PRIME MINISTER:
Ladies and Gentlemen. Today I had the opportunity of having lunch with the Vice President and this afternoon I'll be seeing Mr Armitage and also the Special Trade Representative, Bob Zoellick. As you know tomorrow morning I'll have formal discussions with both the Secretary of State and the Defence Secretary and I'll be going to the Hill for lunch with senior Congressmen, amongst them Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar and a number of others and then I'll have a meeting and dinner with the President tomorrow night and then we'll be going to New York. I'll have the opportunity when in New York of not only seeing the Secretary General but also I believe I'll also be able to see Dr Blix who is currently in Baghdad but will be returning in time for our meeting. That's the state of play at the present time. I don't know that in a policy sense I have much that I can add to what I said yesterday when we had a brief doorstop after my arrival. The report to be delivered by Dr Blix on the 14th will be a very important event and is the next important United Nations event. It remains the wish of the Australian Government, if it's possible, to have in the event that force becomes necessary that there be a United Nations resolution for the reasons that I've already outlined. It still remains our view that if the world speaks with sufficient force and sufficient clarity and sufficient unanimity then it might be that the Iraqi regime gives way. I don't rate the prospects of that all that high but in the end if there is to be a prospect then that prospect is to be found at the sharp end of the unanimous expression of world opinion.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister on Dr Blix, his comments from Baghdad today, what's your immediate reaction to his suggestions of progress and perhaps grounds of optimism too?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't have an immediate reaction. The best thing to do is to wait until we see his considered report. You've got to bear in mind that we've had 12 years of Iraq giving a little bit under a certain amount of pressure and I'm not going to jump to any conclusions about that, let's wait and see what Dr Blix says on Friday when he gives a considered report to the Security Council.
JOURNALIST:
Well,the United States seems to be in no doubt that it doesn't amount to much though. Condoleezza Rice is quoted as saying that the Iraquis can't drip out co-operation bit by bit and of course really didn't amount to much.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you've asked me for reaction. I've given you it.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, Dr Blix has described his weekend in Baghdad as amounting to some good developments. Does that give you any heart?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, for something serious to happen to turn around the direction of this whole thing there would have to be a total change of attitude by Iraq, it's not good enough just to give a little bit. This has happened before.We're not going to play a game on this.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, today Mr Putin has put his support behind a Franco-German suggestion that inspectors should have an extension and that there is an alternative to the course that the U.S. and its allies are taking. What's your view on that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'd seen a denial that the Franco/German suggestion existed.This is the one about the peacekeepers? Well I saw a denial of that on CNN.That's my reaction. And how do you get the peacekeepers in? Do you think Iraq is, I mean going to allow peacekeepers in? Anyway, I understand the suggestion is being denied by a spokesman for the French Government.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, Defence Secretary Rumsfeld (inaudible) said diplomacy had been exhausted almost. Is that your summation?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well my summation is what I gave at the beginning of this news conference. I am not going to define the Australian Government's attitude on this issue through answering questions on what other people have said. We have an attitude, I've explained it, I'll keep explaining it but it's not going to be defined by commenting on what others have said.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister are you encouraged at all by what the Iraqis have done over the weekend with the weapons inspectors?
PRIME MINISTER:
This is at a stage where the sensible thing is to deal with substantial reports and substantial submissions to the Security Council and not to get into the game, I know it's tempting, of giving a running description on every single comment that's made by people. We have a situation at the present time where Dr Blix has reported that Iraq has not co-operated on substance, may have co-operated a bit on process but they don't appear to understand what is required of them. There's another report on Friday, I'm going to wait until I see that report before I have anything to say about that. And all of that occurs against the background of Iraqi behaviour over past years when right at the last moment something is given but not enough or only to be taken away subsequently. Remember 1998 when our SAS went to the Gulf? They were withdrawn as I recollect because an arrangement was entered into between the Secretary General of the United Nations and the Iraqi government and that arrangement was subsequently dishonoured which subsequently I think led in turn to Operation Desert Fox. So there's a long history of this. Now I just mentioned that by way of background reminder. I'll wait until I see what Dr Blix has got to say before I offer any view on anything that may have occurred most recently.
JOURNALIST:
So does that mean that you fear that Iraq might be engaging war of what's described as cheat and retreat?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it means what I said it meant in answer to the last question.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, given that (inaudible) there is an effort by France and Germany to try and revive a longer period for the inspectors will you be speaking to the French or German missions in New York.Do you think that this idea of the inspectors (inaudible) will fly at all?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't know that it is given - I don't, in the face of what I've seen I don't know that it is given so I can't really say anything further.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard the Secretary of State (inaudible) today on American television said that French and German proposals to extend the inspections regime with peacekeeping support was quote 'inexcusable' unquote. The National Security adviser Condeelezza Rice offered the same opinion of the same French and German and indeed Chinese suggestion that the inspectors should be given more time. Do you agree those efforts (inaudible) inexcusable?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I said a moment ago that I had seen a report that they had been denied by the French.
JOURNALIST:
I think there are a number of reports flowing out [inaudible].
PRIME MINISTER:
In a situation like this, I am not going to comment, with great respect, I'm not going to comment on a whole lot of unidentified, unsourced, partly denied, maybe totally denied reports. I'm just not going to do that. It is a silly exercise for me to get into on such a serious matter. I'm just not going to play that game.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, what did Vice-President Cheney have to tell you.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it was a private lunch. It wasn't... it was he and his wife, my wife and our respective Chiefs of Staff and the Ambassador. We obviously talked about a whole lot of things but I know Vice-President Cheney well. I got to know him very well when he visited Australia before he became Vice-President, and we quite clearly talked in great detail about the current crisis and about a whole lot of other aspects of Australian-American relations. But it was a private lunch and therefore I won't be briefing on it in the way that I would brief on other discussions.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, given that this latest development [inaudible] seems to be unconvincing, what would Saddam have to do at this point to (inaudible)?
PRIME MINISTER:
Get fair dinkum.
JOURNALIST:
Is it what -present buckets of anthrax (inaudible)?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, do for example what South Africa did when South Africa disarmed. There has to be, in my view, for the community of nations to be sensibly convinced of a change of heart, there has got to be a fair-dinkum change of heart. We all know what that is. We all know that given everything that has happened, that in order to turn this thing around, Iraq has to - in a totally genuine, transparent, fair-dinkum, open fashion - cooperate.
JOURNALIST:
You almost think though that its too late for that already?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'm not going to sort of bring the curtain down on any hope. That's silly. But it's difficult and I can only deal in the reality of the situation.
JOURNALIST:
Does co-operate translate to admit that he has weapons of mass destruction?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I believe... sorry
JOURNALIST:
Or does it mean allowing more surveillance flights, giving the documents they say havn't been given [inaudible]?
PRIME MINISTER:
It means total cooperation and to my mind that would mean indicating where some of the offensive material is and so forth. The evidence that exists is, in my judgement, very strong and after the Secretary of State's presentation, even stronger. And that was a very compelling presentation, very compelling indeed.
JOURNALIST:
Have you heard even more evidence since you've been here?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I haven't, not in the time I've been here so far, no.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, the tone of the debate between the Americans and the Europeans seems to be getting more aggressive. This definition of whole of Europe, whatever new Europe might be. Where do you stand on that. Do you think the French and the Germans are dragging the chain unnecessarily?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'm for, you know, the continuing ageless Australian interest. I'm not taking sides in sort of arguments between one or other part of Europe.
JOURNALIST:
[inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
Well look, once again this is asking me to comment on what somebody else has said. I am here to represent the Australian interest in this issue and I observe what happens, I observe that there are a range of views coming out of Europe. There are those represented by expressions from Germany and France. Whether they end up being the final German and French positions, I wouldn't be certain. There are those represented by the statement of the seven, and then there's what the (inaudible) ten, so if you want to start dividing Europe up, you've already got three different things. But I don't think it's terribly helpful to overdramatise these things. You always get a range of views on difficult issues but you perhaps end up having greater unanimity than you might think. There were a lot of views on resolution 1441 but in the end everybody voted for it, including Syria. We have to keep a sense of proportion. But as I said a moment ago, this is too serious an issue for me to do other than explain my position and that of the Government in my own language and in my own way, and not by reference to what other people have said and descriptions that other people have employed.
JOURNALIST:
[inaudible] any longer-term role for Australian troops?
PRIME MINISTER:
I beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST:
Have you contemplated any longer-term role for Australian troops in Iraq such as participating in a stabilisation force?
PRIME MINISTER:
I haven't, no.
JOURNALIST:
Would you..?
PRIME MINISTER:
I wouldn't see that kind of role as being appropriate if it were [inaudible]. Once again, you're leaping ahead. But we have put ourselves in a position to make a military contribution if the final decision to commit to that contribution is taken or made, and that's quite clearly defined. And the capacity of those forces are understood and they're not forces that would, generically speaking, be involved in that kind of operation and I don't see a long-term peacekeeping role of that kind as being appropriate for Australia.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, what particular points of view would you like to impress on Mr Blix if you do get to meet him in New York?
PRIME MINISTER:
My purpose in seeing Dr Blix is to get information. I mean I respect Dr Blix's independence. I'm not trying to persuade Dr Blix to do anything other than furnish a genuine report. He's answerable to the Security Council. The political responsibility for taking the right decision is one for the Security Council. I mean, I'm not trying to argue a case to Dr Blix. Dr Blix is part of the process. He's the independent umpire about the enforcement of the inspections process and what I will be doing in my discussion with Dr Blix is to listen to what he has got to say. I mean I'm not trying to pull him in any particular direction. I don't think that would be appropriate.
JOURNALIST:
In your talks tomorrow, especially at the Pentagon, do you expect to lock in a possible role for Australia if, further down the track we do decide to join a coalition of the willing?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look there have been contingency discussions going on between the American and the Australian military and it's always important in these situations to leave those sorts of things to the militaries of the two countries. Of course being aware of the nature of those discussions at a political level, and that is where it will sit. The question that whether ultimately a decision is taken to commit will depend on all the things that I have been talking about now in different ways on innumerable occasions over the past few weeks.
JOURNALIST:
[inaudible] how much time after February 14 and the Blix report should the Security Council be given to either come to a conclusion or not come to a conclusion?
PRIME MINISTER:
Clearly that will depend somewhat on what is in the Blix report, but speaking generally I do see this as something that, unless there is a dramatic, convincing, persuasive and total change of direction by Iraq, I see this as something that is not going to go on for months. I think the expression that a number of people have used is we're not talking about months, but weeks. Bear in mind the point that was made very convincingly by Dr Blix in his earlier report that it's the attitude... and the point I made in my statement to Parliament, that if I were persuaded that there was total cooperation, then I wouldn't really mind how much time there was. But because there's not, then clearly you can't go on forever because this has been going on for 12 years.
JOURNALIST:
[inaudible] is it fair to say your are quietly confident that the Security Council will ultimately speak in your words with force, unanimity and clarity in a second resolution?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't know Michael. There are signs that that's more likely now than it might have been a few weeks ago. I think you've had three very significant developments. You've had the report from Dr Blix, you've had the State of the Union address, and most recently and most compelling of all, you've had the presentation from the Secretary of State. Those things all have built the case in a stronger way than it had been built before, so I think that's all feeding into it, but I can't be certain. I don't know.
JOURNALIST:
And you are not too discouraged by the signals we've had from Europe about wanting more time for inspectors over the last couple of days?
PRIME MINISTER:
Not particularly, no.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, Dr Rice said on Channel Nine that the President respects your counsel. What counsel will you be giving him, beyond what you said about the need for unanimity [inaudible]? Obviously, he's expressed as well [inaudible]. What counsel will you...?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the sorts of things that I've canvassed in different ways. Clearly we'll have some discussion, I guess, about the... I'm sure we will about the approach that's going to be taken in the corridor discussions at the Security Council. I envisage at some stage in the very near future, unless there's some out of character change, there'll be a lot of intense discussion amongst the members of the Security Council about the form of another resolution, as the Americans have made it clear that they will cooperate in relation to another resolution. They haven't acknowledged, and I don't think they should either and I certainly don't acknowledge that as a matter of international law you need another resolution. My argument for another resolution is what I said in my statement to Parliament and that is that it would involve more people both in support and in involvement in any action that might ultimately be taken. So they're amongst the things that we will talk about.
JOURNALIST:
And would you see yourself having a role in speaking directly to the heads of government of the Security Council countries?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, many of the countries that are on the Security Council - a number of the non-permanent members are not countries that we're as close to as we are to others. I mean on the earlier occasion I did speak to one prime minister in particular, but that country is no longer-that's Ireland- is no longer on the Security Council.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, some years ago Australia made a tilt at a seat on the Security Council unsucessfully?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, I remember.
JOURNALIST:
Does the indecisiveness of the Council encourage you to have another go?
PRIME MINISTER:
I hadn't thought about that. I haven't thought about having another go in the context of this. I mean, the question of whether we have another go is something that is always under consideration. It's not something that I've thought about a lot lately, no... that's not meant unkindly, but the answer's no.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, will you be informing President Bush of the opposition in Australia towards Australia's participation in any war against Iraq?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh, it sure he's - I'm sorry Dennis, I didn't mean to cut you off.
JOURNALIST:
That's all right. And do you envisage another formal Iraqi Parliamentary debate after the Blix report?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, in relation to the first question, I'm sure President Bush is aware that there is a range of views in Australia on this issue, as I'm aware there's a range of views in the United States. I mean public opinion in the United States reflects all shades from black through to white and plenty of shades of grey in between. And there are a lot of similarities between public opinion in the two countries. Indeed, public opinion in the United Kingdom and many other parts of Europe. Although, it does vary a bit according to what country you're in. So, I don't know that he will come to my discussion completely ignorant of that, I'm sure he won't. In relation to another debate, well the current debate is still going on and this is the second lengthy debate on Iraq. Clearly, if Australia were to commit to military action, I would bring a resolution to the Parliament on that. The Government, of course, will take the decision, but I would bring a resolution in consequence of that decision to the Parliament and there would be another debate. I have no desire to stop debate. I want the Labor Party to have as many opportunities as possible to express views on this subject and I want my colleagues to have as many opportunities as possible. This is a very important, very serious issue and the last thing I want to do is stop debate.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard,just back to the United Nations, if potentially three out of five of the permanent Security Council members abstain from voting for a second resolution, how much legitimacy would it have?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh look, clearly Alison, I'm not going to start saying - well, this might be acceptable or this might not be - I'm not going to play that game.
JOURNALIST:
But you must be thinking about that.
PRIME MINISTER:
I think about a lot of things, but I'm not going to answer that question.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, wil you be discussing North Korea in the meting with the President?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, I would expect to discuss North Korea, yes. I've already had some discussion with President Bush about North Korea during our last telephone discussion, we talked about it. It was one of the subjects, of course, that came up today in my discussion with, in general terms, with the Vice President and will no doubt come up in my other discussions. It's an issue that's very difficult and very important for Australia.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, when the President and other Cabinet members talk about having together now a coalition of the willing does Australia count itself as part of the coalition of the willing?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, that expression is used by others. As I say, I define the Government's position in my own language and in my own words and not in answer to questions commenting upon what other people have said.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, how much is North Korea being discussed as being related to the Iraq issue or linked to it or is it being discussed as a separate thing entirely?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I'm quite certain that one of the reasons that North Korea has behaved in an intransigent fashion is that she's looked at the in-decision around the world in relation to Iraq, and I'm certain that if the United Nations behaves weakly concerning Iraq that will make it much harder to deal with North Korea - much, much harder.
JOURNALIST:
So apart from getting (inaudible) with Iraq do have any other ideas, proposals you would like to discuss with the U.S. about handling the North Korea problem?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, the most important objective of our dealings with North Korea must be to get North Korea back into compliance with the obligations that country has under the non-proliferation treaty. I mean, bear in mind that on my advice, the only two countries that stand accused of breaching their obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty are Iraq and North Korea.
JOURNALIST:
[Inaudible] how soon direct talks should start between America and North Korea? Mr Armitage had made some comments on this [inaudible] recently as has Mr Powell about how pressing the time frame [inaudible].What's your...?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, I don't think it's something that can be treated in a leisurely fashion, but I'm not going to, sort of, off the top of my head, say they've got to start on a particular date. But it's an important, very important, very difficult and very challenging issue. Made more challenging by North Korea in my judgement, looking at the world's indecision on Iraq and seeking to profit from it.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, can you say whether Vice Presdent Cheney indicated that the administration was happy with Australia's support on Iraq?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh, I think the administration appreciates the positive role that Australia has taken, the contribution by pre-deployment that Australia has made to increasing pressure on Saddam Hussein. A pre-deployment which was seen by both sides of Australian politics in 1998 to be very valuable and very effective. I'm sure the American administration appreciates all of that. It is very appreciative of the role that Australia has played.
JOURNALIST:
Is the strategic concern that any forced disarmament of Iraq be before we get well into April, how great a pressure is that on consideration of the issue for the Security Council and for yourself?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't think it's wise to get things out of sequence. We're trying very hard still to get the maximum expression of unanimous, united, unambiguous world opinion in the belief that that will do more than anything else to perhaps,faint though the chance might be, of inducing a genuine change of heart by Iraq and I don't really want to hypothesise about the juxta position of that possible military action because we still hope, difficult though it is, that that might be unnecessary.
JOURNALIST:
Will you be providing a briefing to the Leader of the Opposition on your return to Australia?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'll treat the Opposition Leader very courteously and appropriately. If he wants a briefing I'll respond in an appropriate way. I've tried very hard in the time I've been Prime Minister in these sorts of things to maintain as much bipartisanship as possible but I respect the fact that the Leader of the Opposition is perfectly entitled to have a different view from me on this issue. I think he's wrong but he's entitled to have his different view, and he's entitled to argue as vigorously as he wants to. Whether he uses the right arguments or the right method, it's a matter for him to worry about but I'm not questioning the right of the Leader of the Opposition to have a different view, it's a democracy we live in and he's perfectly entitled to take whatever view. And obviously if you have a total unanimity of view from Government and Opposition the exchanges are obviously going to be a little more free flowing than when you have a situation where the Opposition is not only impugning the integrity of the leader of the government on the issue but also attacking a large part of the policy. But look I think in the end it's always good to exchange information and we've kept security briefings going and I've responded and I'm not going to respond in an ungenerous fashion to a request from the Leader of the Opposition for a briefing, certainly not, I'll be quite forthcoming on that. But I think you'll all understand that he's not in the business at the moment of giving 100 per cent support to the Government's position and that's his right, he's the Opposition Leader.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, do you believe that there's any alternative to the current U.N.weapons inspection process?
PRIME MINISTER:
The only way you'll get this thing fixed is for Iraq to, let's face it to cave in and do what the UN wants it to do. It's the only way you're going to get it fixed without the use of force, I mean that really what it boils down to. Now I still think that is possible but it won't be possible if you start going off in ambiguous directions. I heard somebody say this morning, I think it was at St Johns, don't get diverted by side issues, it was a remark that apparently Ghandi had made to Nehru.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, if you are still pursuing the faint hope of peace(inaudible) in your time frame, weeks and not months, is that then not an option for the world to consider as an alternative to ..?
PRIME MINISTER:
You're asking me to comment on something that has not been attributed to anybody other than in a very generalised sense.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Putin has just made it very clear(inaudible).
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I haven't seen Mr Putin's comment.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) what he's been told by the Germans..
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I haven't seen that and in any event I'm not going to give a running commentary on every comment that other people make. We have got a situation where the United Nations is engaged and that is the way in which the thing should be solved. If countries have a view to put to the United Nations well they can put that view, but people want this in the hands of the United Nations. People have criticised the Americans.I mean the Americans have gone down the UN path and they're continuing down it.
JOURNALIST:
So if the U.N. has an alternative resolution(inaudible)...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that's if and I'm not going to comment on something that has not emerged.
JOURNALIST:
It doesn't have a second resolution either with great respect...
PRIME MINISTER:
But it has an existing resolution and we have a policy as a government to argue in certain circumstances for a second resolution, and that's what I'm articulating. I can only say again that on a subject like this our policy is best explained not by reference to what other people say, I don't adopt other people's language to explain the policy of the Australian Government, I explain it as best I can in my own language.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, you just said that President Saddam has to do what the U.N. wants. Isn't it true though that he also has to do what the U.S. wants which is regime change? Hasn't the United States made it clear....
PRIME MINISTER:
Our position is that our overwhelming goal is disarmament. I've made that very clear that regime change may be a consequence of that and I won't be unhappy if it occurred, I don't think anybody will.
JOURNALIST:
Is it not a condition?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, not as far as the Australian Government is concerned. Now somebody wanted to ask me, but you obviously haven't, about Zimbabwe, I thought somebody was going to ask me.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, what about Zimbabwe.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I just thought you should know for the record because there have been some press reports about it that when I was in Hawaii President Mbeki contacted me and said that he and President Obasanjo felt that they didn't want to have another meeting of the Troika because their view was that there wouldn't be agreement reached between South Africa and Nigeria and Australia in relation to what would happen after the current period of 12 months of the suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth ran out.
I indicated that I didn't agree with their position but obviously they didn't want to another meeting then another meeting wouldn't take place. My view is that the issue should be held in the present status quo and that is that Zimbabwe remains suspended until the next full meeting of the Commonwealth which will be in Nigeria in December. But Zimbabwe has not done anything effectively to respond to what it was asked to do in London last March. If anything the situation appears to have deteriorated and I certainly wouldn't be supporting any notion that Zimbabwe should be readmitted to full membership or full participation in the Commonwealth as from March of this year if that were a view that were being argued by them or indeed by anyone else and I'll get some further advice from the Commonwealth Secretary but my intention at this stage would be to report the position to other members of the Commonwealth and to express my view as current Chairman in Office that the best way to handle this matter now is for the issue to go back to a full meeting and that meeting will be under the chairmanship of President Obasanjo in Nigeria in December.
JOURNALIST:
As things change, what happens now [inaudible]?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that is the subject of some different interpretations and I'll be getting some advice on that. My view is that it would not be appropriate given that Zimbabwe has not demonstrated any willingness to respond to the requests made of her by the three of us last March. It would be a breach at least of the spirit of the decision we took in March if Zimbabwe were allowed back.
JOURNALIST:
[inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah it was. That's why I say interpretations will vary and I'm going to get some further advice on that because I don't have all the Zimbabwe material with me because I wasn't expecting to discuss Zimbabwe in a telephone booth in Hawaii.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, why would Zimbabwe
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think I can put it this way - you might think that yet it's obvious from what's happened since last March that they do worry somewhat about it by their behaviour.
JOURNALIST:
[inaudible] are you saying that South Africa and Nigeria are arguing?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well their position [inaudible] is they saw no point in any further meeting of the Troika. They didn't agree with me that further measures should be taken against Zimbabwe and I deduced from that discussion that they would not be unhappy if Zimbabwe were readmitted. Now whether they will argue strongly for that I don't know.
JOURNALIST:
So if the Commonwealth asked...
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the origin of this current suspension, the origin of it was the report of the Commonwealth Observer Group which was chaired by an African country and that was overwhelmingly critical of Zimbabwe and I made the point to President Mbeki that the Commonwealth concern is that Mugabe is there because of a rorted election and that nothing has really been done to remedy that situation and until it was then there's no way that Australia and I believe a lot of other countries. And this is not, you have to be careful and bear in mind that the Pacific members of the Commonwealth are very critical of Zimbabwe. Countries like India are very critical of Zimbabwe. It's not just a question of the old Commonwealth, if I can use that expression, and the rest. That is not the case at all.
JOURNALIST:
At this point
PRIME MINISTER:
He seemed to have the view that there had been some improvement. That was the view that was put to me. I said I saw no evidence of that.
JOURNALIST:
Did President Mbeki indicate that something should happen before the meeting in Nigeria....?
PRIME MINISTER:
No no. I mean what I will be doing, subject to taking advice, I'll be writing to all of the heads of government of the Commonwealth reporting the situation and expressing my views. My view is that the status quo should continue and that is suspension until December and then the matter can be thrashed out at a full meeting.
JOURNALIST:
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes if you like. Thank you.
[inaudible]
[ends]