Interview with Reuters TV, Dr Andreas Rinke, Senior Political Correspondent

Subjects: Libya, Australian engagement with NATO, China

Transcript, E&OE, proof only

14 April 2011

Journalist: Minister, did you bring an admission form for NATO when you came?

Kevin Rudd: Well, NATO has been doing a good job for many years, more than 60 now.

Of course, our basic preoccupation is in the Asia Pacific region, but we also engage in common operations with NATO, the most prominent of which is Afghanistan.

So what we're seeking to do is to regularise our engagement with NATO so that when we do decide to engage in missions in countries where our interests and our values line up, there is a procedure of consultation which we all adhere to, and that's important for the future.

Journalist: A few years ago we had a discussion of whether we should have a global Western alliance. Why is that not in the Australian interest, or maybe it is?

Kevin Rudd: In terms of our relationship with NATO, and Europe more broadly, I'd mention the fact that about 50,000 Australian war dead lie buried in Europe through the Great War, and others sacrificed their lives in the Second World War in this greater theatre as well. So we have a long-standing engagement in Europe.

We're also elevating our bilateral relationship with the European Union - that is in the first class political order - we're engaged in high-level foreign policy cooperation with the European Union through Baroness Ashton.

And in terms of NATO in the field and on the ground for the last ten years in Afghanistan, what we're doing is formalising our engagement with NATO through a framework for political and military cooperation, which enables us to consult carefully and clearly at the policy level and the operational level from the beginning.

Journalist: Do NATO and Australia have common threats? Natural resources, the security of supply, China, the rise of China?

Kevin Rudd: I think it's fair to say that NATO now for some time has not taken a strict definition or delineation as to its precise theatre of operations.

Afghanistan is obviously the clearest case in point. But let us also look at various deployments in the Arabian Sea concerning piracy and global activity concerning terrorism.

Therefore, Australia is a middle power with global interests, we find ourselves deployed as we speak today in about seven peace-keeping operations around the world - Afghanistan is a mission of the UN Security Council, we're also in East Timor, we're in the Solomons, we're in the Sinai, we're in Lebanon, we are in many different places - so the scope for cooperation with NATO is large. And right now in Afghanistan, Australia is the single-largest non-NATO country participating, and we're in the top ten contributors of troops on the ground.

Journalist: Could we touch on natural resources? Australia is a continent with very rich resources, China is seeking supply, some would say here in Europe, aggressively – don't you feel threatened by this ambition from China?

Kevin Rudd: Well if we go to the 19th century and the early 20th century, our European friends also sought resources in Australia, America has sought resources in Australia, so has Japan, so has Korea.

It is perfectly natural that growing economies seek secure supplies of energy and resources.

We run an open economy, we have free trade, open investment rules, and in terms of Chinese investment, we've approved, I think in the last three or four years, some 60 billion dollars of Chinese investment in the Australian resources sector, and it still comes a distant fifth after many other countries.

Journalist: I just read that the Opposition accused you that you're not taking China, and the rise of China in the Pacific, seriously enough. Would you agree with that?

Kevin Rudd: Well the Australian Opposition is not quite fixed on its line of attack.

Sometimes they see me as too hard-lined on China, and sometimes they see me as too soft on China.

Well, that's a matter for them. Australia pursues a balanced policy of engagement with China, we have done so for some years.

We have huge interests in common with the People's Republic, and also plainly areas where we do not agree with China.

We're frank about both these things. We seek to engage at all levels, and I believe it's a good and productive relationship.

Journalist: Is cooperation with NATO more important because of the rise of China?

Kevin Rudd: I believe that with the Asia Pacific region we are currently evolving an institution called the East Asia Summit to build slowly confidence and security building measures with the Asia Pacific region, which in Europe you have done some decades ago, prior to the Cold War ending and since the Cold War has ended.

Still problems remain in Europe as well, but in the Asia Pacific, where we have the forces of integration hard at work, we still have unresolved security and territorial questions, whether it's the Korean peninsula, the northern territories off Japan, the East China Sea, the South China Sea, the Thai-Cambodian border, let alone the Sino-Indian border, and Kashmir.

Now therefore we have a lot of work to do to build up security transparency, a sense of common security in the Asia Pacific. That's where our emphasis lies.

But elsewhere within the global theatre, we Australians believe in a policy of good international citizenship, upholding a rules-based order, globally and regionally, and from time to time, that'll mean working with NATO, and we're happy to do so.

Journalist: Isn't there a great difference in the tradition of intervention - we're talking of Libya - I just read the declaration of the BRIC countries warning against a military engagement.

The West, and I think your Government, is supporting to get, well, rid of Qaddafi. Isn't that a fundamental rift which prevents you working closer with China?

Kevin Rudd: Not at all. None of these things are zero-sum games.

If I look within Europe, there are constant disagreements between European states over matters of economic policy, sometimes over questions of security policy when it comes to countries such as Russia or Belarus. These sorts of disagreements are natural and they are normal.

You mentioned just now countries like China on the question of Libya - to be very clear about this, Russia and China as members of the UN Security Council had an opportunity to veto Resolution 1973, and they did not.

What did 1973 authorise? The deployment of all necessary means to protect the Libyan people from the threat of attack by the Libyan regime. That is the basis upon which NATO and others are currently engaged, and it is right that they do so.

These differences are always there to be dealt with diplomatically, but on the core question of the UN's mandate, let's not forget that it was not vetoed by two members who are currently members of the BRICS.

Journalist: There is an intensive debate in Germany and Europe going on how to tackle the issue of human rights in China. You know that Ai Weiwei has been detained. How would you suggest which would be the right line to deal with China on these issues?

Kevin Rudd: We should always be forthright in our dealings with the Chinese.

I did my university thesis 30 years ago about human rights in China. I speak Chinese. I read Chinese literature, I know something about the tradition and also the improvements which have occurred in terms of people's personal liberties over the past 20 years. I also know where the problems still lie as well. We should always be forthright with the Chinese.

After all, it was Hu Jintao himself who said when he visited the United States, with President Obama, that China had more to do on the question of democracy and human rights.

So therefore we should acknowledge also where improvements occurred and I think that's the right attitude to adopt, certainly the one which I've sought to adopt.

On my first visit to China as Prime Minister I delivered an address at Peking University, in Chinese. I spoke openly about the challenge of Tibet. That I think is the right approach.

Journalist: Would you accept that a member of your delegation won't get a permit to enter China?

Kevin Rudd: Well these challenges come and go, that's what diplomacy is all about, dealing with these challenges on a practical basis.

I've just come, for example, from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, and in Vietnam much progress occurred on the question of human rights, but there are still difficulties.

I delivered a public speech there, outlined the difficulties still, and no one seemed to stop me from visiting,

Journalist: I have to be more precise: there was an occasion where on the delegation of the German foreign minister, who went to China, one member did not get an entry visa.

But would you go nevertheless, or would you cancel the visit?

evin Rudd: Look, it's never been my business to advise my good friend Guido Westerwelle on what he should do on German diplomacy in relation to China. I have those discussions with Guido privately. He's a good minister.

Journalist: What would you do if it occurred to you?

Kevin Rudd: Well I don't know the circumstances, and I have learnt from bitter experience don't comment on hypotheticals about which you are not briefed.

With China, you pursue a balanced policy, you prosecute your interests, you maintain your values, and you're frank about both.

That's the right way, a balanced way of dealing with this emerging economic superpower.

Journalist: Thank you.

Media enquiries