman's terms? It means the Security Council will revisit this matter. And they, the Security Council, I'm sure, are highly mindful of the fact that we are looking at some very uncertain military and political days ahead of us, and these matters may well need to be revisited.

GREG HOY: The US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, has been suggesting that Qaddafi might be looking for an exit strategy. Do you see any signs here that he's likely to be looking to leave the country?

KEVIN RUDD: Look, I think it's not productive on my part to speculate on possible exit strategies for Qaddafi. What we know about Qaddafi is that he's a brutal dictator, and it would be a very good thing if he was not in the country. That's the bottom line.

But I know for a fact that multiple states have offered various exit strategies in the past, prior to the UN's intervention through the Security Council, and prior to the commencement of military operations four days ago, and none of those came to anything.

So, I'm not in the business of predicting what might or might occur. The key thing is, number one, provide for the humanitarian needs of the Libyan people on the ground through agencies, such as the High Commissioner for Refugees, the International Office of Migration[sic], as well as the ICRC.

Two, for the Americans, the NATOs, European NATOs and some of the Arab states to give military effect to the resolution. And three, let us see what unfolds on the ground, including in the [indistinct] of Tripoli within the regime.

GREG HOY: If we could turn to Japan, Minister, with smoke, again, coming from one of the reactors, is Australia receiving the regular urgent briefings that you had called for 10 days ago?

KEVIN RUDD: Well, the reason I articulated that 10 days ago is that one day into the crisis, we were concerned about the full flow of information, and we could see at that stage that this was going to evolve in a way which would create many uncertainties within Japan and elsewhere.

Now, since then, we have had the officials from the United States' Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the NRC, on the ground in Tokyo. We've seen also folk from the United States armed forces, I think, Admiral Willard from the US Sixth Fleet, is also in Tokyo. He has a team of specialists to work in this area.

The International Atomic Energy Agency has the same. Our own, ARPANSA, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Authority[sic], individuals are monitoring the data as well.

With all these layers of analysis, we are doing the absolute best we can to examine carefully the data which comes through. And so - but note carefully what we said in our last travel advisory on these matters several days ago. Because of continuing uncertainty about the Fukushima reactors, we've provided the advice that Australians in Tokyo, and in northern Honshu should leave unless their presence was absolutely necessary. And one of the grounds we gave for that advice was because of our uncertainty about the future of these reactors.

GREG HOY: What sort of assistance is Australia now offering, Minister, given that this crisis, obviously, is going to continue for many months?

KEVIN RUDD: Firstly, our friends in Japan and the United States have requested our particular assistance with the provision of a particular high-pressure hose which has been dispatched through two C-17 aircraft - these are massive aircraft - out of Perth in Western Australia to Tokyo. They're on the ground.

As to how, and when, and if they'll be deployed, we'll be very much relying upon the Japanese, and American, and other officials on the ground. That is one item.

The second is, of course, C-17 aircraft themselves. Japan does not possess these. Australia and the United States uniquely do. They're very expensive aircraft, but they are huge, heavy-lift capabilities.

So, we have these aircraft in Japan. We've extended the use of one of those aircraft to the Japanese Self-Defense Agency for at least another week, so they can ferry their own equipment and troops in large numbers around the country than would otherwise be the case.

And, of course, we stand ready to provide any other forms of assistance which Japan may want.

GREG HOY: Are you concerned about the long-term effects on Japan's economy and the flow-on effects through our region?

KEVIN RUDD: Well, Japan is the second largest - now the third largest [indistinct] economy in the world after the United States and China. Therefore, Japan has a huge potential impact across the global economy, depending on the precise quantum of damage to the economy.

Therein lies the key point.

I think one thing we must focus on, in particular, is Japanese power generation. We've seen, obviously, a hit to their nuclear generation capability. A number of coal-fired power stations have also been hit. Therefore, if you are drawing down the power generation and transmission bases of that economy, it's going to, therefore, affect overall production.

On the individual numbers though which flow from this, some estimates have been put forward. It's going to take a little more time yet. But I believe our friends in Japan will bounce back from this. And apart from anything else, there's going to be a huge construction task within Japan itself which will, in turn, fuel economic activity.

GREG HOY: And that's all we have time for. Kevin Rudd, thanks very much for taking the time to talk to us.

KEVIN RUDD: Thanks for having me on your program.

ENDS

Media enquiries