• Home
• News feed
• Media releases
• Transcripts
• Speeches
• Articles
• Photo gallery
• Videos
• Current Minister
• Department
• AusAID

LEIGH SALES: Kevin Rudd, what messages have the Chinese and Indonesian governments conveyed to the Australian Government about the enhanced US military presence on our shores?

KEVIN RUDD: Well, we have been very assiduous in providing earlier diplomatic briefings to our neighbours and to others, Indonesia and China about the content of this announcement.

I don't want to go into the detail of diplomatic communications. I think it's fair to say that what you see in the public media from the Chinese foreign ministry and their spokesmen is that they have reservations about what we have done. The Australian Government however will not be changing its position.

Our national security orientation is a matter of Australian national sovereignty and we believe in a strong Australia.

LEIGH SALES: Was there anything that you were able to offer the Chinese that allayed any of the concerns that they've raised?

KEVIN RUDD: Well, number one position from us, and it's based in absolute reality, is that this enhanced set of arrangements with the United States are not directed at any one country. They are simply not.

Let's all remember that the Alliance between Australia and the United States has been around since 1941 or 1951, depending on when you start it. In other words, the Alliance predates, virtually, the establishment of the People's Republic of China itself, or just after. Therefore, if we look at the period since then, the 60 or 70 years since then, this Alliance has gone through many evolutions and cooperating in a whole range of areas never conceived of in the first place.

It's never been snap-frozen in time and it will continue to evolve in the future. This has been known to our friends in China for a long, long time. Obviously, China has stated publicly its policy is to see the elimination of US alliances in East Asia; the one with Korea, the one with Japan, the one with the Philippines, the one with Thailand, the one with Australia. That's not our view, and we therefore respectively disagree.

LEIGH SALES: You say that the comments that have been made in diplomatic representations are pretty similar to what the Chinese government has said publicly. The People's Daily, which is the voice of the Chinese Government, says today that Australia surely cannot play China for a fool and that it's impossible for China to remain detached no matter what Australia does to undermine its security. Those are pretty strong words. Is it possible that this development could cause some serious tensions in the Australia-China relationship?

KEVIN RUDD: Well, I think the comments you've just referred to come from a newspaper called the Global Times — I stand to be corrected on that — and obviously they contain some fairly strident remarks.

If you look at the history of the Australia-China relationship, there have been many such strident remarks made about aspects of Australian foreign policy and security policy over the last 20 or 30 years. The key thing is to maintain our overall strategic direction with China, which is a balanced relationship, a strong security dialogue with the Chinese themselves, a strong economic relationship, and a strong co-participation of the big institutions of Asia and the world, the East Asia Summit and the G20. We'll continue to do that.

But let's just be very blunt about it. We are not going to have our national security policy dictated by any other external power; that's a sovereign matter for Australia. We don't seek to dictate to the Chinese what their national security policy should be, and therefore this must be advanced on the basis of mutual respect.

LEIGH SALES: Is it fair to say that Australia has a hedging policy against China, that our official position is that we are hoping that things work out positively in the future but that we're hedging against the possibility of negative outcomes?

KEVIN RUDD: I think the overall strategic orientation of Australia is similar to many other countries around the world, is that we are optimistic about China's long-term trajectory; that is China, if we look back to the days of the cultural revolution, has vastly changed. China is now not isolated. It is engaged with the region and the world, not just in economic terms but in foreign policy terms and security policy terms. And there are those in China, and who have strong positions within the Chinese leadership, who wish to make sure that China continues in this tradition of liberal engagement with the international and the regional order.

At the same time I'm sure there are a few hardliners around in China who may have a different, shall I say, more nationalist point of view. Therefore it's prudent for Australia and other countries to always have contingencies against bad possibilities in the future but these exist very much at the margin.

The central thrust of Australian policy is one of comprehensive engagement because we believe that China is, in broad terms, heading in the right direction.

LEIGH SALES: And is this enhanced US military presence in Australia part of Australia's contingency for bad possibilities in the future?

KEVIN RUDD: The policy that we've announced today, or in the last 24 hours, with the United States in President Obama's visit is not directed at any particular contingency whatsoever. And let's be very about this. In the past we've had companies of American marines here on regular rotation for a long, long time, 250 soldiers at a time, or marines at a time. We've had deployments of up to 1500, 2000 marines in various exercises over time. There's nothing particularly remarkable about this. It's an expansion and a regularisation of what we've been doing for a long, long time.

And, as I've said before, the contingencies which we seek to address in the framework of the Alliance have always been wide-ranging. Counterterrorism is one. We didn't consider that when we framed the Alliance in '51. Counter-piracy, that is now new; what we're doing in the north-west Indian Ocean with the Americans and others at the moment. Then of course you have countering-natural disasters; how we deal together with, for example, the tsunami hitting Indonesia. As well as other contingencies in the wider Middle East; Afghanistan, Iraq, et cetera. Therefore it's quite wrong to say that this enhanced dimension of our Alliance with the United States is directed at any single contingency. It is not.

LEIGH SALES: In the event of a conflict between the US and China, say over Taiwan or the South China Sea, does this arrangement with the US make Australia potentially more of a target or at the very least impossible for Australia to [indistinct] any sort of neutrality?

KEVIN RUDD: Well, let's just go into a bit of geography here to start with. Let's try and, you know, draw a line from American troops say in Japan in Okinawa, down to the South China Sea, and a line from Darwin to the South China Sea. I mean, it's a difference of thousands of kilometres. I mean, those American deployments currently in Japan and Korea are much closer to what's going on in the South China Sea than some…

LEIGH SALES: Sure, but…

KEVIN RUDD: …modest deployment…

LEIGH SALES: …[indistinct] US staging bases and potentially targets.

KEVIN RUDD: …than a much more modest deployment, frankly, in Darwin. Let's just be clear about that before anyone gets too excited. It's important to put this into its strategic context.

Secondly, what I have said over many, many, many years is that when it comes to future contingencies, either associated with Taiwan, or any other strategic theatre, it is simply imprudent and wrong to speculate publicly on what might or might not happen in, given strategic contingencies in the future.

Doesn't help anybody to get involved in those sorts of discussions. Not one bit.

Therefore we're very plain about the fact that our Alliance, longstanding with the United States, 60 years and more, is one which is designed flexibly to deal with a range of contingencies for the future — not one in particular.

LEIGH SALES: On another matter, were you consulted as part of the Prime Minister's decision-making process that Australia should reverse its ban on exporting uranium to India?

KEVIN RUDD: In terms of when the Prime Minister communicated with the Indian government, the truthful answer to your question is no, I was not consulted, but remember the Prime Minister has also said very clearly that she is taking this to the National Conference as her own personal initiative. Under those circumstances it would be unrealistic to be consulted on every matter.

On the substance…

LEIGH SALES: But you are the Foreign Minister so is there something strange that you weren't consulted on a major policy to do with an ally of ours?

KEVIN RUDD: Well I don't think the Indian Government would necessarily characterise themselves as an ally of Australia, but I'll just leave that to one side at the moment.

LEIGH SALES: I don't think they'd characterise themselves as an enemy.

KEVIN RUDD: No no no. But there's a vast space in between. We value our relationship with India, as Prime Minister I elevated with Prime Minister Singh the relationship to one of strategic partnership, we value that intensely. But on the question…

LEIGH SALES: Nonetheless it's an important foreign policy decision, is there something odd that you were not consulted as part of that?

KEVIN RUDD: Well I think it's quite plain that the Prime Minister did not necessarily speak to all ministers. It's her personal initiative...

LEIGH SALES: You're the Foreign Minister though.

KEVIN RUDD: … for the National Conference of the Australian Labor Party. The president of the Cannon Hill branch of the Australian Labor Party in my electorate is just as able to put forward proposals to the National Conference as are all members of the Australian Labor Party.

And that's why it's quite normal and natural that the Prime Minister would proceed in this direction. I'm simply responding to your question honestly. No, I was not consulted. On the absolute content however of the position in terms of moving to one where we could, with appropriate safeguards, consider the sale of Australian uranium to India, people who've known me over many years know that that's the direction that I have long supported.

So I've said publicly I support the Prime Minister's position.

But I've also sought to answer honestly the question you have put before.

LEIGH SALES: I appreciate that.

Will you be opposing this policy decision at the Labor Party conference?

KEVIN RUDD: I've already gone on the public record in Bangalore in the last 48 hours saying I support the Prime Minister's position. Of course the other part of this is to ensure that the government of India would be prepared to accept the conditionalities attached, and that goes to bilateral nuclear safeguards arrangements with the government of India, on top of India's undertakings already to a group called the Nuclear Suppliers Group.

And that involves a separation of civilian from military facilities, a greater inspectorate role for the International Atomic Energy Agency as well as a number of other conditions which India has already signed up to.

So it's those arrangements plus the Australian bilateral safeguard's arrangements, and I'll also be keen to explore with the Indians over time their position on the future of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, and the Proliferation Security Initiative as well.

There's much to discuss with the Indians and let's just remember even though the Right of the Australian Labor Party, which supports this approach represent 55 per cent of the ALP Conference, and the Left which opposes it broadly represent 45 per cent of the Conference.

I think you're likely to anticipate a strong debate, although I think the numbers are there to support the Prime Minister.

LEIGH SALES: You've said many times in the past that you think it would be a bad development for Australia to sell uranium to a country that's not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Even in — as late as October this year you were saying that you think there's no case that India needs to buy uranium for Australia, that there's a plentiful global supply.

Why don't you support the Prime Minister's decision?

KEVIN RUDD: Well firstly it's a proposal and she's got to take that to the Conference and I've just said to you I expect the Conference will support the Prime Minister given the numbers that are there, and the right-wing factions which have indicated already their position, they dominate the numbers at Conference.

On my own position, on the question of uranium sales, as needed for Indian uranium supply, I don't back away from anything I've said — and that is that India currently has multiple sources of supply, and is not in desperate need of Australian uranium now, although it will expand its industry into the future.

And remember the total uranium sales from Australia at present, globally, add up to about three quarters of $1 billion.

We sell $40 billion of coal out of Queensland each year I think. So let's put it all into context.

The real reason goes to the questions of our future strategic engagement with India and whether India will accept the conditionalities which were imposed by the Nuclear Suppliers Group internationally, and by the new proposed safeguards agreements which Australia has bilaterally with other countries it sells uranium to.

You ask what has changed: when the United States several years ago effectively moved away from a position of banning nuclear supplies to countries which were not members of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, at that point the whole global effort to make it impossible for India to access nuclear supplies, in the absence of joining the Non-Proliferation Treaty, effectively began to be undermined.

That's simply the reality. That's what we face now, and therefore what we've got to do is look at the other safeguards arrangements which can be put in place to which India would accede, multilaterally, bilaterally. And the other agreements, which I've just referred to, like the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty for the future, as to where India will stand. This therefore will be an important negotiation with the Indians should the National Conference support the Prime Minister's position which I expect on the numbers they will.

LEIGH SALES: So just to try to put that in a nutshell, are you saying — what it seems to me that you're saying is that you're still a little undecided, you want to see if the Indians are going to agree with the conditions that Australia would put on the sale.

KEVIN RUDD: Well let's be very clear — in the Prime Minister's communication with Prime Minister Singh, it's quite explicit that India would be expected to meet a range of safeguards, conditions.

We apply those conditions to every country that we sell uranium to, and there are about 20 of them around the world. And on top…

LEIGH SALES: Does that mean you're quite comfortable with this decision?

KEVIN RUDD: Well it will depend very much on India's response to that. Secondly, India's full compliance also with the agreements they've made with the Nuclear Suppliers Group globally. And these represent a series of undertakings by the Indian Government which in the past they have not provided.

And this is what has to be secured in order for any uranium sales to proceed in the future.

Therefore, a negotiation will occur with the government of India.

Whatever National Conference decides, and I've indicated what I think will happen there, what then would ensue if the policy is changed is some pretty interesting negotiations with the Indians in terms of whether they'll meet these nuclear safeguards tests.

And that's what we will be charged to do, and I'll be exercising a very strong oversight over those negotiations.

LEIGH SALES: Mr Rudd, when you're asked about the Labor leadership, you've been saying recently that every time you're asked about it you're go in to speak about what would happen to Australia if Tony Abbott were the Prime Minister. Why have you chosen to start deflecting the question like that which then makes everyone say 'oh well he's just refusing to answer the question'? Why don't you say you know, once and for all, 'look, I just I have no intention to challenge'?

KEVIN RUDD: Well what I've said consistently — and I don't see the point in sort of jumping around in multiple linguistic formulations on this. I'm very happy being the Foreign Minister of Australia. It's been a privilege to have been the Foreign Minister of Australia for the last year and a bit, and I look forward to continuing to be the Foreign Minister of Australia.

By the way you ment…

LEIGH SALES: Does that…

KEVIN RUDD: …you mentioned the…

LEIGH SALES: Sorry.

KEVIN RUDD: …Tony Abbott point. I've got to make one point here today; it's quite important. On the Obama visit today, for the entire nation watching Mr Abbott's speech, it was quite un-prime ministerial. On a major state occasion as today's, it was un-prime ministerial to use that to get into domestic political point scoring against the Australian Government. He simply can't control himself on these sorts of occasions. It shows to me that he doesn't have the temperament to be prime minister if he can't reign that in.

As Leader of the Opposition myself in the past, I never did it. Simon Crean never did it. I'm sure Kim Beazley never did, and frankly, it's pretty embarrassing when an alternate Prime Minister stands up and takes cheap shots at a time like that. He really needs to change his mode of operations.

LEIGH SALES: You say you're happy being the Foreign Minister. Does that mean that you no longer have any ambitions to be the Prime Minister?

KEVIN RUDD: I'm very happy being the Foreign Minister, and I don't intend to move beyond that formulation however many times you may choose to ask me that question in this interview.

LEIGH SALES: Why wouldn't you move beyond that formulation? Because of course, you know, and I'm not saying this is your fault, but when you don't, everyone says, oh, well he refused to rule that out a challenging to be Prime Minister in the future.

KEVIN RUDD: Well can I say, people have used all sorts of linguistic formulations in the past about their own circumstances which have tested the outer limits of the English language. I'm just saying what is the truth. I'm very happy being Foreign Minister. I've enjoyed what I've done the last 12 months. I enjoyed being Prime Minister and doing the things that I was able to in Australia's name then in terms of our dealing with the global economic crisis for example.

But I look forward to being Foreign Minister; it's a great privilege to serve the country in that capacity. But no, I'm not…

LEIGH SALES: [Indistinct]…

KEVIN RUDD: …I'm not going to play any other word games — that's it. People take it for what it is.

LEIGH SALES: No, but I'm not using any tricky word games. I'm just asking very bluntly do you have any ambitions to be Prime Minister again in the future?

KEVIN RUDD: It's great to be Foreign Minister. And you know something, you can do really interesting things like making sure that our good friends in New Delhi respond appropriately to the conditions which would be attached to a change in uranium policy. And that I take very seriously, and will be working on the detail of it. It's a great job; I enjoy it very much.

LEIGH SALES: Kevin Rudd, thank you very much for making time to speak to us.

KEVIN RUDD: Thanks for having me on the program.

ENDS

Media enquiries

• Minister's office: (02) 6277 7500
• DFAT Media Liaison: (02) 6261 1555