E OE PROOF COPY
TRANSCRtIPT OF INTERVIEW WITH THE PRIME MINISTER, THE HON. P J
KEATING, SE~ ATTLE, U. S. A.
FRIDAY 19 NOVEMBER, 1993
PM-. This morning T had meetings with Prime Minister Chaun of T'hailand, President
Jian& Zemin of China and President Kim Young Sam of Korca. Another ve~ y
useful do vclopment of APEC, that onc has the capacity to have bilateral
discussions. At each of those meetings we were able to discuss APEC, whlat it
means, Its development and also bilateral issues between us. There are, of course,
as you know many bilateral Issucs and I was able to discass dcvclopmcents in the
Australian economy; developments between Australia and Its economy and
China; thc growth of trade last year of 40 tie progress we ate making in trade
talks recently, the progress we are mnaking on wool for instance; as well as talking
about API C, the prospects for this meeting, its future and its institutional
NtTucturc. In my discussion with President Kim Young Samn we r-anged uver those issues
again that is, the APE-C pecLuliar issucs, as Well as Australiaes support for South
Korea's position with North Korea over nuclear weapons. And lie also usked me
ubout our likely support otKorea for a place in the . J'N Security Council,
representing Asia. It was a useful and interesting morning.
J: Did you get any sense from the Chinese President of how they arc going to
respond to President Clinton's entreaties oil human tights?
PM; No, 1no 1 met Presidcnt Jiang /. emin before President Clinton would have met him
and I also indiuuted because I don't think it is as well understood outside of the
United States or outside of wtintrics like Australia as here therc is some still
body of opinion In the 1. Jnited States that says they shouldn't tic thcir hands in a
Multilateral structure, that they should miaintain the right to do things unilaterally
and bilaterally)-also a great dichotomy of view often between the Pres~ idency, the
President, and thc Congress. And I think that our Chinese friends need to take
-2-
that into account. That this is not a monolithic debate in the United States, and
getting a United States President interested in trade ill the Pacifc and looking
Wcstward doesn't mean the whole monolith goes with him. But those of us who
are interested in securing US support for developments in the Asia Pacific aren
have to also encourage the Congress and other elements of the administration as
well. So. I took the opportunity to give himi these views which may havc been
useful ahead of him meeting the President.
Blut from China's point of view they have got a massive trade surplus with the US,
in one way the StMtuS quo suits them just finely doen't Vt
PM: Well thiese economics are going to grow so rapidly, their ifastructure demands,
their energy demands, their environmental problems are going to he so prtfound,
that unless they get the institutional arrangement-; in place to see this sort of
development, they are tnt going to grow as fast as they otherwise would. They
would then experiece the same kind of trade prcs~ surcs Wili the United States
which Japan is experiencing. So you've got to let the United qtte,; be able to
tradc in the area to see its exports rise.
And this is thc point President Clinton continually makes about growth and jobs
in the United States for the export growth which hits the potential of reaching in
the Asia Pacific areat. In othier words, the US has got to be allowed to freely
exerise its commercial possibilities in the area so that it is not living with very
large trade imbalances against it. Now, that is why getting these structures right
and thinking about them ahead of time is important.
J. Are you disappointed that the Ministerial Statement didn't embrace the 1996 JITO
target on free trade, agrement on free W-ade? And if! T could ask one more thing,
the Chinese Foreign Minister in answer to questions about that meeting
upecirically rejected the idea of it namec change to community or any sense of a
community?
PM: Well let me deal with the second one first. T've sdid to you oflcn there is no road
map with APEC, we have got to explain it as we go along. ' Mere is a concern that
the word community implies a Brussels-lypc supra-national structure. Now, it
doesn't. None of are thinking about a European community Brussels-type
bureaucrucy which makes national decisions, or supra-niational decisions, or
decisions for Nation's. APEC is a much looser, co-operaivc structure than that,
and it won't have those formial arrangcmcnts. So the word community doesn't
have the samec connotation as lRuropean community.
B~ ut again, the main thing is, as I said to you yustcrday, that the member states
here adopt the work programns and go on positively with the main substantial work
-3-
of APEC. Some at thle moment seem to be more worried about the form than thc
substance. When you get down to substanc they have no worrics. When you
talk about the formn they seem to have worrics. Well, OX, let's focus oil
substance, the form will look aftcr itself.
And the question about the LVC1 and the 1996 date?
PM: Well. again, this is another point. You see, we don't envisage tat AI'LC should
be displacing the (. iAFJfor trade liberalising things. We see tht OATT as having
primacy in global terms, in terms of goods, services, intellectual property rights
etc., But what CIAICaniL do is basically get inlto things like trade facilitation,
that is encouraging the development of a bcttcr legal background in countries for
investment, better protection for propwry, the rights to litigate on equity issuex,
customs procedurcs, company law standardisation, standardisation of profesional
siandards, standardisation of food standards, standardisation of electrical and
telccommunicahion standards, these are not G~ ATT things. But, these arc very
imrnltant things to this region. They arc one of the things that will help, for
instance, trade from all of us into the area&
So it's a case or showing what GMJT= c do and what APEC can do so that the
trade facilitation, I've always said to you, the trade raili~ ation agenda will be up
the front and the trade liberalising agenda will follow, B~ ut because, I think,
countries of the -rea see the trade posibilitiesl they are already doing it. It was
like the tariff changes in Australia. We announced the tariff cuts in 1988, by 1989
companies were already looking to adjust for the end points, even though they
were years away. In the same way Indanesia. this year for instance, is now
introduving a very large package of deregulation and boardcr protection reforms.
If we keep on the trade facilitation and if we focus on what we can all do together,
L think the trade liberalisation will come along as well as through the OATT, not
only through the CYATT, but by unilateral decision% which countries will takc to
open Up their markets.
J: Arc you happy with the message that is now being sent through t) OATT from
APE. C?
PM: Well I think so, an(] you mnay have seen today's release, if you have it, the
commitmenits which the various APLC countries have been prepared to put their
namec to. which have been negotiated in G'eneva under tht aUSPiCC3 Of the G7AIT-1.
Now, in Australian termns they arc off a 1989 ba-se, and, of course, after then we
introduced thc tariff chunges or 1988 to 1991 and then the tariff changes of 1991
to 1 996. So we are In the happy position of being able to comply with all of these
commitnienis without, in ract, changing the policy we ulready have in place.
.4-
J: Does it involve any concessions on our part?
PM: Not beyond that which we have announced years ago.
J: One of the things you want to come out of this conference is to make them a
regular event, a regular summit, do you think from the talks you have had so far
hero that it is likely to come oil.
PM: I think so. I think that It's likely that tomorrow it may be proposed that there be
another meeting again next year. And I think that is likely to succeed.
J: Who will propose that?
PM; I don't know. This is another thing, that the dynamics of the Leaders' meeting is
going to be quite important, because it is not pre-cooked or scripted. Thecrcfore it
is likely to have an impetus, in fact, some of the leaders are stronger on this than
their foreign ministries are. And this is why, I think, it will be important to see
how the chemistry of the meeting runs itself.
J: Would that be in Jakarta?
PM: Well, next year is in Jakata. The next ministerial meeting is in Jakarta. But,
again, there would need to bc a consensus for it. I think in the cvcnt that there's a
consensus I'd be pretty surprised if President Suoharto wouldn't issue an invitation
but there would need to be a consensus.
J: Given what you've said about the meeting tomorrow, do you hope the Leaders'
meeting can push forward in the arcas that the Ministers' meeting met resistance?
PM: In what areas?
J: The name change, the EPG, things like that.
FPM Well, again, the main thing is to keep broadening the understanding of what
APF. C is and what it can do. And to then summon the consensus for that and
move on. In other words, you gather up a bit more each time and then you move
along. This has come a long way from nothing, in four years. When I first started
talking about giving APEC more authority with 1Leaders' mectings was when I
met George Bush in January 1992. This is the end of 1993, it's only two years
and you've got half the world's leadership.
3: Werc you hatppy about the recognition of Australia's pivotal role in setting up
APE C, tbrough Bill Clintoo's acknowledgement of [ Bob I lawke, today?
PM: Oh ycs. I think Australia is very clearly identified with authorship of APFC wq a
grouping. Ii's all now a matter about what it is and how deep it is. And the APEC
we're talking a~ bout now is more than just an informnat ion secretariat. Tt's
something which is lookin~ g at these trade facilitating things and just by
summoning the leaders to it naturally gives it more attention national attention
and morc focus in all of these national bureaucrAcies and, of course, in their
communities. So API2C will, therefore, be very much stronger as a result of* thjs
change.
J: Is it correct that teams lik~ e the ten working groups inaudible have actually
done a lot of work in Identifying trade barriers, other tariff barriers and so on.. the
work's there, there's a stack of books this thick. And it was tip to this meeting,
thought to be up to this rnccling to actually give it the policy impetus to mnake
decisions on how to actually lower or eliminate those sort of barriers and in fact,* it
soorms as thought that impetus is not there.
P'M: No, no. Thars not right. This inecting never envisaged adopting wholesale the
Whole trade libcralising agenda. The mecting does not have enough ol* it history
as an executive group, I think in this time, to izontcmplatc: ( hat sort of wholesale
adoption. in other words, no-one is considering notihstanding the fact that
one can easily collate where tarifE or other non-tairiff barriers might be no-one
is believing that this mneefing is going to be, in fact, adopting an cxecutive role
which then says, " Ohi yes, we'll lick these binding changes t) national economics'
borders." That's not what is envisaged hbrm.
But what is cnvisagcd here is to give APEC more authority, that is, to make clear
that the lcadcrs' want it to have a role doing things more than simply exchangin
Wnorpiation and, in the first instance, ito look at these trade facilitation programs.
Which I think it tcan do. And it will do those things but, I think, on trade
liberalisation everyone W! Il sit back and see where the GIATT goes. Now, irthe
GATl succeeds and there's a great change in thc GAiT ' and there's a lot of
liberalising people then say, " Well, what else can we do". And in a year or two, a
fcw years after thui, I ihtink we can follow it up.
J1: you've slid that you're going to invite President Clint-on to Australia on this trip.
When will you issue this invitation?
pM: Well, obviously 7' ll be seeing him a number of tinics ovcr this weekend and in the
event, of course, that the meeting were to deuitdc that there would tie another
16-
mfecting, irt the S. outhern Hemisphere in Indonesia I would say, " Well, look,
if You're there, come and see us." Whether he cun... it President's schedule is
always fully booked so whether you can jUSt issuc and invitation and expect to get
an acceptance is a different matter. But, I'll certainly ask hin.
J: insudible Christopher indicated there could be somec soil of developments on
the Korean Peninsula. In your discussions with the South Korean President today,
did he indicate anything happening in that regard? Sumv. sort of breakthrough or
some behind the scencs development?
PM: No, I think their preoccupation seems to be with nuclear issues in the North and
continuing world support for their position. That is, pressure onl North Korea to
open themselves up for IAFA inspections and to keep pressure onl them so as to
see them not got to the rcproccssing business. But now, no doubt there is a lot of
bilateral business between Korea and the United State.% b ut thiuy'll announce all of
that in their own good time. And it's their business.
J1: Mr Keating, there's been a bit of contioversy in Australia over the agreement you
made with, apparently. with Mr J0lack, on Fairfax. How can wc be sure that, in
future mecdia decisions that your Government has to make, that you won't make ak
shnilar agreement or deal with, say, the Pay TIV contracts?
PM: It's not a matter of making similar... Look, t~ here's no group more sel f-interested
than the Fairfax journalists in the affairs of Fairfax. The only rivals arc the ABC
and thc affairs of the ABC. Outside of these two very articulate and selfinterested
groupings, the rest of* us arc bystanders to the general media debate. I
was asked yesterday about M~ r Black and our decision to increase his holdings to
Obviously, no government is going to give such and agreement to a
proprietor who behaves in a paisan way, or immnaturely. And the last election
ww; a reasonable test of how the ncw management proprietorship and
management would behave in that environment. And that's the sum total of it.
Beyond thazt, Mr Black has not formally put any proposuls to the Government so
therefore, there's nothing to consider.
J7: So, will you be applying, that same criteria to future, potential media owners in
Australiat? Particularly with Pay TV?
PM: No. Because, well, Pay TV is not the principal broadsheets of the country. But,
obviously, I don't think anyone in Australia should wclcolicb eavy handed
proprietorship. I remember the whole of thc Fairflax employees talking about. the
rights to write and have printcd that which they bclicvc and 11ot have prOPrietorial
intervcntion. And it was tha point that I was~ making.
.7-
J: On thc subject of proprietorial intervcntion, you put a bit of a bucket on the
British tabloids the other day when sitting right next to you was Rupert Murdoch.
Did he say to you afterwards anything about the Lizard of Oz?
PM: No, of course it took mc a while to make the link between thc Sun and him. His
newspaper empire is so extensive that one needs to have an encyclopedic memory
to remember all the titles.
J: Just on Fairfax, Mr Keating, who made the judgemnent about whether they were
balanced or not. Was it you alone or was it other ministers as well?
PM: Oh look, I don't think I need to take that debate any further. I mean, Mr Black
made the point that it was very hard to manage the newspaper with 14.9% of the
stock and it's a pretty reasonable point to makc. We've given him 25% and
is nowhere near a commanding position in tenns of the cquity but it gives him the
authority to manage it.
PM: Do you think, for instancc, that a Liberal Prime Minister might make a different
judgement of balance as a Labor Prime Minister?
PM: I shouldn't think so. I mnan, I don't think it's an unrecasonable thing to require of a
newspaper that it be balanced.
J: Wcrc you pleased with thc way Conrad Black thrust your discussions into the
public domain?
PM: I was absolutely delighted.
INDS,.