Subject:
New Zealand visit; Iraq; David Hicks
E&OE...
PRIME MINISTER:
Ladies and gentlemen a quick comment. The relationship between Australia and New Zealand is one that we should never take for granted. It's got a lot of history, it's got a lot of common culture, it's got a lot of common sporting endeavour, but like all close relationships, if you take them for granted they tend to fray at the edges over time and I've tried very hard in the time I've been Prime Minister, and I've worked with three New Zealand Prime Ministers, two National, one Labour, and I'm very happy to say that the bilateral relationship is in very good shape. Relations between Miss Clark and myself are good. We put aside any ideological differences we might have and we focus very much on getting good results. The main focus of our talks will necessarily be about the Pacific. We'll talk a lot about the Solomon Islands, we'll talk about Fiji, Tonga - I did see the Tongan Prime Minister two days ago and things have settled down in Tonga. We remain quite concerned about Fiji and we'll compare notes and talk about that as well as other bilateral issues. But I always look forward to going to New Zealand and it's a very good thing that we have put the Prime Ministerial visit year, after one in New Zealand, one to Australia, we've put that on a formal basis and in that fashion the relationship really is in very good shape.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister if Iraq is so critical to Australia's future, why won't we send more troops to shoulder more of the burden of the Americans?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Jim, given our size and given the other commitments we have, including in the Pacific, including in Afghanistan, and given that we've not been asked to send more forces, I think our contribution is appropriate. And as well as the physical value of our contribution, we have been there from the beginning, and if we were to pull out, not only would Iraq and the coalition lose the value of Australia's contribution, but the diplomatic and psychological repudiation that that would represent would be very significant.
JOURNALIST:
I think it's the case isn't it that the...I mean the Americans have also got other global commitments, also I think as a proportion of both population and of our armed forces, our commitment to Iraq is fortunately less then either the United States or Britain?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I've never argued that it hasn't, that it was anything other than that, but given those other commitments and given the size of Australia's military, I think our contribution is quite significant and it is very deeply appreciated.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard will we have to be there for decades to achieve the sort of stability you want before we can pull out?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I wouldn't describe it as decades, but I am not going to try and put some target date. That is foolish. The goal is to create a situation where the Iraqis can reasonably provide for their own security and we are playing a significant part in that in relation to training and I think we have to persevere with that. But to try and put a date on it is foolish because it's impossible.
JOURNALIST:
But initially you said months not years and now you can't rule out decades...now you're not ruling out decades?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well what I'm saying is I don't expect it to be that order of magnitude, but look, we can play these sort of games. If you're asking me to name a date, I'm not going to do so because I can't and I also think it's foolish to try and do that because it encourages people to behave in a particular fashion with a view to prolonging the conflict until that date is reached.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister just to clarify, part of the reason Australia's in Iraq at the moment is help America psychologically, is that correct?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think one of the reasons why it would be damaging to withdraw would be that the rest of the world would say a country that was there at the very beginning has deserted the United States, and that would not be well received - no matter what people might say publicly - that would not be well received and I suspect it would not be well received on both sides of politics in the United States.
JOURNALIST:
So you're drawing a distinction are you then between Australia and countries like Japan and Italy, for example, which have come and gone?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there is some distinction, Jim, because we were there at the very beginning.
JOURNALIST:
But never-the-less it is a blow isn't it for the United States every time there are fewer....
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes I think so. I don't think it has helped, I think the coalition would've been doing better if those other countries had not withdrawn, of course.
JOURNALIST:
You've said it would be rolled gold disaster if we pulled out....
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, I have said, I have said that it would be a disaster for the West if America left in circumstances of defeat.
JOURNALIST:
But isn't it a rolled gold catastrophe and disaster now when we see almost daily occurrences of this enormous bloodshed there?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there is a very difficult security position and of course it is bad, it can get infinitely worse, it will get infinitely worse, as Baker-Hamilton pointed out, if there is a precipitate American withdrawal.
JOURNALIST:
Will be in Iraq so long as the Americans are in Iraq?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I certainly believe that if the Americans decided to go then I don't think any other members of the coalition would remain. But America is not about to go and let me just restate our position. Our position is that we will stay until we believe that the Iraqis are in a position, and I'm speaking staying as part of the coalition, I mean self evidently Australia is not going to remain in Iraq on her own; I mean everybody knows that and it's just foolish to play the game that it's otherwise. Our position is that as a member of coalition we should stay there until we believe that the Iraqis are reasonably able to provide for their own security. We are seeing improvements on the ground in some parts of the country, particularly in the south, the situation in Baghdad is still very difficult and to start talking about withdrawal dates at the present time is unrealistic, it's unwise and it's counterproductive.
JOURNALIST:
On David Hicks, we've seen Don Randall and Michael Johnson express their frustrations, is there anything more Australia can do to speed up the process?
PRIME MINISTER:
What both of them have said is what I've said, that's it's taken too long for him to come to trial. That's been our position for quite some time now and we will continue to press that position on the Americans. He needs to be brought to trial as quickly as possible and that is a position that we will continue to put to the Americans. I will put that position to the Vice President when he's in Australia a little over a week from now and I'll be putting it very strongly because I do think this has taken too long. I was of the view that he should face a trial because of the seriousness of the charges and that is why we weren't prepared to ask for his repatriation several years ago because he couldn't face charges in Australia. But we are quite angry that it has taken so long and we have communicated that anger to the Americans and we'll continue to do so. Mr Downer did it to Robert Gates and I will do it to the Vice President when he comes to Australia.
JOURNALIST:
Do you think that the Hicks issue has now become a mainstream concern within the Australian.....
PRIME MINISTER:
Jim, I always defer to you ladies and gentlemen for commentary.
JOURNALIST:
So Mr Howard if it takes a decade for the Iraqis to provide reasonable security for themselves, does that mean that our troops will be there for a decade?
PRIME MINISTER:
Daniel, I'm not going to start hypothesising about time. I'm simply saying that asked what our goal, what our strategy is, our goal, our strategy is to create a situation where the Iraqis are reasonably able to provide for their own security. They can't at the present time and for us, speaking collectively of the coalition, to go now or in the near future, which includes the early part of next year, would be to condemn them to the very circumstances described by Baker-Hamilton and it would also be seen as a defeat for the United States, and that would be a catastrophe for the Western cause not only in the Middle East but around the world. Thank you.
[ends]