

The Hon Stephen Smith MP  AUSTRALIAN MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Transcript

28 September 2009

Doorstop interview at Willard Hotel, Washington DC

Subjects: Iran; Afghanistan.

SMITH: Thanks very much for turning up. I spent most of last week in New York, as you  know, and decided to come to Washington today just to do some bilateral meetings and catch  up with officials in the Administration. This morning I saw Secretary of Defense Gates and in  the course of the day I’ve seen National Security Advisor General Jim Jones and also the  Special Representative for North Korea, Ambassador Bosworth.

And in the course of the day obviously discussion has ensued, not just on the strength of the  alliance between Australian and the United States, but also some of the key challenges we  face: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea.

Just on Iran, of course we regard the ballistic missile launches by Iran as provocative. But I  think it is important to focus on the officials’ talks on Thursday of this week — the P5+1  talks with Iran. We’ve been wanting these talks to occur for some time so we do see this as a  prospect for engaging Iran in a serious dialogue about its nuclear program. Of course this  comes on top of the disclosure by Iran of its Qom facility but we very much hope that we’re  seeing the start of a dialogue which will see Iran properly comply with the international

community’s requirements and wishes so far as its nuclear program is concerned.

JOURNALIST: On the topic of Iran then, what are the chances of that dialogue later this  week being successful when you’ve got Iran sending up long range missiles just days before  those talks are due to start?

SMITH: Of course I think it’s provocative, of course it’s inflammatory, but I do think we’ve  got to focus on the talks on Thursday. They are talks which Australia has been wanting and  the international community has been wanting for some considerable time. The P5+1 is the  vehicle that the international community has been utilising to try and bring Iran to account so

far as its nuclear program is concerned. We’ve seen, on the bilateral front, the United States  offer overtures of dialogue but the vehicle that the international community has been wanting  to see brought into play for talks with Iran on its nuclear program is the P5+1 so we hope that  the discussions are the start of productive dialogue with Iran. It will of course require, in  Australia’s view, a change of attitude from Iran, a change of approach from Iran - effectively  a change of policy. But you have to start somewhere and the dialogue on Thursday, we think,  is a good place to start.

JOURNALIST: In your discussion with Mr Gates, did you talk about Australian trainers —  and if so did you give any indication of what additional resources we might be prepared to

commit? And the second question is what do you make of the apparent wavering of the  Americans on their Afghan strategy.

SMITH: The first question is on Afghanistan as well?

JOURNALIST: Yes absolutely.

SMITH: Obviously I had discussions with Secretary of Defense Gates about Afghanistan, as I  did with the National Security Advisor. I would like to make a number of points in this  regard. Three to four months ago Australia substantially increased its troop contribution from  about 1100 to 1550 and that, as we indicated at the time, is very much aimed at enhancing our  capacity to train the Afghan army in Oruzgan Province. So our effort is geared to training -  that’s a very important part of it. So obviously we had a discussion about training. We also  had a discussion about the strategic review which the President is effecting. It’s been made  clear to me privately as it’s been made clear publicly, not just by Secretary Gates, but also by  National Security Advisor Jones, that the Administration is now embarking upon a review of  their strategic approach in Afghanistan and they’re proposing to deal with that in advance of  considering resource questions. I certainly wasn’t asked for any additional contribution of  resources. As I’ve indicated in the past, I’m also not expecting one or anticipating one. What  was of course made clear to us privately is that the United States wants to have a contribution  from us in terms of our view about the strategy, our assessments — just as they’ve made it  clear they want that contribution from NATO colleagues and from other ISAF countries —  and we will of course do that. We received the McChrystal report recently. We’re obviously  studying that, but we’re now putting our minds to, very carefully, what advice or  recommendations or comments we can provide to the Administration as the President  undergoes this strategic review, in advance of any questions of resource allocation.

JOURNALIST: But you wouldn’t rule out additional resources, police trainers or military  trainers?

SMITH: Well I’ve made the point in the past. We’ve received no request for an additional  troop or combat contribution and I certainly didn’t receive one today and I’m not anticipating  one or expecting one. But the rationale for that is quite clear - we substantially increased our  troop or military contribution in the last three to four months and that is warmly appreciated  by the United States Administration, as they’ve made clear publicly. I have said that I am  open to us considering a further civilian capacity building contribution and we are open  minded about that and happy to give that further contemplation.

JOURNALIST: And what format might that take?

SMITH: Well it’s important as the Riedel Review, for example, made clear and as the  Administration made clear when it considered the Riedel Review, the effort in Afghanistan  can’t just be a military or combat enforcement strategy. Yes, that has to be part of it but it  also requires building national institutions so far as Afghanistan is concerned, not just its  army but also its police force, its law and justice administration and also helping to provide  the services required by the Afghan people - health and education. And then finally what’s  required at some point in the cycle is a political rapprochement, a political realignment, a  political conversation amongst the players in Afghanistan and we would look to whoever  emerges from the Afghan election process at some point in the cycle to commence that as  well.

JOURNALIST: Minister, did you get a timetable and how soon are we going to put  comments in to the Americans about the McChrystal Review?

SMITH: Well it was made clear to me that the Administration is looking at concluding this  review in a matter of weeks rather than months. So, given that we received the McChrystal  Review recently, and that does go to strategic implications, not just resources, we’d expect to

put our view in a timely fashion. But it’s been made clear to me, as I think Secretary Gates  made clear publicly yesterday, he’s looking at, and the Administration is looking, at weeks  rather than months.

JOURNALIST: What are your impressions of the McChyrstal review?

SMITH: As I’ve said in the past, I’ve looked at the review. Given the week spent in the  General Assembly, I’d like to go back to the review and read it carefully again. So I’ll keep  my powder dry and, given that we’ve been formally asked to make a contribution to the  President’s review, I think it’s only fair that I do that or that Australia does that privately  rather than doing it publicly in advance.

JOURNALIST: General McChrystal said as part of that Review that more troops were going  to be needed in Afghanistan otherwise the war there would probably end in failure. Why  shouldn’t countries like Australia make an additional contribution if that’s what the top US  and NATO commander thinks is necessary?

SMITH: There are two reasons why that issue needs to be given timely consideration, not  consideration out of order. Secretary Gates made very clear to me as did National Security  Advisor Jones, that the first thing that President Obama wants to do is a strategic review to  make sure that strategy put in place after the Riedel review and shortly after the  Administration had come to office was the correct strategic approach, and whether any  refinements or modifications need to be made. And following that, questions of resources and  resource allocation will be addressed by the Administration. Now I’ve made it clear last week  and this week and I’m happy to do it again today, we have received no request for additional  troops or an additional combat contribution and I’m not expecting or anticipating one in the  future. That’s because in the last few months, we have substantially increased our combat  contributions and we regard that as appropriate. And that substantial increase was very well  regarded by, not just the US Administration, but by NATO and the ISAF partners.

JOURNALIST: So to clarify, regardless of the outcome of the review that the Obama  Administration is doing, the US should not expect Australia to be offering any more  additional combat troops to Afghanistan?

SMITH: Well as I’ve said in the past and again today, I’m not expecting to receive any  requests from the United States Administration for an increase, military or combat  contribution, from Australia. And that’s because we in recent months have made a substantial  additional contribution. We are the largest non-NATO contributor and we are, all up, the  tenth largest contributor so we are making a substantial contribution which the Prime  Minister, the Minister for Defence and I have all described as appropriate for our  circumstances and appropriate for the circumstances of the day.

JOURNALIST: There’s been some concern here in the United States, and it has been  expressed by the Republican Senator John McCain, that the Obama Administration dithering

over what to do next in Afghanistan is making US allies nervous. Is Australia nervous about  the time that it’s taking for the President to examine the strategy and decide what to do next?

SMITH: The President said that he would effect a review of the strategic approach after the  Afghanistan election and he’s doing that. And I think these things are always done best in  cool, calm, light of day. You’re better off getting it right than rushing it. Often in these  circumstances, you only get one opportunity and so, from our perspective, we’re happy that

that very calm methodical across-administration review is being done and we will have our  input into that.

JOURNALIST: Do you share the confidence of other nations that President Hamid Karzai  has the legitimacy to govern for the next five years?

SMITH: Well can I say this was the subject of extensive discussions that I had in New York  in the course of last of last week where I met a range of my foreign ministerial colleagues -  and also today. I’ve made the point, before the election and after the election, that there has  been, in my view, a substantial ebbing of confidence in the Karzai Administration, not just  the last number of weeks but over the last 18 months or so. This is largely because the

international community has seen no progress on some very fundamental matters. No  progress on corruption, no progress on anti-narcotics and regression in respect for human  rights, particularly when it comes to women. And I’ve made the point to my foreign

ministerial colleagues, including Foreign Minister Spanta, that whoever emerges from the  election process, whether it is a re-elected Karzai government, whoever emerges as the new  Afghan Administration, that new Administration has to be held to account by the  international community, on corruption, on anti-narcotics and respect for human rights,  particularly the respect for the rights of women. And the international community, in my  view, will be required to formally hold the new government to account. I made that point in  discussions with foreign ministerial colleagues in the UN, including Foreign Minister Spanta,  and I made that point clear today in my discussions with the Administration. And I have to  say that I’ve been very pleased that the response from my foreign ministerial colleagues and  the response in the discussions has been that advance and progress on these points is seen  very clearly as something which the international community is very much entitled to hold  Afghanistan to account over and areas where we have to see progress.

JOURNALIST: What is Australia’s position on a possible pre-emptive strike against Iran’s  nuclear facilities by Israel and do we agree with the Americans that there should be no  precipitous action?

SMITH: Our very strong position is that, we believe these matters need to be attended to by  dialogue and conversation. We’ve made that point to the Administration today and we’ve  made that point in the past to the Israeli government. And that’s why we are pleased to see  the P5+1 talks with Iran in course of this week. Certainly we’re concerned about Iran’s  nuclearisation program, certainly we are concerned, and it appears to be marching down the  path of weapons’-grade enrichment and weapons capacity, but we are of the view that there is  time for Iran to change its course and the best thing to seek to effect that change of course is  dialogue and pressure from the international community. In the past, Australia has fully  implemented United Nations Security Council resolutions so far as sanctions are concerned  on Iran and we have also adopted autonomous additional sanctions. And I’ve made it clear to  all concerned that, if dialogue is not successful, Australia is fully prepared to contemplate  further autonomous sanctions against Iran in this respect.

JOURNALIST: Do you have concerns that Iran may be hiding further nuclear sites?

SMITH: We’ve seen the revelation over the weekend about its second enrichment facility  that has obviously sent a shudder of concern through the international community. It’s one  thing, for example, for some nations to suspect that that was the case, it’s another thing for  Iran after all this time to finally admit it. What we need and want to see from Iran, is full  unfettered access for the International Atomic Energy Agency officials to the two sites that

we know of and any other sites of relevance.

JOURNALIST: Just one last question. Do you agree with the US policy to engage with  Burma?

SMITH: We had a very good meeting in New York in the margins of UNGA. The Secretary  of State attended as did a range of my foreign ministerial colleagues, who are part of the  Friends of Burma group. I think the emerging consensus, which Australia shares, is that the  time has not yet come for sanctions to be relieved or removed but the time has come to  engage Burma in a dialogue to see whether progress can be made. So I welcome very much  the remarks that the Secretary of State made at the Friends of Burma meeting. I’ll leave it for  her to officially release the Administration’s new Burma policy approach but we, of course as  we’ve said in the past, we want Aung San Suu Kyi to be released immediately with other  political prisoners. We’d like to see a full, free and fair democratic process. We’re under no  illusions about these matters but we do think the time has come to see whether it’s possible to  engage in a dialogue with Burma on these matters.

JOURNALIST: Could I ask one last question. It’s a nuts and bolts question. Who else was at  the meeting with Hilary Clinton at the UN last week apart from yourself? Was the Prime  Minister there?

SMITH: On Burma?

JOURNALIST: No, the general discussion.

SMITH: Secretary of State Clinton was there with Ambassador Holbrooke and a range of  other foreign ministers. It was a foreign ministerial level meeting.

JOURNALIST: And from our side, you and some officials?

SMITH: Also, the Special Representatives for Afghanistan from the various countries,  including Ric Smith, our Special Representative on Afghanistan, Pakistan.

JOURNALIST: And today you had the meeting at the Pentagon with Gates and Mullen and  then you went on to …

SMITH: Admiral Mullen was there yes.

JOURNALIST: General Jones - did you have any other meetings today?

SMITH: I saw, in chronological order, Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen was of course  there. Later in the day I saw National Security Advisor Jones and just before speaking to you,

Ambassador Bosworth, the Special Representative on North Korean policy. I saw a range of  other officials but wouldn’t be proposing to identify their….

JOURNALIST: Did you go to Arlington?

SMITH: To the cemetery - no.

JOURNALIST: Not the cemetery - did you go to Langley - and have a briefing at Langley?

SMITH: I had a meeting with the Director General of the CIA.

JOURNALIST: Can I just ask you did you get a chance to catch up with your Chinese  counterpart and did you get a chance to talk about Stern Hu’s case?

SMITH: No I didn’t see Foreign Minister Yang in the course of the General Assembly  meetings.

SMITH: Thank you very much.

Media Inquiries: Foreign Minister's office (02) 6277 7500



