UHLMANN: Prime Minister welcome to AM.
PM: Good to be here.
UHLMANN: Can you tell us what you said to President Musharruf?
PM: Well we had a long discussion - obviously about bilateral relations as well and the economic relationship, the political relationship. But the bulk of the conversation was about Afghanistan and about the problems that we, as contributors to the war in Afghanistan, have concerning Al Qaeda and the Taliban and whether there are further things which Pakistan can be doing to assist us in removing that pressure. Not just for ourselves, but for other contributing states.
UHLMANN: What more can we do, because of course, this frontier hasn't been able to be controlled by anyone through history?
PM: It is a difficult frontier and I recognise that. I have also looked at the history. He in recent times, has put in a renewed political effort in the, what's called the North West frontier provinces, up there (inaudible)
But the point that I have made to him is that still our advice is that there is significant leakage across the border. It doesn't help those responsible for security within Afghanistan.
The second concern I raised with him was whether or not Pakistan was being as helpful as it could be in terms of internal affairs within Afghanistan itself. His position was that Pakistan is doing what it can assist to separate out local people from their Taliban leaders in order to ensure that loyalty restructures are returned to traditional tribal chiefs, in the case of the North West frontier provinces. And to other Pashtun leaders, in terms of those parts of Afghanistan where Pashtuns are Government,
UHLMANN: Is there any concern that members of the military or security services in Pakistan are actually assisting Al Qaeda or the Taliban?
PM: Well there have been extensive Western media reports to that effect and obviously I raised those concerns with President Musharruf. He was at pains to point out to me that those reports were without foundation. But his view, the policy he was pursuing was constructive in trying to separate out the Taliban leadership from a support base either in Pashtun areas or in the tribal areas. I said that we would want to continue a high level dialogue with him on this through our diplomatic representatives in Islamabad. As we regard that as important part of the ultimate strategy for prevailing in Afghanistan.
UHLMANN: Is it possible to prevail in Afghanistan, is it winnable?
PM: Well I wouldn't have Australian troops in Afghanistan now if I didn't believe there was a strategy which enabled us to prevail. That's why I travelled all the way to Bucharest. Because one of the things missing up until now has been an integrated civilian and military strategy. I think one of the good outcomes from Bucharest was that we now have heads of government agreed to that. Hopefully, we will have heads of government agree to the monitoring of that in 12 months time in terms of success or failure.
That's one reason why I think we should have some confidence that we have got a strategy for the future. Secondly, absent a diplomatic strategy with Pakistan, given the importance of the border havens, and I fear that our strategy will come under renewed pressure. It's better than we had before. Nothing is guaranteed of success but we are capable of proceeding on this basis.
UHLMANN: Did you get all that you wanted out of Bucharest. You were talking about the opium poppy crop and you said you wanted benchmarks. You didn't get those did you. And you said you would had more to say if you didn't get them. So what more did you have to say?
PM: Well, when I get back to Canberra I want to get a final read out from the NATO Secretary General on the outcome, on the measurement, of poppy cultivation in 12 months time. That is the agreed strategy contained in the integrated military and civilian strategy in Bucharest.
Measure it in 12 months time in terms of size of poppy crop. I want to confirm with the NATO Secretary General as to whether there is an agreed measurement strategy in timetable. Then I will be saying further if there is (inaudible).
UHLMANN: Do you think that China is listening to anybody on Tibet?
PM: Well China has got a very tough line on Tibet. I have spent a lot of time this evening on the question of Tibet. I have spent a lot of time in recent days on the question of Tibet in private discussions and you have seen my public remarks as well. My job is to argue strongly the case for a negotiation and for the non-use of violence. But no one is pretending this is easy. I am not. But I continue to argue the case.
UHLMANN: Is there a possibility that China might dig its heels in on Tibet, if there is too much pressure from the international community that it is interfering in China's affairs?
PM: Well China will always say that. But that shouldn't prevent us from raising a strong view when we have one. And I think the Western community of nations has a strong view on this and they have been raising it.
How China will react and what happens internally over time, between now and the Olympics and beyond the Olympics, frankly no one can predict that. All I can do at this juncture, being in China now, is put forward I think a rational and reasoned case as to why negotiation and why the avoidance of violence is an appropriate way through what is a difficult situation.
UHLMANN: Throughout the course of this 17 day journey, much had been made of your capacity to speak mandarin and the world is obviously fascinated and a little bit alarmed by the rise of China. Do you believe that you might be a conduit to the West for China?
PM: I think Australian politicians are always in danger of inflating their status on these things. I don't intend to sort of, overstate what I can do or we can do. I believe in being helpful at the margins where we can. I have described before the need for a creative middle power diplomacy.
That means nudging international agendas forward, helping when you can, whether it is on climate change, whether it is on the global free trade negotiations, or the current difficult situation with China in relation to Tibet. It doesn't guarantee you of success but I am all for having a go.
UHLMANN: But as you said, language is the beginning of understanding and you are the first western leader who can speak mandarin that does not count for nothing, does it?
PM: It helps to be able to communicate and I have been having long discussions tonight with various officials on a whole range of sensitive questions. And it's useful to be able to communicate. But an ability to communicate doesn't solve the problem. It may get you a little way towards ensuring that the positions are well understood.
And sometimes when you have got huge language and culture divides, that helps getting you towards the end point which is a better agreement or a better outcome. But I am under no illusion about how hard this whole question of Tibet is and will be in the future. All I can do is argue this and other matters as effectively as I can.
UHLMANN: If China continues to get flogged around the world on this Olympic Torch Relay is there a possibility that could be hugely damaging. Could China retreat from the world as a result of the Olympics?
PM: Well the Chinese Government and I am sure the Chinese Communist Party, are robust, hardened individuals and organisations. And they were always robust in dealing with the world and the world needs to be robust and still friendly in dealing with China.
But there is always consideration to have in mind here, which is public opinion in all of our countries and how all these things wash out in the eyes of the Chinese population. People who watch TV and form their opinions over time. And similarly people in the west. That is why I think this is a very important challenge for us all. It is almost a classic East meets West divide, and frankly it is sometimes very hard to straddle that. But you have got to make sure that it doesn't wash through into wider public opinion.
UHLMANN: You are concerned though that this sort of action does wash through into wider public opinion, but aren't you, you are concerned that the Chinese people will take this personally and that the communist party abuses that nationalistic spirit?
PM: Well I think we have always got to be mindful of a couple of things in international relations. One is, the relationship between governments. Two is, how you use those relationships to advance the important global agendas, whether it is climate change, whether it is free trade. Or, whether it is respecting human rights.
Thirdly, all countries have to be mindful of the role of their communities and their populations. Foreign policy is not detached either here or in Australia or in any other country from what people actually think.
And this of course is not a democracy, that's China - Australia is. But the actual feelings of the people count for something long term as well in a country like China. And we have to be mindful of that and mindful of the effectiveness of communicating our positions. Which is one reason why I was pleased to have an opportunity to speak directly to so many Chinese people in the last few days.
UHLMANN: Do you think that China will engage in the way that you would like to see China engage in developing a rules based order for the world. Obviously we are seeing trouble with the rules based order that came after the second world war. You have mentioned that a number of times, that there is a remaking of that, with the World Bank and the IMF, you see different roles for them. Do you think China will engage in that?
PM: Well the rules based order we have now for the world, has served the world not too badly. If you look at the world before 1944- 45, frankly there were a few problems there. Not just one world war, but a couple, a depression and everything else in between. The post ‘45' world order has been significant because it has been rules based, on economy questions, on security questions, on political questions and human rights questions as well. It hasn't been perfect, just better than what preceded it.
The challenge now is that those rules are coming under a lot of stress and pressure. There is Darfur in Africa, where the adequacy of these rules for dealing with the climate change agenda, free trade, but also the ultimate potency of the Security Council and the United Nations. What I have been trying to do in my time in China has been to, and in the United States, is explain and to argue a theory of responsible stake holder, a responsible stake holder approach on the part of China to the global order. And at the same time, mesh that with some of China's own local thinking, on how do you build a harmonious global order.
Does that succeed overnight? No, but I have tried to engage some of the leading thinkers in this country to try and bring these strands together because we want China to be a participant in a constructive, positive rules based order into the future.
UHLMANN: Ok before we run out of time, are you concerned though that some of those things that set up the order of the world, for example the United Nations, that they are not functioning the way that they should, in fact that there should be a remaking of all of these systems now, that they are either running their course, or that they are not functioning in the way that they should?
PM: I believe that each of these organisations can be reformed. The World Bank can be reformed particularly in the direction of the challenge of developing countries on climate change. It having investment and loans in order to acquire the technology necessary to effectively participate in climate change.
The IMF, we have important meetings of the IMF coming up. The big challenge is for us, how to respond effectively to the new challenges to the global economic and financial market stability presented by the sub prime crisis.
On security, the Security Council, to date hasn't worked effectively on Darfur. These organisations are in need of reform, not a total demolition job, with the idea of constructing something else, that was very much the attitude of, I have got to say, of the previous Australian Government which pushed the UN to one side, altogether.
Our Government, the Government that I lead, is committed to the reform of these institutions and we will be out there arguing a strong reform case, because a rules based order suits Australia.
We are a middle power and we need a rules based order, not just for now but for the next fifty years when who knows who will be the dominant powers in the world.
UHLMANN: Prime Minister, thank you.