Introduction
It is trite but nonetheless necessary to say that Australia';s foreign policy must always serve our national interest.
It does not exist in a vacuum. It must be constantly crafted and adjusted to promote the values, the security, and the prosperity of the Australian people.
Our foreign policy should be pragmatic but it should also tell the world what we stand for and what we oppose.
Australia';s foreign policy must be a mixture of bilateralism, multilateralism and action in concert with other nations or groups of nations.
Australia was a foundation member of the United Nations. There have been times – East Timor was a case in point – when the United Nations has acted promptly and effectively and in a way that served Australia';s national interest and the interests of the region.
By contrast the United Nations Security Council completely failed to meet the world';s need over Iraq. That responsibility fell to the coalition of the willing, which included Australia. American leadership on Iraq has made the Middle East as well as the world a safer place.
When I spoke to the Menzies Research Centre in August 2001, the focus of my address was the challenges presented by globalisation and the changing security environment. I said then that the end of the cold war had fundamentally altered the global strategic environment with regional tensions and uncertainty replacing a world that had essentially been balanced between two competing super powers.
The next month, the terrible events of 11 September would demonstrate how uncertain the environment had become with the emergence of a new global terrorist threat. A sense of vulnerability rocked even the most powerful of nations.
Today the most fundamental challenge facing Australia and the world at large - especially those like us who value openness, who value freedom – is how to protect our citizens and our society from a shadowy enemy, who is closed to negotiation, who has no fixed base and no transparent political structure.
The explosion in communication, in travel, in access to information that we call globalisation has allowed us to open up the nations of the world to each other in ways never before imagined. It has stimulated a never-ending race for international competitiveness. This is a challenge, but of the best kind because the rewards are increased prosperity, not just for Australia, but potentially for all nations, even the poorest.
But globalisation has also created opportunities for those who seek to destroy and debase our way of life – the global terrorists and the transnational criminals who capitalise on human misery, trading in people, drugs and weapons.
Their capacity for mobility allows them to find safe haven wherever governance is weak, wherever despotic regimes seek to co-opt their hatred or profit from their trade.
Too often we have seen rogue and failed states become the base from which terrorists and transnational criminals organise their operations, train their recruits and manage their finances. If we want to be secure, we need to work with other nations to ensure collective stability. And sometimes we will be called upon to take action.
The Australian Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, co-hosted a meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the Pacific Island Forum in Sydney yesterday, to discuss how the region can help the Solomon Islands from sliding into chaos – help it regain the rule of law. The Solomons are looking to their friends and allies for support – they know that if their state fails the road back to normalcy will be harder, more costly, not just financially but on the lives and wellbeing of its people. We know that a failed state in our region, on our doorstep, will jeopardise our own security. The best thing we can do is to take remedial action and take it now.
What this means in terms of our long standing policy in relation to the Pacific is a theme I will take up later. But I want to say at the outset, how pleased we are that our Pacific Island Forum colleagues have indicated their preparedness to work together to respond to the Solomons'; request for assistance.
To make common cause for the peace and security of the Pacific, to build coalitions for action, is one of the most effective ways governments can counter the destructive forces of global terrorism and transnational crime.
In this ‘age of terrorism'; it is essential in our national interest that we further build and strengthen Australia';s links with all the major centres of global power and influence.
Achieving this will be greatly aided by the unique intersection of history, geography and culture occupied by Australia and of which I have spoken in the past.
Asia
The security and prosperity of Asia will always be a crucial determinant of Australia';s security and prosperity.
The nations of Asia have the most direct influence on our strategic environment. They are our largest export markets and the source of much of our investment and imports.
And they matter to us because without mutual support and cooperation none of us will be able to address the real and current threat posed to the region by terrorists and rogue states.
The government will always give maximum attention to keeping these relationships vibrant and strong. This month, I visit Japan, Korea and the Philippines to hold talks with their respective leaders on regional trade and economic issues. Counter terrorism responses and North Korea';s nuclear policies will be high on our agenda. I hope too that soon I will have the opportunity to meet the new leaders of China.
Response to terrorism
The focus on national and international security in all our affairs has not only increased but will be with us indefinitely. The tragedy of Bali, the war against Iraq, the continued fight against international terrorism, all remind us that we live in a different world.
In the age of terrorism retreat and isolation will not deliver security and prosperity. It is more essential than ever not only to engage our region but also the broader world community. Our economic prosperity depends on opening ourselves up to the world, seeking where possible to integrate markets and forge new relationships.
Moreover, it is part of our make-up, our national character, to look outwards. Australians have always sought adventure overseas - sought literally to broaden their horizons through travel - and we have a proud tradition of welcoming those who travel to our own shore.
Beginning with the Colombo Plan the large number of foreign students who have come to study at our schools and universities not only provided valuable export earnings but have fostered the development of strong people-to-people links. Such personal relationships provide the foundation for enduring bilateral relations well into the future.
We must constantly balance Australia';s response to the new security environment with the imperative to seek continued economic liberalisation and openness. Maintaining this balance will be a key challenge for every dimension of Australia';s foreign policy.
We will of course continue to participate with our friends and allies in the war against terrorism because it would be wrong and dangerous to do otherwise. Changing our policy, hoping to buy immunity from future attacks, fundamentally ignores the motivation which drives these terrorists. Australia is a target for their blind hatred not because of what we have done, but because of what we believe in and because of who we are.
Since 11 September 2001, the government has significantly increased Australia';s collective capacity to protect our nation against terrorist attacks. We have ensured that our defence forces have the necessary capabilities to respond effectively and quickly to the changing international security environment. And we are building a strong focus on counter-terrorism into our bilateral and regional relationships.
And even though we are not a major power, we are able to wield increasing influence. Australia now enjoys unparalleled world respect in recognition of our sustained economic strength; our enviable social stability and our willingness to, where appropriate, take a stand.
Iraq & WMD
We joined a coalition with the United States and Great Britain to deal once and for all with the defiant regime of Saddam Hussein. This was not an easy decision. Committing the men and women of our defence force to combat overseas is the most serious decision a government can ever make. But we were determined that Iraq would fulfil its obligations to the UN Security Council – even if this meant the use of force.
Iraq';s weapons of mass destruction programmes and its belligerent and aggressive attacks on its neighbours and its own ethnic minorities have been of concern to Australia for more than a decade. We have a proud history of working to combat the spread of these weapons. The so-called Australia Group plays a pivotal and widely recognised part in international efforts to prevent the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons.
And it is timely to recall that the group was established in 1985 as an Australian initiative to try to prevent Iraq from acquiring the means for producing chemical weapons through commercial trade.
Australia supported the US-led coalition which drove Saddam from Kuwait in 1991 and we have had an almost continuous military presence in the Gulf since 1990 to enforce UN sanctions against Iraq.
We know that Saddam Hussein had a WMD capability and we waited for 12 years for him to demonstrate to the UN that he had destroyed it. In November 2002 the UN Security Council found him in material breach of his obligations – the vote was unanimous. What followed was a dispute on the best way to resolve the issue, whether by direct military intervention or the continuation of sanctions and weapons inspectors.
There was no dispute as to whether Iraq had WMD capabilities. In Australia both the government and the Labor Opposition agreed that Iraq was in material breach of its UN obligations and that it possessed WMD.
As Saddam Hussein had expelled UN inspectors in 1998, recent information about his WMD capability was largely available via intelligence. The assessment made by our intelligence agencies, mostly based on information they received by virtue of our close intelligence arrangements with the US and the UK, was that Iraq had a WMD capability and that there was no evidence that Saddam had given up what the former head of UNSCOM called his addiction to WMD. The evidence, in fact, indicated that the regime was doing everything in its power to hide Iraq';s WMD capability.
This assessment was reflected in the government';s public statements. The suggestion that the government requested Australia';s intelligence agencies to massage or overstate the evidence is wrong.
The almost daily discovery of mass graves is a horrifying testament to the human rights nightmare under Saddam Hussein';s regime. It has reinforced the immense moral and humanitarian dividend which has flowed from his removal. It is estimated that some 300,000 bodies have been uncovered in the 150 mass grave sites found so far.
Israeli-Palestinian conflict
The collapse of Saddam Hussein';s regime has opened up an opportunity to achieve a settlement between the Israeli and Palestinian people. His demise has removed a potential threat to Israel and allowed for appropriate pressure to be applied to both parties to bring them to the negotiating table.
History is the enemy of optimism in the Middle East, but despite the continued violence, I am still hopeful. President Bush made it clear to me when we met in Texas that he will do everything he can to bring about a peace settlement. The world should not underestimate the sheer determination of this President to bring peace to the Middle East.
To hear Ariel Sharon acknowledge that something must be done about the illegal Jewish settlements, to hear Mahmoud Abbas acknowledge the centuries of suffering of the Jewish people, and now to see serious discussion of a cease-fire by groups like Hamas – all of that gives me hope.
Peace in the Middle East is important not just for the peoples of that region but for the long-term stability and security of the world. A settlement between Israelis and Palestinians will further strengthen the international front against terrorism. It will address a sense of injustice which has fuelled anti western sentiment and provided a rallying point for those who seek to recruit people to the terrorist cause.
It will enable the people of Israel to enjoy an undeniable right – to live in peace behind secure and defensible borders.
Iraq and relations with Asia - Indonesia
We understand and respect the fact that some of the nations in our region disagreed with our policy on Iraq. Clearly we had differences with our close friend and neighbour Indonesia. But our differences were understood. I made sure that our position was clearly communicated to President Megawati when I visited Indonesia in February. Most importantly, the President acknowledged that our actions in Iraq in no way represented an attack on Islam.
We were both determined, as were our governments, that those differences should not be allowed to contaminate the broader elements of the relationship. We need to be able to cooperate more closely than ever before if we are to counter the threat posed to our own region by Al Q';aida linked terrorist organisations, like Jemaah Islamiyah.
A united, prosperous and stable Indonesia is good for Australia and good for the region. Indonesia';s creation of a robust and functioning democratic system is crucial to achieving these goals. Terrorism and Islamic extremism pose significant threats to Indonesia';s transition to democracy and to its fragile economy.
The government is committed to working with Indonesia to deal with terrorism, offering cooperation and assistance with capacity-building. But we would also urge Indonesia to press ahead with the domestic economic reforms that are the essential foundations for sustainable long-term growth and a prosperous society.
I again thank the Indonesian government and its police force for the way they have responded to the 12 October terrorist attack in Bali. It is a great comfort to this nation that these vicious criminals are being brought to justice and forced to confront the consequences of their actions.
But not just Indonesia
As important as Indonesia is, too often some commentators seek to view our relationship with Asia through an exclusively Indonesian prism.
Asia like the rest of the world is trying to come to terms with the threats posed by terrorism and rogue states, but the nature of the threat and the best way of responding varies – there is no uniform “Asian approach” to these or any other issues.
There are many nations in our region that, like Australia, considered Saddam Hussein';s continued defiance of UN Security Council resolutions posed a threat to international security. Nations like Japan, the Philippines, Singapore and South Korea all supported the actions of the American led coalition.
It is disingenuous to claim that our participation in the US led coalition in Iraq will seriously impede our relations with Asia, as though there was a commonality of view on this issue across the whole geographic region.
The US Alliance
Australia';s enduring links with the United States are crucial to this nation';s future. America will grow more, not less, important to Australia as the years go by. Our principled support for the US led action in Iraq made a deep impression and will not be readily forgotten by the United States. Our relationship has never been stronger or closer.
The US is the unrivalled global power – both in terms of its military capacity, its economy and its cultural reach. It matters and it matters to everybody. We are lucky our relationship with the US is not only historic, but built on shared values – the values that underpin liberal democracies.
Although we are distinctive societies our shared values create a commonality of interest and approach that allow the relationship to be open and transparent.
An alliance is about mutual obligation. It is about shared interests. It demands neither subservience nor dominance. It can and does accommodate differences of view and at times differences of interest. Because the relationship between the United States and Australia is built on respect, understanding and trust we are in a strong position to advocate Australia';s interests.
The ANZUS alliance, strengthened by 50 years of cooperation, is fundamental to our national security. Its commitment to consult and act against a common threat is a tangible protection of enormous value to the defence of Australia. Without it, and the access to the intelligence and technology provided under the alliance, the taxpayers of this country would have had to make a considerably greater investment in defence and intelligence.
ANZUS is an important sign of the US';s strategic commitment to the region. It combines with the other security alliances and arrangements the US has forged throughout Asia, with Japan, Korea, the Philippines and Thailand, to form a strategic framework that helps keep the whole region stable.
Australia too has an extensive network of bilateral defence relationships in South East Asia, North Asia and the South Pacific that complement US activities in the region.
All these arrangements will be vital in responding to the security challenges which confront our region.
US FTA
This year we have the opportunity to achieve a milestone for Australia';s economic prosperity – a Free Trade Agreement with the United States.
This is the most significant bilateral trade negotiation Australia has ever undertaken. The US economy is a global powerhouse, not just because of its size – which is phenomenal, but because it is dynamic and innovative. As Stephen Roach, the chief economist at Morgan Stanley has noted, over the seven year period ending in 2001, the US economy accounted for fully 63 per cent of the cumulative increase in world GDP. By way of comparison the European Union – a region of comparable size to the United States – accounted for only 8 per cent of the increase in world GDP over the same period.
An FTA with the United States has the potential to return billions of dollars to our economy.
Moreover, a comprehensive FTA will demonstrate the resolve of both Australia and the United States to liberalise our economic relations. Concrete commitments to liberalisation, especially those made by an economy of the size and importance of the United States, should help to build momentum for global negotiations at the World Trade Organisation and to set benchmarks for outcomes for the Doha round of trade negotiations.
President Bush and I discussed the FTA at length during my recent visit to the United States. I was delighted that the President has given the FTA a priority – stating publicly that the two negotiating teams should re-double their efforts and try to complete an agreement before the end of this year.
This is an ambitious timetable, but it is achievable.
If we succeed, it will be because the outcome of the FTA negotiations is in Australia';s national interest. We will only accept an agreement if it delivers real long-term benefits to our economy. Clearly progress in agriculture is essential if we are to reach agreement.
Nor will the government compromise those objectives fundamental to Australia';s health care, education, consumer protection or cultural identity. We will, however, be looking to use the FTA to encourage our businesses to undertake those structural reforms which will make us better able to compete, not just in the world';s largest and most dynamic economy, but globally.
The Pacific – Solomon Islands
As I indicated earlier, we are forging new arrangements to meet the challenges posed by the potential failure of nation states in the Pacific. A number of our friends in the Pacific are experiencing economic collapse, corruption and lawlessness to a degree which threatens their very sovereignty.
Development assistance has an important role to play in restoring stability to the South Pacific. But aid can only ever be a part of the solution. And we must use our aid programme to encourage and strengthen the framework for good governance in these nations. They must achieve higher standards of governance. The future of their peoples depends upon their willingness and their ability to do so.
Last month, I held discussions with Sir Allan Kemakeza, the Prime Minister of the Solomon Islands, about the ways in which Australia might assist his nation. This was on our part a recognition of Australia';s responsibilities in the Pacific, a response to a humanitarian disaster in the making, and a way of ensuring Australia';s own security.
Prime Minister Kemakeza has asked us to help the Solomons and we have agreed.
Subject to a formal and legally proper request from the Solomon Island government Australia stands ready to provide the co-operative assistance they require. We will do so in concert with New Zealand and the other nations of the Pacific Island Forum.
Such a coalition of interest and effort will be well placed to provide the necessary assistance, especially the substantial policing, law and justice and economic resources required.
But we must also ensure that the environment is stable and secure enough to implement reform – without security the Solomons cannot begin the task of rebuilding.
Restoring security to the Solomon Islands is essentially a policing task. But any policing assistance must be provided with adequate protection and support. In finalising the shape of an Australian contribution we must ensure the safety and security of all those who are involved. This is likely to involve a substantial number of defence personnel and the precise mix of police and military personnel will be determined by the expert advice of the Chief of the Australian Defence Forces and the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police.
The Solomon Islands is a sovereign country. Any action will be in response to a properly issued legal request from the government of the Solomon Islands, thereby ensuring that our assistance fully complies with the requirements of international law.
We recognise that such an action represents a very significant change in the way we address our regional responsibilities and relationships. But our friends and neighbours in the Pacific are looking to us for leadership and we will not fail them.
And the rest of the world, understandably, sees this as an area where Australia has particular responsibilities.
DPRK
Further from home, but no less important in terms of the potential impact on Australian interests, is the challenge of North Korea. A security crisis on the Korean Peninsula would send shock-waves through a region which is the destination for some 40 per cent of our exports, and it would hit hard all of our top four trading partners - Japan, the United States, China and South Korea.
North Korea';s recent admissions that it has a nuclear weapons programme, and the concern that it would transfer nuclear weapons, underscore the seriousness of this security challenge.
The leaders of North Korea are facing a fateful choice. They can continue the tentative steps they have made towards constructive engagement with the rest of the world, towards a peaceful solution on a Korean Peninsula free of nuclear weapons, and towards a brighter future for its people. Or they can choose the perilous path of confrontation and nuclear blackmail, sustaining their impoverished state through trafficking drugs and weapons, and further deepening their isolation from the rest of the world.
A number of countries, including Australia, have an interest in ensuring that North Korea makes the right choice. China, in particular, will have an important role to play in this process and it is encouraging that China has sought to make a constructive contribution to finding a peaceful solution.
All the nations of the region remain committed, despite the obstacles that need to be overcome, to seeking a peaceful outcome that will enhance their common security.
North Asia
Our interests in North Asia are economic as well as strategic. While the United States is now Australia';s biggest two-way trading partner for goods and services, Japan is still our largest merchandise-trading partner. It has been our largest export market for some time and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.
Our bilateral relationship with Japan generates substantial benefits to Australia but we are not complacent. The government is constantly looking for ways to strengthen our ties. We are advocating a trade and economic framework to support better market facilitation, and through setting strategic objectives, further stimulating the economic relationship.
We are seeking a similar bilateral agreement with China.
The agreement between the North-West Shelf Consortium and the Chinese province of Guangdong last year was a major milestone in Australia';s economic relations with China. That agreement was achieved through a unique, in Australian';s experience, partnership between the Federal Government, the Government of Western Australia and the consortium itself.
The agreement is not only significant commercially, bringing in 25 billion dollars over the next 25 years, but it also has great symbolic value.
It further demolishes the mantra that Australia';s relationship with the United States precludes us from developing close ties with our Asian neighbours. It is clear that as well as the quality and price of the product, the Chinese also appreciate that Australia is a valuable and reliable economic partner. For long-term contracts stretching across generations, Australia';s stability, in part derived from our security alliance with the United States, is a huge asset.
Conclusion
The potential benefits of globalisation are immense but we must also recognise that globalisation also offers a global platform for more destructive forces. To harvest the benefits of globalisation and to protect ourselves from the reach of global terrorism we must maintain a strong network of partnerships and friendships in our region and beyond. Bilateral relationships built on mutual interests and which allow for the development of strong personal and community links will become more, not less important.
Taken together these relationships will enhance Australia';s capacity to respond to the changing security environment and encourage us to expand those trading links which, combined with a commitment to on-going domestic reform, underwrite Australia';s economic future.
Each relationship will be different and will have its own sensitivities and focus. But we need to be able to ensure that we have the flexibility to join and build coalitions of mutual interest to address the security challenges facing our region and the world at large.
The government cannot guarantee that Australia will not be subject to terrorist attacks. We cannot guarantee the safety of Australians who choose to live or travel abroad. But what we can guarantee is that we will do everything in our power, in concert with our friends and our allies, to root out and destroy those who threaten our security. What I can guarantee is that this nation will continue to take resolute action if and when our national interest dictates.
(ends)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWER SESSION
QUESTION:
Prime Minister, thank you very much for that. I wonder if I could draw you out a bit on how you feel about the progress of East Timor
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think East Timor has a lot of advantages that other countries of that size and that stage of very modest development don';t have. It has access to oil and gas revenues, and provided the taxation regimes imposed by the country are sensible and sensitive to investment, then it has a brighter future in that way than many other countries but that';s a very important proviso. I think the security situation there is still difficult. I think it needs a lot more help with its police infrastructure and we are providing it. I don';t think the United Nations force is going to be withdrawn tomorrow. I think it will be there for some time.
QUESTION:
Prime Minister, good evening. Jonathan Harley from the Lateline programme. I was interested to hear your comments about North Korea, you know, the fateful choice that the leaders there face. In today';s New York Times there';s a very concerning article talking about US intelligence, satellite intelligence, which identifies advanced nuclear testing sites in the north of Korea, and also suggestions that North Korea is developing miniature nuclear warheads to fit on its existing missiles. The report goes on to say that friends and allies of the United States have been advised of that intelligence. So I';d be interested to know has Australia received any of that intelligence advice? And would that accelerate plans to block the spread of weapons of mass destruction from North Korea. Thank you.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I think I can best answer that by saying that I';ve seen a brief report of the New York Times report. I saw it just before I left my office this evening. We are having discussions with the United States arising out of a discussion I had with President Bush in Texas a few weeks ago about possible action that countries may take in relation to the subject you mentioned. Perhaps I can best say that those discussions continue. I don';t want to unduly heighten the drama. Equally, however, it';s obvious that North Korea is a huge problem and we';re dealing with a country that does appear to be acting a little outside predictable conduct and… to say the least. The role of China, as I said in my prepared text, is very important. There';s no country in the world that probably has more influence, direct influence, on North Korea than China. And I know that many countries will be encouraging China to exercise a very sobering influence on North Korea. It';s not in China';s interests, it';s not in anybody interest, that North Korea go down the undesirable path that I pointed to.
QUESTION:
[Inaudible] You didn';t mention in your presentation the importance of the European Union and dealing with the enlargement of the Union in political, economic and security terms as far as Australia is concerned. And maybe using the relationship with Europe and France in the Pacific to help solve some of the problems in the Pacific. Thank you.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I didn';t make a conscious choice not to mention the European Union. I';m just always aware of these sort of speeches that if you just feel you';ve got to mention sort of every part of the world, you end up sort of giving an even more episodic, potentially boring address, so you have to be very careful of that and, you know, perish the thought. Look, I… I mean, I have a view about… I mean, I look at the European Union in two ways. I look at it, you know, its historical contribution. I mean, the fact that the countries that devoured so many, whose wars devoured so many young Australian lives, twice, the fact that we';ve now found a way apparently of that not happening again is a matter of immense, you know, importance to the history of the world when you think of the terrible bloodshed that';s happened because of wars between European countries. Now, that';s the good part of it and I mean, for that alone we should be grateful for the European Union and treaty of Rome and everything that it has meant. As far as its treatment of Australia is concerned, well, you know, I have a very strong view that the European Union';s trading policies have been very damaging to Australia, very unfair, they continue to be. We';re meant to be grateful because in future the subsidies are going to not be linked to production but to something else, but the subsidies are not going to be lowered and it';s going to be some years before that change comes into operation. So I remain a real agnostic as far as to say the least, if not an aetheist as far as my attitude towards, you know, the European approach to more open trade. Look, I don';t discount the, you know, perhaps some discussion with the French regarding the Pacific. I mean, plainly this is very much a Pacific Forum thing and that';s… I mean, we are keeping the United Nations informed and there';s been contact with the Secretary General of the Commonwealth because the Solomon Islands in Australia and New Zealand, and indeed many of the countries of the Pacific, are members of the Commonwealth. So, we';re going the Pacific Forum route, not because we don';t want to involve ourselves with other countries but it is self-evidently the right international forum for us to work through and it is self-evidently the way in which we can disabuse any false notion that this is some kind of neo-colonial exercise by Australia.
QUESTION:
Prime Minister, Andrew Robinson, ancient mariner! You may, of course, everybody understands, the Australian Defence Force has been very stretched in recent years for its many commitments which you outlined. Would you give us your views as to whether you think, in the emerging world in which we';re moving in this century, whether our ADF - our Australian Defence Force - is adequate in its size and capabilities?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Andrew, I think I can best say this, that I think we will devote ever increasing resources to Defence for some years into the future. And I think, can I just add, I think it';s important that the community understand that and I think the community does understand that. But it';s also very important that they understand the reason for it.
QUESTION:
Prime Minister, Roslyn Strong, asking my question as a member of the national committee for UNIFEM, the United Nations development programme for women - and congratulations on the work that the country';s going to do in the Solomons - but it was notable at yesterday';s gathering that there did not appear to be much involvement of women. And I note a policing force is one way of addressing the problems, but I wanted to ask your comment on whether or not there will be some opportunities for more involvement of women, along the lines of the United Nations resolutions regarding women, peace and security and the involvement already of women in the peace process in the Solomons has been constructive in a couple of ways.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the meeting yesterday was not sort of meant to involve women or men, were just meant to involve the elected political leadership of the various countries. I will, you know, and I frankly don';t, I mean I wasn';t at the meeting and… but I will ensure that what you have put to me is taken into account.
PRIME MINISTER:
Prime Minister, thank you for your talk. I wonder if I could ask you if you have had or if you contemplate having any discussions with Sir Michael Somare about any possible additional Australian involvement along the Solomon's lines in Papua New Guinea?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the answer is no and it would – let me, if I may so, and I don';t mean this in any way aggressively, and I hope it doesn';t sound that way – but we are responding to a request from the Solomons. We';ve had no request from Sir Michael Somare and I think, for a whole combination of reasons, any action by Australia of that kind absent such a request would be completely and understandably misunderstood.
QUESTION:
I';m encouraged by what you have to say about the region but, because we all know we live in this sort of arc of instability where all of the countries of the Pacific have problems. It';s the nature of politics that foreign ministers, senior diplomats, even prime ministers were prefer to strut the stages of Paris and London and Washington than they would of Port Moresby or Suva or Dili. Is there some method administratively or institutionally where you can institutionalise more focus on the region, having advanced a few projects from the region? I';m conscious that there is absolutely no champions of the regional cause in the Cabinet and there is no focus. At the moment we tend to be, seem to be more fire fighters than strategists in the region. Would it be possible to sort of formulate a ministry or some other administrative arrangement that actually focused us more on the region than is currently the case?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well Trevor you could do that. The only problem with it, and I know exactly what you';re getting at, the only problem with it is that we generically talk about the region, but just as we shouldn';t generically talk about Asia and think that there';s some kind of one size fits all response to Asia, we have to say the same thing about the region. There are… if you look at the Pacific Forum countries, some of them are quite stable, very stable, they';re tiny, some of them… and I think Fiji has done a great job in coming back from a very difficult situation and I think Qarase and the people around him deserve an enormous amount of praise and credit for what they have done, they';ve had a lot of help. But gee they had the book thrown at them by the Commonwealth and the international community as far as the modalities of their return to constitution, I mean properly so, but perhaps other countries haven';t had the book thrown at them quite so vigorously. In the end, you find yourself addressing the region in a whole variety of ways. I mean, our relationship with PNG has a special character because of we were the metropolitan power and there';s a special affinity between the people of Papua New Guinea in Australia, there';s great affection in PNG for Australia, deep down, perhaps not at official levels, but deep down there is great affection. And I still say to a lot people that the best sort of barometer of international opinion I';ve ever found in Australia was the opening ceremony at the 2000 Olympic Games. If you just sat and listened to the reaction of the crowd to the various national teams, and I';ve never forgotten the very very warm and affectionate greeting that the PNG team received, and that was an expression of real affection from the Australian people towards that country. Our relationship with Indonesia is crucial, very very different from our relationship with PNG and the countries of, such as the Solomon Islands that are nearby. And, of course, obviously our relationship with the countries of North Asia, which I think has been one of the real success stories of the past few years, are different again. I never dismiss suggestions about administrative rearrangements although I don';t want to start any hares runnning about a reshuffle. I made the mistake of doing that at the National Press Gallery mid-Winter Ball. But your suggestion is an interesting one, but I think it';s difficult to have a consistent, generic response to the region because the region itself is so very fragmented and so very different and you do need different approaches and a different style and a different way of dealing with the different countries.
QUESTION:
Could I just ask a final question on Australia / New Zealand relationships. I mean, as you know, you';ve got a good personal relationship with Helen Clark, Australia and New Zealand are at distance on some strategic issues – New Zealand and United States is quite distant. How do you see New Zealand fitting into any Australia / US free trade agreement? I mean, I think you';ve said that you would speak for New Zealand';s interest. But it seems that the United States in this present frame of mind isn';t particularly interested in New Zealand in that respect. I mean, how do you see our relationship, vis-a -vie in New Zealand and New Zealand visibly to the US?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there is a difference in the defence relationship between New Zealand and the United States and the defence relationship between Australia and the United States. New Zealand made a decision in the 1980';s under the leadership of David Longey, and it was not significantly reversed when there was a change of government, not significantly reversed, to pursue a less engaged approach. Now, that';s New Zealand';s decision and New Zealand';s right. One of the reasons why I think I have developed and maintained a good relationship with Helen Clark is that although we come from different sides of the political spectrum and neither of us from occasions is regarding entirely as sitting in the exact dead centre of our two parties. Despite that, I do sort of think that one of the ways in keeping that very important relationship is not to give too much public advice about what are essentially domestic matters for the other country in the partnership. We just do though have a different approach. As far as the free trade agreement is concerned, we are negotiating one for Australia and that';s my preoccupation. I';ve indicated that if there are ways in which out of that process we can assist New Zealand, we';d be very happy to do so, but there';s no conditionality involved in that, they have to be separate operations. We do, for example, have separate interests. I mean, clearly if New Zealand were ever to have a free trade agreement with the United States, dairy would… their dairy industry would bulk very large in anything that New Zealand would need, where as that is not necessarily the case with Australia.
[ends]