

Inquiries:  (02) 6277 7500 1



MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS  HON ALEXANDER DOWNER, MP

TRANSCRIPTION: PROOF COPY E & OE

DATE:   14 February 2007

TITLE:  Doorstop - North Korea, Iraq.





MR DOWNER: I’ll start by making some comments on the North Korean deals. So  happy to say a few things about that and answer a few questions.

We welcome this agreement that has at least provisionally been struck in the six-party talks in  Beijing. I think this is a good step forward. It shows that through a combination of the six-party process that we strongly supported, as well as some bilateral contact between the  Americans and the North Koreans, that progress is gradually being made. I think the freezing  of the Yongbyon reactor, the insertion of the inspectors from the International Atomic  Agency, it’s all a good step forward. Obviously the North Koreans will get some benefits in  terms of the provision of oil. We look forward to the next stage though, to the full declaration  by the North Koreans of all of their nuclear facilities, of all of those nuclear facilities being  frozen and subject to international atomic energy agency inspections. I know the arrangement

includes in response to any such declaration and freezing and inspection of those facilities, the  provision of still more assistance to North Korea. We think that is a reasonable arrangement  in the circumstances. It’s an outcome which is not entirely different from the original  framework agreement which was negotiated quite some years ago which broke down. So the  one point I would make is that it is very important that the North Koreans honour the  agreement, stick to the arrangements that have been negotiated as a first step, continue to  work through the working groups and continue to mainain their engagement in the six-party  process with a the view of getting further agreements. So anyway, we welcome it.

JOURNALIST: Mr Downer, how confidant are you that this will lead to a final  resolution?

MR DOWNER: I think it is too early to be sure. I think it’s a good step forward and I  want to take the opportunity of congratulating not just the Americans and the American  negotiatior, Christian Hill, but also the Chinese because the Chinese have been instrumental  in this, not just the Americans, the Japanese but the others and of course we played a small  part in contributing. Let’s just wait and see. I mean it’s a first step. Of course some critics will  say ‘well there was an agreement under the framework agreement with the Clinton  Administration and that broke down so why won’t this break down’. Well let’s wait and see.  But let’s hope it won’t and let’s keep the pressure on the North Koreans to make sure that  they do honour their side of the bargain.



Inquiries:  (02) 6277 7500 2



JOURNALIST: Why should they be trusted?

MR DOWNER: Well I think it’s the right strategy in any case to give them the  opportunity to demonstrate that they can be trusted.

JOURNALIST: Does this show though, that North Korea’s threats and indeed its tests  worked, that it has got a better deal and yet the arrangments are still essentially what they  were before they were broken?

MR DOWNER: Well the arrangements aren’t the same. Without going into all of the  details of that, but they have got an arrangement here. They did have an arrangement before,  which was a very generous arrangement which included building a light-water reactor,  nuclear reactor, so they didn’t adhere to that deal. Let us hope they adhere to this deal. Let us  hope that this big step forward can lead to still further momentum. But look we’ll have to wait  and see.

JOURNALIST: Does it show that North Korea has won something?

MR DOWNER: Well if they eventually freeze their nuclear facilities and abandon the  nuclear programs, I think that would be a great thing. We’ve always said that the international  community should provide support for a country like North Korea who’s people are in a dire  situation, in exchange for them closing their nuclear programs. I mean I’ll look at this this  way around - there have been a lot of restrictions of provision of assistance to North Korea  because of their nuclear programs. We’ve always argued if they didn’t have those programs,  they could be given more assistance. And we may very well, for our part, provide some  additional assistance, both in the context of this immediate deal, but more likely, but possibly  in the context of this immediate deal, we’ll have a look at that but probably more likely food.

JOURNALIST: What has changed since the breakdown of the last framework that  you…(inaudible)

MR DOWNER: Well I think I’d say to you, let’s give it a go. I’m not sure whether the  agreement will hold. I hope it will and I think it’s the only game in town. So we’ve got to  keep the pressure on North Korea and the Chinese keep the pressure on North Korea. I think  there have been a couple of very significant changes in recent times. One of them is the

passage of two United Nations Security Council resolutions, supported of course by  definition, by China. One of which imposed some sanctions on North Korea. And the second  thing is the much greater degree of Chinese involvement in this deal than was the case with  the agreed framework. I think China’s role has been particularly important here. China was  clearly humiliated by the North Korea decision to reject China’s treaties and go ahead with a  nuclear attempt so we’ll have to see.







Inquiries:  (02) 6277 7500 3

JOURNALIST: Mr Downer, how far would North Korea have to go before you’d  support breaking down the sanctions and perhaps the ending of the … (inaudible)

MR DOWNER: Well the security council resolution pretty much articulates that and  obviously if they abandon their nuclear programs then all of the sanctions will be abandoned  and there will be a full range of engagement. I mean we provide food aid, mainly through the  World Food Program, for North Korea well because there’s a lot of suffering so we’ve done  that.

JOURNALIST: Do you see any irony in the fact that this act of diplomacy seems to  have worked in this axis of evil country but where there was an armed invasion is a basket  case?

MR DOWNER: Well are you refereeing to Iraq? Well I think in the case of Iraq and  North Korea, the circumstances were entirely different circumstances. In the case of Iraq,  talking of an armed invasion, an armed invasion of Kuwait, which lead to the imposition of a  large number, and a succession of United Nation inspections, inspectors being kicked out,  defiance of the United Nations and a lot of other issues. In this particular case, there have  been very few Security Council Resolutions and the ones that have been relevant have been  passed just in the last year. In this particular case, with China’s role in that process and  obviously significantly driven by the Americans, we’ve seen at least some step forward. But  the problem is not solved.

JOURNALIST: Do you think the Democrats, do you think the terrorists will be praying  for the Democrats to win the presidency?

MR DOWNER: I’ve been on a plane for the last 24 hours and I think this about the  American Democrats. I was in Munich at the Security Council, the Security Conference there  and there were quite a lot of Americans, there were people there from all countries. Let me  tell you a couple of things that have come out of that. First of all, clearly amongst American  Democrats, there are a variety of different positions. The test for Senator Obama’s position,  which is the withdrawal of American troops by March 2008, will be whether his legislation  passes the Congress. I doubt very much that it would. So that is of course a matter that is  entirely for him. But the Democrats have a variety of different views. I’ve spoken to Senator  Lieberman in the last few days and I think he’s a very good illustration of an American  legislator who supports the view that most governments, pretty much all, but most  governments - perhaps there are some exceptions, the Iranian Government is an exception -  but that most governments hold is that a premature withdrawal from Iraq would be an  absolute catastrophe. It would be a catastrophe within Iraq, it would, as Mr Rudd has  apparently conceded today, be a terrible blow to American prestige. But as somebody said to  me in Munich, and I think it’s very well put - it would bring terrosim closer to us, if the  terrorists had a massive and an historic victory in Iraq. So I haven’t, while I’ve been at the  Munich Security Conference, come across too many people who support Mr Rudd’s position,  which is that not only should Australia withdraw, but the Americans should withdraw as well.

JOURNALIST: Is Kevin Rudd therefore directly undermining or jeopardising  Australian national security with his withdrawal policy?



Inquiries:  (02) 6277 7500 4

MR DOWNER:  I think that Mr Rudd is wrong on national security and I think he’s  running a line. Mr Rudd’s initial line on Iraq, if you go back and check it, Mr Rudd’s initial  line on Iraq was that he would support the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam  Hussein’s regime provided that the French, the Russians and the Security Council supported  it, there was a Security Council Resolution. He didn’t say in principle that he was opposed to  it. Then he sort of started to oppose it. In 2004, he supported the ‘troops out by Christmas’  policy. God knows what his policy is in terms of troops out, except that he wants them out at  some point and he’ll have some consultations. Mr Rudd is being driven very much by the left  of the Labor party and if he were to become the Prime Minister of Australia and peruse the  policy that he seems to be arguing that he’s pursuing now, which is not just to withdraw  Australian troops but to urge the Americans to surrender in Iraq, then we would stand alone  amongst American allies around the world who thought that was a good policy.  I mean,  people in NATO aren’t rushing to President Bush’s door and saying ‘surrender in Iraq’.  Mr  Rudd will become, if he wins the election, would become the Prime Minister at the end of this  year and early next year he’ll trot off to Washington and President Bush will still be the  President of the United States and in his first meeting he’ll say ‘Mr President, not only are we  withdrawing our troops, but we think you should surrender in Iraq and withdraw your troops’,  and imagine what sort of a reception you’d get.



JOURNALIST: Mr Downer, why do you think the White House has been so reluctant  to publicly back the Prime Minister in this…

DOWNER: Well I don’t think by the most heroic of stretches of any imagination you could  say that the White House was down on John Howard. But in the context of American  domestic politics, the White House position, and Mr Snow has made this perfectly clear, is  not to comment on the positions of the different Democratic Party candidates, except as Mr  Snow said a day or two ago and I saw what he said, he said that none of them supported the  President’s policy, although of course they have different positions.  I think Hilary Clinton’s  position is to have a, try to pass a resolution which would put a cap on the number of troops.   Senator Obama wants to, wants the troops out by March 2008, not that if he wins the election  he’ll be the President by March 2008…

JOURNALIST: …given the Democrats prominent place in US policy, is it really useful  to be labelling them a friend of Al Qaeda?

DOWNER: Well, look, I mean, the Prime Minister’s explained his position on that but I  think whether you’re an American Democrat or you know, a member of Forze Italia in Italy  or you’re a you know, Segolene Royal or whatever you are, if you articulate a policy which  we perceive to be against Australia’s national interest, we’ll quite happily express a view  about our policy.  We’re a free society and we’ll certainly argue our case.  I think myself, this  idea that Australia should say nothing in response to people who say America should just give  up in Iraq by you know, early 2008 which is well, Senator Obama’s position, it’s Mr Rudd’s  position.  My view is that we have to demonstrate to the international community that that  would be disaster.  I mean, even the Iraq Survey Group which apparently this morning Mr  Rudd has found out something about, the Iraq Survey Group makes the point that a premature  withdrawal from Iraq would lead to a massive increase in civil conflict and have the potential



Inquiries:  (02) 6277 7500 5

to draw neighbouring countries into the conflict.  I mean, it is exactly what not to do, and the  Australian Government and be it the Prime Minister, me, Dr Nelson, whoever it may be, is  unapologetic about arguing that case.



JOURNALIST: So do you support Mr Obama that perhaps we should put in 20,000  troops rather than the nickel and dime contribution we’ve got at the moment?

DOWNER: Let’s just let that one fly through to the keeper, or the catcher as they say in  America, the catcher.

JOURNALIST: (inaudible)…Baker plan

DOWNER: It’s not the Baker plan at all.  The Baker plan, it’s great that he’s got some  advocates here, well I never like to miss the opportunity to have a crack at the media, they  like to reciprocate.  Look, seriously, I think the point is this.  The Baker-Hamilton plan had 79  different recommendations and they are varied, these recommendations. But one of the key  points that he made, one of the key points that he made was that a premature withdrawal

would be a disaster and that’s the point about the Baker-Hamilton Report and Mr Rudd  supports a premature withdrawal and a premature withdrawal would lead to surrender and  defeat.  Let us not beat about the bush, it would be surrender and defeat a premature  withdrawal and that would be a disaster for the Iraqis, a disaster for the Middle East and a  disaster for the struggle against terrorism.

JOURNALIST:  (inaudible)

DOWNER:   Well we had…

JOURNALIST:  (inaudible) absurd, the American Government 20,000 troops, we’ve  had enough…

DOWNER:   Well…

JOURNALIST:  And we won’t do anything to help them.

DOWNER:   Well we didn’t urge the Americans, we supported them making that decision,  let me make that clear. We supported them making that decision, they made that decision.   Secondly, as I have said already in answer to this question before a day or two ago, not only  do we have troops in Iraq, we have troops in Afghanistan, we have troops in East Timor, we  have troops in the Solomon Islands and we have to rotate these troops. We have some small  numbers attached to other missions around the world. I don’t think there are too many people  in the world who would argue that Australia isn’t pulling its weight and making a contribution  to global security.  This country has done as much as almost anybody else, if not more.  Now  of course America has 300 million people, has I think if you include, I could be corrected  here, but I think if you include regulars and reservists, it has more than a million men and  women in its defence force. So I think it’s important to have a sense of perspective about what  we reasonably could do.  But we are making a massive contribution for the size of our  population and our defence force to global security in all sorts of different ways, and I haven’t



Inquiries:  (02) 6277 7500 6

come across Americans who have criticised our lack of commitment and our lack of support, I  really haven’t.

JOURNALIST:  (inaudible)

DOWNER:   A response to what?

JOURNALIST:  You talk about the potential for disaster at the pull out, how do you  characterise the status quo when you seem almost (inaudible)….?

DOWNER:   It’s tough.

JOURNALIST:  It’s a bit more than tough isn’t it?

DOWNER:   It’s tough but well, whatever your view is, you asked me what my view was.  I  think it’s tough, I think it’s very difficult, but you know there have been difficult times in  wars throughout the last century and more and I don’t think just because it’s difficult the  answer is you should, you think you should surrender.  And I think the quickest way to end  the war is to lose it and it’s not my view that there is anything to be gained by losing it.

JOURNALIST:  Have you got a response to the letter that you’ve sent to the Solomon  Islands?

DOWNER:   It was a public letter.

JOURNALIST:  Has there been a response from the government?

DOWNER:   They haven’t got back to me, but it wasn’t a letter to the Solomon Islands  Government, it was a public letter. The Sydney Morning Herald said that it was a paid  advertisement - it wasn’t a paid advertisement, it was public letter.  Anyway never let the  facts get in the way of a good story.

[Ends]



