Thank you very much Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. I thank the National Press Club of Washington for the invitation and the opportunity it gives me to share some thoughts with you about not only a relationship that is very important and very dear to Australia, but also some of the challenges that that relationship faces. This is the fifth occasion that I have visited Washington, during the Bush presidency. It has been a period of great intensity for the relationship between Australia and the United States. As you all know it's a long association. It's an association above everything else that is built on common values, a relatively common view of the world. It is a relationship that has been reinforced over time in the face of common challenges and also common opportunities. I came here, on this occasion principally to advocate the merits for the United States, as well as for Australia, of the recently signed free trade agreement between our two countries. Ever respectful of Congressional and parliamentary processes I will simply say that I was greatly encouraged by the reception that I received when I visited many Congressmen and women and Senators yesterday afternoon. This agreement will bring great benefits not only for Australia but also for the United States. It creates the framework for an ever closer economic association between our two countries, in the decades ahead. In the globalised economic environment which will be with us for all time the relationship economically between Australia and the United States can in my view only grow closer, and thereby to the mutual benefit of both of our countries.
But speaking as Prime Minister of Australia, and having remarked that I've visited Washington five times during the Bush presidency, it is also in the interests of perspective and balance worth my while saying that there is no world leader with whom I've had more individual discussions than the former President of China, Jiang Zemin. And one of the goals of our foreign policy has been to not only develop ever closer relationships with the United States and with those nations of Europe with which we have particularly strong associations, but also of course to solidify and further develop our very close economic and political associations with the nations of Asia. And I have never seen relationships between Australia and other nations in terms of making choices. A phrase that I often employ and would be well known to those in the Australian press party who are here today, it's never been a goal of our foreign policy to choose in any way between our history and our geography. Australia uniquely is a nation with European roots, with strong ties of history and values with the United States, but of course in the Asian Pacific region. And we see our future, very much as building on all of those associations and not seeing our goal as choosing one in preference to the other. I've also had the opportunity since being in the United States of opening what I hope will be a valuable dialogue in the first instance with the newly elected Governor of California, regarding the possible building of an energy partnership between our two countries. Australia has vast reserves of natural gas, America has some energy challenges, not least amongst those challenges of course, is the energy challenge in California. And just as we have been able to begin to build a very close energy relationship with China, adding to the very close relationship we've had in that area with both Korea and Japan over a number of years, so we see a very significant future in building an energy association between Australia and the United States. It is inevitable of course that my discussions with President Bush and other members of the Administration have focussed on Iraq.
As the chairman said in his introduction, Australia contributed military forces to the combat phase of the operation in Iraq, and we've left forces there, and we intend to leave them there until the job assigned to them has been completed. I'm very strongly of the view that this is not the time for any weakening of the associations and the attitudes and the objectives that took certain countries to take the action they did in March of last year. The rights and wrongs of that action have been debated many times and they will years into the future. I don't intend to occupy my time today in overly canvassing the merits or otherwise, but except to reaffirm that there has been no change at all in the Australian Government's view of the wisdom of that action. But irrespective of what view one may have taken last year about the wisdom of the coalition's action, it seems to me very plain that there can be only one course of action, here now, in June of 2004. And as we approach the handover date to the Iraqi interim government, we are approaching one of the most crucial phases of this operation because it is essential, not only from the long term objectives of the United States and Australia, but more importantly the medium and longer term objective of the cause of democracy in the Arab world that Iraq be successful. We have the opportunity as the hand over to the interim government is about to take place to look to some of the positives, as well as acknowledging that the past two months have produced many negatives out of Iraq.
It can't be denied of course, that the impact of the prisoner abuse issue, the impact of the upsurge of violence has naturally challenged the will and the resolve of many. And has put into question the stance that has been taken not only by my country, but also by the United States, Great Britain, and the other 34 members of the coalition of the willing that have a presence in Iraq. And it is worthwhile, particularly from an Australian perspective, as we are an Asian Pacific country to remind ourselves that the current coalition of the willing in Iraq does not just consist of the United States, and the United Kingdom, and Australia and some of the nations of Europe, that there is a very significant contribution from Japan, a contribution from Thailand, a contribution from the Philippines, and a contributions from other countries in that region. And sometimes that broader perspective of the presence in Iraq is lost sight of in the debate that goes on. I share the concern that people have understandably expressed about some of the events of the past two months, but the opportunity that we now have to build on the transfer to the interim government, the opportunity we now have to see for the first time since the operation was undertaken last year, Iraqis readily identified with their people, speaking on behalf of their country, speaking as representatives of, albeit an interim, Iraqi government, but nonetheless a government that is going to pave the way for the elections to be held at the beginning of next year.
I believe that is an opportunity to see a new phase and to shift the emphasis of the perspective that the world brings to Iraq to a more positive vantage point. We have to ask ourselves of course what is the alternative. And the answer to that is a very ready one. There is really, for our sakes, no alternative other than to make a success of what has been undertaken. Those who suggested more than a year ago that undertaking an operation against Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the war against terrorism can scarcely be heard to mount that argument today. Because whatever may have been the connections between terrorism and Saddam Hussein in March of 2003, it can scarcely be doubted that international terrorism is currently investing an enormous amount in trying to frustrate the objectives of the coalition and more importantly the legitimate aspirations of the Iraqi people for a democratic future. A failure by the coalition in Iraq would represent a victory for international terrorism of absolutely monumental proportions and that is a reality that I believe has to be kept in mind even by the fiercest critics of the action taken by the coalition.
I believe of course that the challenge faced by the coalition is a challenge that will have a profound impact on the future development of relations between the states of the Middle East. If we can see democracy develop in Iraq it will I believe represent a very, very significant example for future activity and future response in that part of the world.
Having addressed those particular remarks to Iraq may I just put into context some of the debate that has occurred over the last year which has endeavoured to typify the action of countries such as the United States and Great Britain and Australia in terms of whether it represents some fundamental shift in how our nations relate to the rest of the world and some fundamental shift concerning our relationship with the United Nations. I think one the errors of the debate of the last year has tended to be to see attitudes to the United Nations too much in terms of black or white. Australia has had a long association with the United Nations. We regard ourselves as a member in good standing with that organisation. We're a nation that has contributed to the agencies of the United Nations since it was formed. The view of my Government towards the United Nations is that it remains still in broad terms a force for enormous good in the world and a body when properly supported, particularly by the permanent members, can still provide solutions to many international problems. The reality is that the United Nations on some occasions when faced with challenges has worked very effectively. I certainly recall how effectively the United Nations worked with the challenge of East Timor when Australia led the internationally and United Nations sanctioned intervention to help the tiny country of East Timor. But we all certainly remember the total failure of the United Nations to effectively address the challenges of the disintegrating former Yugoslavia and remember of course the failure of the United Nations to effectively intervene to prevent the genocide of Rwanda. And I think the point we have to remind ourselves of is that sometimes the challenges of the world can be addressed through the councils of the Security Council and the United Nations where there is sufficient unanimity of opinion. But on other occasions where that mechanism fails then those challenges have to be addressed by coalitions of the willing. And of course it has always struck me as odd and verging on the hypocritical that many of those who readily endorsed what I might loosely call the coalition of the willing that stood up for the Muslims of Kosovo against the Serbians only a few years ago were very ready to condemn a coalition of the willing that was ready to take action against Saddam Hussein. I see a lot of parallels in both of those instances and both of them represented action being taken by like minded countries to achieve a desirable goal in the face of the inability of the United Nations to muster sufficient unanimity of opinion to take the necessary action. And the point of that ladies and gentlemen simply is that we cannot see attitudes to the United Nations in terms of a choice, an either or, either you are for multi-lateral solutions through the United Nations, or you are in favour of pre-emptive action or coalitions of the willing. The fact is that on some occasions the multi-national approach will work and the mechanism to make it work should be preserved and supported and nurtured but equally on other occasions that mechanism is ineffective and will not work and coalitions of like-minded countries will have to take action.
Can I conclude my remarks ladies and gentlemen by returning to a theme I touched on at the beginning and that is that the very rich and very valued relationship between Australia and the United States has many facets. We often remind ourselves that we have fought together in every major military conflict over the last 100 years. And I never reluctant to remind a predominately American audience that on the first occasion that Australians and Americans fought together the operation was commanded by an Australian General. But most importantly of all, leaving aside those military associations and those economic associations, the thing that binds us together most is of course our shared view of the world and our shared sense of common values. We are societies that fundamentally see the value of people not in terms of their ethnicity, their social background, their religion, or their sense of social status but rather their personal character and their commitment to the ideals and common values of their country. We are nations that owe a great deal to our immigrant heritage and we are nations that are, I think, also united in our belief that an open free market approach to the management of an economy is the one that best meets the aspirations and the hopes of our citizens. So it is a relationship that I am very pleased to reaffirm in the strongest possible terms, it's a relationship that has meant much to Australia in the past, it's a relationship in my view that will deepen and get richer as the years go by, as I have endeavoured to explain it's a relationship that can be developed without of course in any way diminishing the other very important associations that both of our countries have.
Can I conclude by thanking the United States Government once again for the great hospitality that its extended to me and to my wife and to my party, I feel when I visit Washington I do come as a friend, I feel familiar and I thank the people of the United States for their warmth and for their hospitality.
Thank you.
[ends]