| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
  Interview: Joel Fitzgibbon July 13, 2008  Watch our reportOn Sunday this week Laurie Oakes talks to Defence Minister, Joel Fitzgibbon. The Minister is currently in America to talk to US Defence heads about US/ Australia joint defence policies. LO: Mr Fitzgibbon, welcome to Sunday. JF: G’day Laurie. LO: Before we get to defence issues, one of our newspapers is very excited this morning the day Kevin Rudd welcomes the Pope to Australia, about revelations in a new book claiming that the prime minister can sometimes be foul mouthed, is that true? Does he ever use the F word, and does it matter? JF: Well that would be a revelation wouldn’t it, Laurie, a politician who swore in private. I’m a former footie play from Cessnock myself, I could probably improve my own vocabulary a bit, people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. LO: I guess the implication is that Kevin Rudd is a bit hypocritical about this because he is a church goer, is it that serious? JF: No, Laurie it is not the Kevin Rudd I know. LO: You had discussions at the UN in New York in the last couple of days about Afghanistan, what are the results of those discussions, are you pessimistic now or optimistic? JF: They have been fruitful discussions, I also had these discussions with the commander in the Pacific of the US forces, Admiral Keating. I was very pleased to learn yesterday that we have now been successful in our attempts to have the special envoys work extended to other parts of the country, including importantly Oruzgan province, where we operate some, that's a big advancement in my view, and I welcome that very much indeed. Progress remains too slow in Afghanistan. I have been saying that since coming to government, we need a new strategic plan, a better marrying of the military and non-military efforts, we need to do more in the training of the Afghan National Army to bring it up to capacity, and of course the Afghan National Police, we need a better counter narcotics strategy. I spoke about all these things with UN officials here in New York, and I’m feeling pretty confident that we are making better progress on the planning side. LO: The Fairfax newspapers today are running a story based on a confidential report they say, which says the situation in Afghanistan is getting worse, particularly in Oruzgan province, where out troops are, that is expected to deteriorate. And the report also says that Kabul is set to become virtually cut off from the rest of the country and likely to be a target of a spectacular terrorist attack. Are you getting that kind of intelligence? JF: No, I am not. This report was mentioned to me briefly before I came on camera. I am not aware of it, other than that I don't know who commissioned it, who funded it. These are always important questions. Of course progress in Afghanistan could be better, and that's why we have been so active in pushing both NATO and the UN, but certainly any suggestion that we are not making good progress in Oruzgan is completely wide of the mark. These people couldn't possibly have access to the information I do, about our work there, how we are spreading our influence and dominance throughout the province, we now have forward operating bases which allows us to spread our influence further afield in the province where in reconstruction we are building hospitals and schools, and we are just doing good things, and winning the hearts and minds of the local people. Kabul, I was there not all that long ago. I know Ky Eager the Special Envoy to Afghanistan, the US envoy, was here yesterday, so he's obviously moving freely in and out of Kabul, so it just doesn't seem accurate to me. LO: In New York have you been lobbying to get Australia a seat on the UN Security Council, and how is that effort going - are we getting anywhere? JF: I have, Laurie, it's one of the key reason I'm here, along with Afghanistan and East Timor, other UN missions. Look, I'm feeling quite confident about that. Obviously it's very, very challenging, we have got some strong competition, and, you know, 192 members is a pretty big group to be lobbying. Our ambassador Robert Hill is doing a good job, I've been reminding people of our long and proud and distinguished history in our contributions to peacekeeping and security operations around the globe. And on that basis I think we are a strong candidate, and the feedback I've been getting is good. LO: I know you went to the talks in New York with some concerns and misgivings about the UN role in East Timor, what were your worries, and have they been satisfied, put to rest? JF: I should first of all say that they've been very complimentary of our role in East Timor. I was somewhat concerned at suggestions that the UN was considering withdrawing their police from East Timor. I think that would be a mistake. We believe we have got to now set some benchmarks, and no such considerations should be undertaken until we have achieved those goals. And of course, as a general principle soldiers coming out first, police last. And we have got more than 750 people in uniform in East Timor, we would like to think that in the not too distant future we can be starting to think about bringing some of those people home, any withdrawal of UN police would certainly be a setback for that process and progress and would be a set back for East Timor. LO: You are off to Washington next for talks with senior US officials, including, I think, Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defence Secretary Robert Gates. What do you want from the Americans? JF: Well, of course, these visits are always partly about further strengthening and developing the relationship. I'm very pleased to be able to say I don't think that relationship has ever been stronger. But we can always make it stronger even still. Obviously we will be talking about our common interests in the Asia Pacific region. Of course the centre of gravity is shifting to Asia, and that has implications for all of us, big shifts in the global distribution of power, we are currently developing a defence white paper, I'll be very interested in learning first-hand how they see our future strategic and environment. I'll also be talking to their security agencies about that, and, of course, Afghanistan, Iraq, and like matters are always on the agenda. LO: Now, you mentioned Iraq, but our combat troops have now been pulled out. Do we have a continuing role with the Americans on Iraq, or are we now out of the loop? JF: Absolutely, Laurie, I call it the Iraqi project because that's exactly what it is. It's now not just a military role, it's also about building economic capacity. Of course I'll be reminding them that our ship remains in the Gulf protecting the sea lanes, keeping the sea lanes open and protecting Iraqi oil infrastructure, our Orions will continue to fly over Iraq doing surveillance, our security detachment remains in Baghdad and we still have people embedded in command headquarters as well. We are constantly looking for additional ways, non-military ways we can do more in Iraq. We are absolutely committed to Iraq, the Iraqi people, and their future. The Americans know that, but I'll be talking to them about how they see ways we might do even more. LO: What is Australia's current assessment of the Iraq situation, are you as upbeat as the Bush Administration and John McCain. JF: I am, last time I had a detailed briefing, I was very impressed by the way the violence has fallen. Very good work has been done capturing the weapons of the insurgents, and political stability is pretty good at the moment, so I think we have got every reason to be upbeat and optimistic about Iraq. LO: The overall situation in the Middle East though seems to be deteriorating with Iran's missile tests during the week and threats to Israel, how do you read the situation and what implications are there in that are Australia? JF: Well there are certainly implications for Australia, any rise in instability in the middle east has implications for the whole area, clearly in Australia, back in security terms and economic terms, the impact for example it has on oil prices, so we are all concerned about Iran. I'll be talking to Vice-President Cheney and secretary Gates and Condoleezza Rice about these issues and of course the American security agencies. We just, of course, call for calm and caution on the matters, and, you know, of course, ask both Iran and Israel just to take a deep breath. LO: There is debate in the US about how to deal with Iran and its drive to nuclear weapons, what advice will you give them, are you concerned at the possibility of military confrontation, and what do you think of the idea that there should be direct negotiation with the Iranian leadership? JF: Well I wouldn't assume to be giving the US advice on how they handle Iran but it's obvious to me that in most of these situations some dialogue is inevitable and necessary, but again, it's the question is not that easy. Iran's been behaving in an unacceptable way for a long, long time. It's hard to get the balance right between a sanctioned type approach and of course keeping dialogue open, so these are difficult questions. I might have a better sense of the approach, the right approach, what is the right approach when I talk to my counterpart in the US. LO: Well during the week you went to Fort Worth in Texas to talk to talk with Lockheed Martin about the delays or possible delays in the delivery of the F35 joint strike fighter, were your worries allayed there, and do you expect to get the planes on time and on budget? JF: I was impressed by the aircraft Laurie, and indeed the production processes. But this project remains in development phase, and that always opens up a lot of variables and I mean it is questions. I've said many times that I will not commit Australian taxpayers to what will be the single biggest defence outlay in our history until I have given reassurance on both cost and timing in terms of delivery and, of course, I am assured that we need the aircraft, and the capability it promises is capable of being delivered. We don't have to sign on the bottom line on this project until at least mid next year, we have got a defence White paper under way, with that we have an air combat capability under way, and that will become part of the white paper announcement. So I don't understand why Senator Minchin wants me to rush in and sign away up to $16 billion of taxpayers’ money before I have to, and before I’ve had those assurances. You would have thought that Mick Minchin would have learned from his mistakes in government, Seaspy helicopter, Wedgetail aircraft, it seems he hasn't. LO: A final issue, global warming, how do you see the national security implications of that, one reason I ask is Mick Kelty is on record as saying that climate change not terrorism will be the main security issue of the century, is he right? JF: I don't know about right, but may I remind you that the chief the defence Force, Angus Houston, makes a similar comment, I think early in 2007. There's no doubt climate change has implications for the defence, one end of the scale, it could result with the rising of sea levels, it could result in competition for resources, oil and water for example, big migrations of people, that would require us to respond at a high-level of defence. You know, conflict. On the other end it's going to result in more serious climatic events and, of course, that will require us at the lower end to do more in the evacuation for example, so very serious implications for defence and they all come at a cost. I think the question is timing, and how long is it going to be before these become serious issues for us. In a sense the answer to that question lies on how serious we are about addressing the issue, that's why I can't understand why the position is playing political games with this very, very critical issue. LO: So you think the debate over an emission trading system has defence implications, national security implications? JF: Well, what I'm saying is that climate change has implications for National security, there is no doubt about that, now, the extent to which heating it is going to continue is an unknown, but there's a big enough question over this matter for that, that calls upon us to act and act quickly. And I absolutely support the idea of acting with a market-based mechanism, that is an Emissions Trading Scheme. LO: So there are national security arguments in favour of that system? JF: There are clear national security arguments for acting on climate change, yes. LO: Mr Fitzgibbon, we thank you. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
