

Inquiries:  (02) 6277 7500 1

MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS

HON ALEXANDER DOWNER, MP



TRANSCRIPTION: PROOF COPY E & OE

DATE:   3 November 2006

TITLE:  Foreign Correspondents Association: Solomon Islands, Fiji and PNG. He then takes  questions from the reporters present on a variety of topics  _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



ALEXANDER DOWNER: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the opportunity of saying a  few words to you as the foreign correspondents here in Australia, or at least a selection of the  foreign correspondents.

Looking around the room I can see that you all have a wide variety of different interests so it  will probably be better to spend the bulk of our time on me trying to deal with the various  issues that you might want to raise which are particularly of interest to your readers or your  viewers or your listeners, rather than just talk about one topic at great length which might not  be of universal interest to you.

Let me just say something about an issue which is a preoccupation for Australia at the  moment and is very dominant in the Australian media, and that is the issue of our relations  with the South Pacific, as that obviously has been quite a difficulty for us in recent times.



Our approach to the South Pacific is very much driven by, first and foremost, a sense of  altruism. We want to help the people in the developing countries around Australia achieve  higher standards of living and greater job stability and opportunities. We want to see those  countries prosper and be successful.

I think from a self-interested point of view it obviously isn't in our interests if those states  become weak or as Solomon Islands became back in 2003, pretty close to being failed states.  So we want to do what we can to try to help deal with the problems of the region.

We do that in a number of ways; one of them is to provide a large amount of development  assistance to the region. We provide more than $300 million a year of aid to Papua New  Guinea alone, and we provide substantial aid to countries like Solomon Islands, Fiji and

Vanuatu, Samoa, Tonga and so the list goes on.

It's one thing to provide aid. The challenge is for that aid to be effective and productive. And I  think, for policy makers anywhere in the world in countries which are aid donors,  that is  always a big challenge. Some of you come from Europe and European countries are big aid  donors. I know that that's a challenge for them, and ditto with Japan, because I also know

some of you come from Japan which is a very big aid donor.



Inquiries:  (02) 6277 7500 2

So that is the challenge that we face. Now in recent years there are two things that have really  concerned us. One of those was, in effect, the collapse in the Solomon Islands and when we  received the invitation in 2003 from the Solomon Islands Prime Minister to send in a  stabilisation force. We thought about it long and hard. We had discussions with our Pacific  neighbours to see what they all thought about it.



In the end, collectively as a Pacific community, we decided to do it. But we did say, all of us  in the Pacific, that we would only do it if we could be sure it would be effective. And that  meant not just sending in some police to help restore policing and law and order, and some  military to back them up, but it also meant sending in officials from other Pacific Island  Forum countries.

I mean they're obviously predominantly from Australia and New Zealand - but they're not all  from Australia and New Zealand - for those people to work in different parts of the  bureaucracy to try to get the system of government working better again, and the distribution  of services such as health and education services working better again.

We've always said that this needs to be a comprehensive program and at its heart is rebuilding  the quality of governance in Solomon Islands. So when in recent times you've seen us have  some arguments with Solomon Islands, which I'm not proposing to rehearse any more in great

detail, they've all been traversed by the media and others, day in and day out, for quite some  weeks now. But when we have had some arguments, they've really been arguments about  governance. We don't want to see any reduction in the quality of governance; we don't want to  see any return to the very dire situation there was with governance in Solomon Islands in  earlier years.



A lot of progress has been made, a lot of very good progress has been made there and we just  have to keep working at it. So I'm hopeful, particularly on the back of last week's Pacific  Islands Forum meeting in Nadi in Fiji, that this Regional Assistance Mission in Solomon  Islands will continue to remain firmly in place.

In the case of Papua New Guinea we have an argument with them as well over a similar issue,  but we have endeavoured to try to improve there the quality of governance with, in particular,  the police force and in the law enforcement agencies, but also in areas such as health,  education, treasury, finance, immigration, customs, tax collection.

We've tried to help through a program we call The Enhanced Cooperation Program. I mean it  has not worked as comprehensively as we had originally planned because the Supreme Court  - the High Court of Papua New Guinea - didn't allow for the deployment of Australian police  officers into in-line positions in Papua New Guinea without constitutional change. And that  was really beyond the political scope, understandably I suppose, but beyond the political  scope of Papua New Guinea to be able to make that kind of constitutional change. But we  have deployed a lot of people into in-line positions and advisory positions in government  agencies and that has made a good difference.

That we have arguments from time to time with these countries is one thing, but that's the  ephemera of politics. These things come and go. The important thing is to focus on what the



Inquiries:  (02) 6277 7500 3

central and medium term objective here is which is to improve the overall level of  governance. So the ordinary people - they're the people we're above all interested in - the  ordinary people of those countries are going to have better prospects in the years ahead and

their children are.

In the case of Fiji, I think it's fair to say to you that we've been providing a lot of support to  Fiji over the years. We are very concerned about the prospects of a coup taking place in Fiji.  That's not to say it will certainly happen, and we're doing everything we reasonably can to try  to stop it happening. So we'll just have to see over the next few days what will happen.

But we have been discussing this issue, not just with the Fiji government, with the Prime  Minister and other ministers, but we've been of course, through our Defence Force, making  representations to the Chief of the Defence Force in Fiji, the Commander of the Defence  Force, Commodore Bainimarama, and other countries have been doing the same thing. In  particular New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States and I think other countries  too will be giving this advice. The Papua New Guinea Prime Minister has issued a statement,  which we welcome, saying that he doesn't want to see a coup take place, unconstitutional  action take place in Fiji.



So we are also talking with the Pacific Islands Forum, the Secretary-General, the Secretariat  there, about what Pacific Islands Forum members as a whole can do to try to assist Fiji  maintain its constitutional processes. We don't offer a view on the politics of Fiji, or the rights  or wrongs of particular legislation, but we do offer a view on the Constitution and the need for  the Constitution to be stable and constructive and adhered to, above all, by the people of Fiji  and the rule of law upheld.



Fiji suffered grievously from military coups too, in 1987 and one in 1990. If there is another  coup, I think it will raise real questions about the usefulness of Fiji military forces in  peacekeeping operations around the world, because you can't have a military that doesn't  believe in the rule of law helping to uphold the rule of law in other parts of the world. That  doesn't make a lot of sense.

Now they are a very good military, and they do very good work in many parts of the world.  But if the Fiji military forces take the view that they should be able to ride roughshod over  their own Constitution, sweep aside democratic institutions in their own country, that doesn't  make them natural partners for the international community in other parts of the world where  attempts are being made to uphold the rule of law.

The other thing is that if there is a military coup in Fiji, I think it would be almost certain that  Fiji would be suspended from the Commonwealth. We'd be sorry to see Fiji being suspended  from the Commonwealth, but I think that would be the consequence of what would happen.

And finally, I don't think there's any doubt, and you can see signs of it already, that if there  were a coup in Fiji it would have a devastating impact on the Fijian tourism industry. Now  that's important because the garment industry and the sugar industry haven't been doing so

well in recent times. And for the tourism industry, which has been doing very well on the  back of trouble in some other tourist spots around the region, and as a result of very



Inquiries:  (02) 6277 7500 4

substantial investment into the Fiji tourism industry, if that tourism industry once more goes  through a downturn, that will have a devastating effect on the Fiji economy.

So I would say to the Fiji military, think about the reputation of the military in the  international community, it's high, and I wouldn't want to see its reputation diminished or the  utility of the Fiji military in supporting UN and other peacekeeping operations, I wouldn't  want to see that diminished but it would be if there were a coup.

Think about membership of the Commonwealth and think about the economy, the living  standards of the ordinary people of Fiji who are very dependent on the tourism industry, the  wonderful tourist resorts that Fiji has. But if there is to be a coup, if the Constitution is just to  be cast aside, then I say to the Fiji military, think about the implications for ordinary people in  your country from that happening.

So we will obviously continue to work to try to discourage the Fiji military from mounting  any kind of unconstitutional action, and we'll just have to wait and see.   The end of course, as with every country, their destiny is not in our hands. The destiny of all  countries is in their own hands and outsiders can always assist, outsiders can provide support,  outsiders can even reinforce security.



But at the end of the day a country is only as good as its people and if the people want to  make it work, it will. And if people are not sure that they do want to make it work, or they  don't want to cooperate with each other or work with each other, it won't. And there's not  much that people with big hearts, like the Australians, there's not much that they can do in a  situation like that. We will, to some extent, hope for the best. And we will certainly be  continuing to work for very good outcomes.



So again it's a great pleasure to spend a bit of time with you, and I am happy to deal for half  an hour or so, with any of the issues that you want to raise with me, regardless of what they  are.



They might be something to do with climate change, or you might be interested in  government policies in relation to North Asia or South East Asia or South Asia or whatever it  is. On Europe, European Union, the United Nations, whatever it is, I'm happy to do my best to

try to deal with it.

Tell me who you are and where you're from. Yes?

REPORTER:  [Inaudible]

DOWNER: Italian Press, I was in Italy very recently.

REPORTER: It sounds a bit surreal that this threat of a coup in Fiji comes from the head of  the Armed Forces when he's not even in the country. On your assessment what is the support  that he actually has in the military? I mean …[inaudible]



Inquiries:  (02) 6277 7500 5

DOWNER: I think in the Fiji military they support Commodore Bainimarama as the  commander of the military, though it is important to remember that the Commander-in-Chief  in Fiji is not the Commander of the Fiji Military Force, but is the President of Fiji as is the  case with many countries, probably in Italy actually.



The second thing I'd say is I don't think there is much support for a coup within the broader  ranks of the Fiji military. But of course the Commander is the boss and the concern we have  is that he will be able nevertheless to implement a coup if he really wants to. So we're not  sure, and we're not sure what will happen over the next few days. But we are, as you've just  heard from me issuing a series of warnings, sure about what some of the consequences will  be.

REPORTER: [inaudible] there have been a lot of problems in Iraq last month, more dead  soldiers than before, lots of people dying in Iraq from more sectarian violence. President Bush  has talked about a change of tactics or strategy in Iraq, how much do you know about this and  what has the Australia government thought about a change of strategies and what they mean?

DOWNER: Well I think there is a difference importantly between strategy and tactics. I  mean the strategy is clear that the task is to continue to stand up the Iraqi security forces and  increasingly transfer responsibility for security to them. But there is no point in doing so if  they are not able to sustain the security of the country, and eventually the country just  implodes and is taken over, not just by the insurgents, but very importantly the terrorists - the  Al Qaeda terrorists. So I think the strategy is clear, and the tactics of how to do that, well they  are always being considered and refined, and re-refined every day of the week. And you are  right, it has been a particularly difficult period.

I often make this point which I want people to reflect on. Don't ever think that terrorists are  oblivious to political developments in the outside world, or at least the leaders of terrorist  organisations aren't politicians themselves. They are. They are many things. They are cruel  people, they are murderous people, they are criminals and they are also politicians. And there  is no doubt that they are watching what is happening in America right now. We have  American congressional elections on the seventh, next Tuesday.



I said to some people the other day, just imagine a group of terrorist leaders in Iraq sitting  around, and if you walked into the room and you said to them ‘when do you think the  American mid-term elections are’? Do you think they would just shrug their shoulders and  say what happens in America's corrupt and valueless, so-called democratic institutions is of  no interest to us and we don't know. I think not. I think these people would say they are on  Tuesday 7th November and they would be able to tell you how different contests were going  in different parts of the United States.

Now, when you are dealing with terrorist organisations, it is very important to remember that  you are also dealing, for all the evil that those people have, they are also people who are  politically smart and often politically very manipulative.

I say all of that because it is not the first time in history that, in the context of congressional  elections, there is an enormous upsurge of violence somewhere else in the world. And there is



Inquiries:  (02) 6277 7500 6

no doubt about it. Some of that is directed towards trying to influence the outcome in the  Congressional elections. Because they think that could make a difference to their causes.  Now, whether that is true or not, that is not for me to comment on. I wouldn't proffer a view.

But I would just say that I think some of it is driven by that.

It is nevertheless, in and around Baghdad, in the four provinces in and around Baghdad it is a  very difficult situation. There is no question of that. And we just have to continue to work on  building up the Iraqi security forces so that their increased capacity to take over the security  or at least the bulk of the security in the country including of course ultimately in Bagdad, that  they are able to do that. And we've had some success, of course, where we have been in Al  Muthanna province and now in Dhi Qar province. We have a overwatch role there in terms of  providing a backup force to the Iraqi security forces if they get into dire difficulty. But the  Iraqi security forces essentially run security in both Al Muthanna and Dhi Qar provinces so so  far so good there.

REPORTER: A question on North Korea. What is your take on North Korea's [inaudible] are  you concerned that they are just buying time again and are you meeting with the North  Korean ambassador?

DOWNER: Well look I think they are not buying time. I think they are genuinely  beginning to feel the pressure of the universal support for the sanctions. I don't think there is  any doubt about that. The way, not just the United Nations Security Council or Japan or  countries like Australia have supported the sanctions, but importantly the way China has  supported the sanctions has been a great shock to them. I don't think they really expected that  China would be quite as robust.

But it is a point I often make. China has been a great supporter of North Korea. It has been  explicitly in the 1950s, and I think in other respects implicitly, the security guarantor of North  Korea. Not that they have, in my view, needed one since the end of the Korean War - nobody

has been planning to invade North Korea - but North Koreans themselves must feel that China  is a security guarantor of their country. Yet despite all that China has done for North Korea,  North Korea successfully humiliated China both through the missile tests and then the nuclear  test. And you know you can understand the feeling in Beijing about this. And there are two  Security Council resolutions supported unanimously in the Security Council which reflect the  strength of opinion, not just of the countries you would normally expect to support resolutions  of that kind like Japan, but they do reflect the feeling of China. And I think China's response  has had a significant impact in North Korea.



Whatever Kim Jong Il may think, there will be a lot of people in North Korea who are pretty  worried about this situation, because this isn't a country going anywhere anytime soon if the  present regime keeps to its existing course. What hope do people have in a country like that?

So the Chinese have very successfully got them back to the six party talks, which we hear are  going to take place before the end of the year. And, of course, nobody should consider lifting  sanctions just because a country says it is going to get into talks. Sanctions should only be  lifted when the conditions laid down by the Security Council are met, or progressively be  lifted as they are being met. But essentially, that is what should happen here. And I think the



Inquiries:  (02) 6277 7500 7

North Koreans need to understand that. These sanctions are going to stay until the  government in Pyongyang has done what the Security Council wants to see be done. And  there is pretty much a unanimous view around the world about this: they have got to  dismantle their nuclear weapons program; they've got to subject it to the International Atomic  Energy Agency inspections; and they've got to rejoin the nuclear non-proliferation treaty - or  reactivate their membership. I know the Europeans take the view they haven't formally left  the NPT because you can't formally leave the NPT. That might be right.

So the Security Council resolutions are clear and the North Koreans need to understand that  just returning to talks, whilst it is welcome, that they are returning to talks is a first step that is  not going to lead to the lifting of the sanctions until they meet the conditions laid down by the  Security Council.



REPORTER:  [inaudible]  back  to the Pacific [inaudible]

DOWNER: That is the nicest thing that gets said about me. Colonialist, arrogant,  overbearing, and actually I'm lovely.

REPORTER: Do you think the burden should be shared more by countries like France in the  region?

DOWNER: Look I think France just plays it pretty much as it should. We have very good  relations with France in the Pacific and we especially work very well under what are called  the FRANZ arrangements to assist with disaster relief. But in these kind of situations, I don't  think there is anything particular that France can do, other than provide diplomatic support for  what we are doing, which it does. And I am happy with France's role in the Pacific, as it  happens, and I was in Paris in June and I saw President Chirac and also the foreign minister  Philippe Douste-Blazy and others. I made it clear to them that we are happy with where  France is at in terms of the Pacific and France has been very supportive of our new, more  proactive policies in the Pacific.

They have their own issues to deal with and there are sensitivities surrounding those issues so  it is important - you don't have to tell the French this -but it is important that they take all of  that into account, which naturally they do. Now they have had quite an interesting time over  there in French Polynesia, quite an interesting time.



REPORTER: [inaudible] you had misgivings about sending a force into the Solomons, what  will happen [inaudible] are you now wise in retrospect [inaudible]

DOWNER: Going back to that point of view again? On a bad day I do. I'm just determined  to see it through now.

REPORTER: What changed your point of view in moving from that position to believing  that intervention was the right thing to do in the Solomons and elsewhere?

DOWNER: Well I think that there are a couple of issues here. One is that I reached the  view in the middle of May/June 2003 that Solomon Islands was just spiralling down to



Inquiries:  (02) 6277 7500 8

become a failed state. And it seemed to me that the efforts that we've been making at  reconciliation - in particular between the Malaitans and people of Guadalcanal - between 2000  and 2003, had had some success, but the level of corruption just sort of reached a point where  nothing really seemed to me it was likely to work very well. And that given, it is an  unattractive choice to have to intervene in a country in that way, even with their invitation -  obviously particularly unattractive without an invitation - but it is unattractive with an  invitation, to accept an invitation like that. But you have to weigh up whether it would be  even more unattractive to stand by and do nothing as the country just continued to spiral  down. And yet as is so often the case in foreign policy, you are confronted with two  unattractive choices and you have to choose the least bad, and sometimes it is least bad in the  medium term.

So there are arguments for non-intervention, and you can see we get, by the political elites in  some of these countries where we have intervened, we get attacked by them day in and day  out. Politically attacked by them, and abused and denigrated and so on. But on the other hand,  I think what comforts me about the decision to intervene in the Solomon Islands is the  response of the ordinary people of the country. I know a lot of the political elites hate us for it,  even though they invited us in, but the ordinary people would be appalled if we just withdrew  and left the country to, well essentially to disintegrate.

And I know that people in Papua New Guinea rush to the media and they call us arrogant and  colonialists who don't respect their sovereignty and all of these kind of things. It is the old sort  of beating the patriotic drum. But I also know that the ordinary people of that country

appreciate enormously what so many Australians try to do to help them get through, every  day, to provide health services for them. Sure we might get bagged and criticized and attacked  in Waigani - and particularly the Prime Minister and I do - but on the other hand, think about  all the people out there in the villages, and also in the suburbs of the towns of Papua New  Guinea who at least have some health services and some education. Australia is an important  part, it is not the only part, but Australia is an important part of making that happen.

So, I think this more activist approach has its downsides, has its disadvantages, I don't walk  away from that. But on the other hand, I think the alternatives are even worse. So we just have  to sort of stick it out and just keep working at trying to make it happen. Very hard though,  very hard. I've been the foreign minister for quite a long time, and you know I've been  interested in international politics pretty much all my life. I've just seen some things which are  absolutely heartbreaking, and you know look at what happened, we all quote this, look what  happened in Rwanda in 1994 and we look what happened in the Balkans and we look what  happened -- is happening in Sudan.

There are all sorts of reasons why you might or might not be able to intervene to stop this, but  it's heart-breaking to think you've got resources to help fix these problems up, but you either  don't want to use them or, for some other reason, can't use them. It is heart-breaking to see  those sorts of humanitarian tragedies. And for all the difficulty that you have when you do  intervene, and try to solve those problems, the alternative is worse.



Inquiries:  (02) 6277 7500 9

What about Kosovo? Would it be better just to have abandoned the Kosovars to their fate? Or  to have at least made an effort to try to give them a better life. Very tough, very tough  situation in Kosovo still, but the alternative is worse.



REPORTER:  [inaudible]

DOWNER: Well I don't really have anything new to add on that today, over and above  what the Prime Minister and I have said in the past. I mean we haven't got any plans at the  moment to change our policy and we just observe and we've given support to the agreement  that the American administration has negotiated with the Indian government.



I think it's a classic example of what I'm talking about actually. It's not a perfect agreement  because it doesn't cover all of India's nuclear sites and nuclear facilities. On the other hand,  the alternative is worse.

The alternative is to have no system of inspections or accountability in relation to India's  nuclear program. The other thing is, I think it is fair to say of India, is that it doesn't have a  record of being a proliferator.



It doesn't have proliferation ambitions and it is not a country of proliferation concern. That's  important. It's actually a bit more than that, it's extremely important.

REPORTER: [inaudible] recently shown in newspapers climate change, was mentioned  before--

DOWNER: It's been raining today and in Melbourne and in Canberra.

REPORTER: Even the Prime Minister finally acknowledged that there is some sort of  [inaudible]

DOWNER: Why do you say finally? What? He's been talking about it for years, you just  haven't bothered to report it.

REPORTER: It wasn't really acknowledged--

DOWNER: Oh that's the narrative of the left. I'm not saying that's you, but that's the  narrative they push on us. Nobody would accuse you of being left.

REPORTER: My question actually is do you [inaudible] for 10 years have failed to develop  or commercialise solar energy industry which you have the basis, you had--

DOWNER: We have some.

REPORTER:  --the  science.

DOWNER:  Right.



Inquiries:  (02) 6277 7500 10

REPORTER: But you have not developed an industry. It has been taken over by the Chinese,  by the Germans, by other countries--

DOWNER: Well I don't see the world like that. I'm not into that narrative. I think the  premise of your question is horribly wrong and I always say in these public debates, ‘bring on  the truth’.

We play Australian Rules Football here. The game is divided into four quarters and I always  say, ‘at least bring on the truth for five minutes in the third quarter and give it a run-around’.

Don't of course be obsessed with it, but this is just a completely absurd narrative that we aren't  concerned about these things. Suddenly, we had great programs and then, 10 years ago we  became the government,  and right wingers came in and the brilliant schemes of socialists  were disbanded.

I've never heard more hogwash than that in the whole of my life. It's complete hogwash. You  use 10 years, because 10 years ago is when we became the government - hogwash this.

I think the Australian renewable energy programs of one kind or another which have been  well supported by both the private sector and the government have done a good job and we  have exported.

Sometimes we have sold to corporations and we have exported that technology. I would have  thought that was a good thing. We believe in globalisation actually. We don't have a problem  with foreign companies coming here and being involved in and buying our technology.

But secondly, the narrative is that we have suddenly woken up to the climate change issue. I  would have thought a fair few of you had been here and probably you yourself, who asked  that question, were actually standing here in Sydney in the middle of January at the press  conferences surrounding the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, the  Inaugural Ministerial Meeting.

So we actually haven't become late converts to this. Imagine the amount of time it took for us  and the other partners, the other five countries, the Indians, the Chinese, the Japanese, the  Koreans and the Americans to put all of that together. We didn't even dream that up in  January. We've been working on that for a long time prior to that.

The third thing I'd say is that we have invested very heavily in Greenhouse abatement  measures and I'm confident that this country will meet its targets that were set during the  Kyoto negotiations for 2008-2012.

More confident than I am that many other countries that have targets will meet those targets.  Some of those countries are way overshooting those targets. Excuse us if we say, spare us the  lectures, spare us the lectures. Make sure all of your countries meet your targets and we'll do  our best to meet our target and we should do. We'll have to take some, but not many, but some  small additional measures to make sure we do that. But we are focussed on something else,



Inquiries:  (02) 6277 7500 11

we are focused not on the politics of climate change, we are focused on the substance of  climate change.

I suppose that's typical of the centre right in politics. We are the rationalist, practical people  who want solutions. We don't want stunts; we don't want rhetoric. We want answers.

For this - eighty percent of the world's energy is generated I think - electricity rather, is I  think you'll find generated by coal. Now that is a big emitter of CO2. I would have thought a  very, very big issue was the extent to which we are able to capture that carbon from coal-fired  power stations and deal with it in one way or another, for example, through carbon storage  mechanisms and so on. I would have thought finding economic ways of doing that should be  a very major priority. Two days ago I was in Canberra at the launch by the Prime Minister of  some AP6 projects, but one of the developments there, right there in Canberra at the CSIRO  was their carbon capture machine that they have designed themselves.

They say that carbon capture at the moment at coal-fired power stations will add about thirty  per cent to electricity prices for consumers. Thirty per cent. Now some people say that's an  under-estimate. Some people say it will be nearer to fifty per cent.



Now, spare me the rhetoric. I think what we need is a solution to get that figure of thirty per  cent or even more way down. The CSIRO do spare me the rhetoric. They say we're doing  research and development designed to get that figure down to fifteen per cent.



When you're talking about carbon capture from coal-fired power stations not being as  economic as not doing it, but adding something like fifteen per cent to the retail price of  electricity. You're working in an area where these things are going to become more effective  and more viable.



But it's the old story. I'm not accusing you of this, because you just read the newspapers and  so on. But it's the old story. It's the old story that the left are great on narratives about how  terrible everybody else is, and on symbolism.

The thing about the centre-right in this country is, we are great on practical solutions and we  are putting our brains and our energy and our money into finding practical solutions to a  serious problem. And no, we haven't just started doing it recently. We have been doing it all  along.



Let me just say to the ‘Kyoto One’ I'm going to call it now, to the Kyoto One people, this is  really mainly a lecture for the Europeans. For the Kyoto One people, if -- IF -- all those  countries meet their targets, emissions will increase between 1990 through the first  commitment period between 1990 and 2008-2012. Emissions will increase; CO2 emissions  worldwide will increase by forty per cent if all the targets are met. They will increase by 40  per cent. And if it hadn't been for Kyoto, how much would have they increased? By forty-one  per cent.

Now you cannot tell me that that is making a serious contribution to dealing with the problem  of climate change. It is making a serious contribution to getting people elected in Western



Inquiries:  (02) 6277 7500 12

democracies, but it is not -- because it is popular -- but it is not making a serious contribution  to the solution to the problem.

I would say to you as journalists, you should be forensic in examining the practical outcomes  of what politicians are saying: not just listening to the blah that comes from people who say,  ‘oh we're fixing the problem of climate change because we've signed Kyoto’. Please, that is  not serious.



We look to see what happens in the negotiations in relation to the second commitment period.  And in the end, this isn't a European problem or an Australian problem, or a Japanese  problem, or an American problem. This is a global problem. This is a global problem.

All countries are going to have to contribute to the solution and it is reasonable that all   countries - particularly developing countries, particularly China and India, Brazil and so on  and Indonesia, but all developing countries - it is reasonable for them to say yes, we know we  have to reduce our CO2 emissions, but we still want to see out the living standards of our  people then continue to increase.

It is reasonable for Europeans, Americans, Australians, Japanese to say we want to see CO2  emissions reduced, but we don't want to bankrupt our countries; we don't want to bankrupt  our businesses; we don't want to have twenty five percent or thirty percent unemployment.

So the challenge for the policy maker, with her or his head in gear, is to find solutions to those  problems. It's very hard to do and it's going to require a lot of investment in research and  development to find the technical solutions, particularly to CO2 capture and storage from  coal-fired power stations.

Quite a long answer, but I thought you'd it enjoy that. No reflection on you mind you. It's a   great line that isn't it? No reflection on you.

REPORTER: I know you [inaudible] Japan and the United States and you were explaining  the political [inaudible] but this is sometimes discussed in the context of China and  [inaudible] What is your viewpoint? Is there possibility that India will be [inaudible]

DOWNER: Well I think we need to - we Australia - and certainly I would urge [inaudible]  you don't have to say this of the Japanese and the Americans anyway because they share this  view, but we need to have really good strong and constructive engagement with India.

What I say about India is here is a country which is the world's largest democracy. India is a  country which is not just a democracy, but practises the rule of law; has a legal system built  on the same foundations as our own legal system. For us as Australians there are what, 300  million or so people in India who speak English. An enormous number of people speak  English there. So for us, in many respects, it's an easy country to deal with.



The other thing about India is that India is one of that small, but great group of countries -  small but great group of counties that plays cricket. And they play it very well, although not  quite as well as we do at the moment.



Inquiries:  (02) 6277 7500 13

So the point I make about it is that we are very committed to building a good and a strong  relationship with India and I think for all sorts of reasons, not all exactly the same as those,  Japan and the United States are.

I noticed Prime Minister Abe places a lot of emphasis in his public statements, and in my  private meeting with him a couple of months ago, he  places a lot of emphasis on democracies  and countries that share those democratic values working together. And you know, that is one  of the profound strengths of India. Not to be, as Prime Minister Abe points out, not to be  underestimated. So how all this will emerge we'll see. With the trilateral strategic dialogue,  we had a very good meeting here in Sydney. Again, some of you probably covered that. A  very good meeting here in Sydney and, of course, we see each other and speak to each other  on the telephone pretty frequently the three of us -- Condie Rice and Taro Aso and me. You  know, bilaterally we do and we'll be catching up next week at the APEC meeting in Hanoi. I  don't know when we will have the next formal Ministerial trilateral strategic meeting, but we  will.



Of course this isn't a policy about the containment of China. As I've often said, I don't support  the containment of China. I think that's a very poor idea; an extremely poor idea. I think with  China the main challenge is to continue the process of engaging China in regional structures  and regional affairs - engaging China in international structures and affairs.

I just want to say this: when Prime Minister Abe came to power, I thought he took a risk. He  said his priority would be to go to Beijing and to go to Seoul and begin the process of  building up Japan's relations with those countries which were not good. And he did it.

I know the DPRK nuclear test happened sort of around the same time, which overshadowed  the reporting of those visits. But I think Prime Minister Abe did a very good thing and he  deserves to be congratulated for the constructive approach he took to dealing with those two  countries. It is not the policy of the Japanese government to contain China, as Prime Minister  Abe has made clear, and it's certainly not the policy of the Australian government.



Dare I put myself in a position of speaking the for the American government, because you  probably all think I do anyway - because that's part of the left's narrative - not that all you'd be  left, but it is part of their narrative. But actually it's clear the United States from its actions,  that the United States government doesn't support containment to China either. China it’s a  good country.

REPORTER:  [inaudible]

ALEXANDER DOWNER: No I'm going there next week.

REPORTER:  [inaudible]

ALEXANDER DOWNER: Well I think APEC is good and I think its achievements in terms  of reducing barriers to trade and economic activity in the APEC economies have been  underestimated and undersold.



Inquiries:  (02) 6277 7500 14

I think APEC has done a very good job in liberalising trade and investment flows and  improving trade facilitation in the region, through the APEC region. That's the first thing I'd  say about APEC.



I think APEC has helped to build more of a sense of community between the countries in, if  you like, a broader political sense. Thirdly, there will always be new issues for APEC to work  on or old issues that need to be managed more effectively.

I'll go back to what I was talking about earlier, take energy, obviously I think it clearly is a  very big issue for all of the APEC economies: energy security; access to clean energy; and  clean technologies. These are enormous issues for all of the economies involved in APEC.  Some countries are resource rich and exporters. Australia is the world's biggest coal exporter.  Some countries are fast growing and they need to import a lot of energy. Some countries like  Vietnam have a bit of both.



My point is that I think that APEC needs to have an increasing focus not just on the trade  liberalisation agenda and the investment liberalisation agenda - and it does need to keep  working on that because we haven't achieved the end point, the Bogor goals yet. But it does  need to make a contribution to dealing with these energy issues: energy security; clean  energy; and clean technologies. APEC is made up of developed and developing countries. It's  a very good mix of countries to address those sorts of issues.



REPORTER: There have been many reports [inaudible] about [inaudible]

DOWNER:  That  who?

REPORTER:  [inaudible]  many  reports that the Canadian Government has pulled out of  relations with China [inaudible] financial power [inaudible] So why is it that Australia is so  determined to pursue financial talks with China [inaudible] transparency [inaudible]  democracies [inaudible]relations like Canada seem to [inaudible]

DOWNER: Well I haven't seen that Canadian announcement so I'm not familiar with it. I'd  need to have a look at it to see what it really meant. I was in Canada myself in September and  they didn't tell me they were going to do anything very dramatic in terms of their relations  within China. Anyway, I'll have a look at what that really means. But look, nobody's

pretending that China has reached some level of political and economic perfection. It hasn't.  But what I would say about China is that generally speaking, China is heading in the right  direction and I welcome that.



We need to continue to engage with China in order to encourage China as best we can, not  just to deal constructively with all of us as a regional and an international community, but to  continue the processes of economic and maybe political reform in order to assist the ordinary  people of their own country and its relationships with the outside world.



Alright, thank you very much. I hand back to Mr Deedy

[Applause]



Inquiries:  (02) 6277 7500 15

FACILITATOR: Thank you, thank you very much, Minister. That was very, very  generous and well over the 30 minutes you promised us.

