United States – Australia Relations

U.S. – Australia Relations

Q and A at the Asia Society Forum

Sydney — 13 August 2003

Richard L. Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State
AustralAsia Centre
Sydney, Australia
August 13, 2003
Released by the U.S. Embassy Australia

CHAIR:

Ladies and gentlemen, it's not my task to thank Mr. Armitage for that splendid address, that will be done by Richard Fisher a little later. It's my role to moderate questions. We're very happy to take questions from the floor, perhaps preferably from members of the Asian Society but also from the media. And I'd like those to who do ask questions to state their name and the organization from which they come. I'd just like to make one comment, Richard. You made a quotation about me and it was very generous of you what you said, but I think that the housemaster who said I had a self-destructive instinct 60 years ago, I think at my age I'm more interested in self-preservation. Anyway, be that as it may, we'll now take some questions from the floor before Richard Fisher formally thanks you.

My question is what do you feel is the accuracy of the intelligence information provided by the US Government? And also, second question as well, what's the relationship between the State Department and the Defense Department in the United States?

Should I answer the second part first? Some would describe it as prickly. Some would describe it as tendentious. I describe it as a necessary functioning of democracy. In the United States we've got a President who enjoys strong people with strong views. His feeling is if you can't fight it out in front of him and let him make a decision then we're not serving him well. There's certainly a lot of tension and always has been. I learned at the knee of two fellows well known to Australia, Caspar Weinberger and George Schultz, two people who couldn't even agree on a breakfast menu when they dined together in the morning. So this is not a new phenomenon.

The first part of the question had to do with how do I judge the accuracy of US intelligence and I guess it kind of depends on the situation. The technical capabilities are extraordinary. In the main I think in its entirety these are capabilities which our Australian friends have access to and would probably agree in what I say about them. Where we lack is where we've always lacked and that is in very good, in-depth human intelligence. We're doing better. We've done a lot better, but the only way one can know the intentions of an enemy, the true intentions, is through generally human intelligence and that's a long pole in I think every intelligence organization's tent.

Professor Gibson from the Macquarie School of Business Management, is that right?

Mr. Armitage, thank you very much for your most interesting address. I'd like to ask a question about US forward thinking about the Australian relationship. Has the US Government asked Australia to think about carrying US troops on Australian mainland soil? And if not, under what conditions do you think that request might be put forward?

To my knowledge we have not asked the Australian Government and to my knowledge we don't intend to ask it. Australia is a wonderful country, wonderful people. There's one problem and it's called geography, sir. It's a long way here and everything that military forces are doing as they look to the future is involved with making them more mobile, more hostile, more agile, more lethal - all of that, and that's one of the reasons that Australia would be a great place to train if at some point of time this was deemed mutually acceptable, but there's no plan for a base here.

Tony Richmond from the University of Western Australia. I am intrigued your comments maybe they are [inaudible] rapprochement with China that we might have understood, but the economic rapprochement seems to becoming strained. I mean, I understand your trade deficit is enormous with China. To our perception here in Australia, China's trade is certainly important but the exchange rate of course - well, to put it mildly, it's cheap. Does America see this as part of the argument that you've got with China? Are you going to try to do with China what you did with Japan roughly in the mid '80s? Try and persuade them to alter how they trade with you?

You're precisely correct that we have a ballooning trade deficit with China. One of the reasons that our Secretary of Treasury and others and other international forces have asked the Chinese to consider a depreciation of the Renminbi addresses that in the longer term, it would certainly not in the short term have much of an effect. For the People's Republic of China, I suspect if two years ago I stood in front of this august body, not a person here would say that the US was going to be able, after the EP3 incidents, the so-called spy plane incident, to have a congenial relationship with the People's Republic of China. And yet President Hu Jintao recently said it's the best relationship ever existed between the United States and China. So we have problems and we also have some common interests. We're going to work on the problems together. Hopefully privately and quietly and not publicly through the news media and where our common interests come to the fore then we'll work again diplomatically such as we're doing with North Korea. But I might add that we are absolutely delighted with the state of our relations with People's Republic of China and the direction we're going. Now, we may be a little envious of the $25 billion gas deal that I was recently reading about here.

Thank you, Deputy Secretary of State. Has the American Government actually asked Australia to help interdict the shipping of North Korea, and if so, under what conventions?

It's quite clear to us that the architecture of nonproliferation which we've enjoyed and all benefited from for a great number of years post World War II, the nuclear age, is still necessary but no longer sufficient when we're dealing with either the so-called rogue states or transnational actors of failed states. So we're trying to come up, as I suggested in my remarks, with novel approaches to this. And among the things we're discussing in the 11 nation body-- soon I think to go to Paris-- to discuss these further is everything from the legality of doing inspections, for instance at sea, but the security initiative is not simply a matter of seaborne activity, it has to do with transit of materials through different airports etcetera. We're also looking at liability. This is an initiative which is not quite ready for unveiling and that's why we're having the very intense discussions and that's why I very carefully noted that the Government of Australia is involved in the discussions because we ourselves haven't hit on the total complete answer to our questions about liability and about international legality. There are rights and circumstances to board and check bills of lading etcetera, particularly when, as seems to be the case, the flags on the ships don't recently match the countries of origin held on the bill of lading. But these are things that we're trying to work out together.

Karen Snowden from Radio Australia. Sir, I just wonder if you can tell us what intelligence the US administration has or what proof there is at this stage about North Korea's capability in the nuclear field? Has reprocessing started? How far are they down the plutonium track? And is the regime developing a nuclear weapon? What can you tell us of that?

I think I'll restrain myself from indulging in giving exactly the facts and figures of our intelligence in North Korea and content myself, ma'am, to say that it is our intelligence estimate publicly - or made public - that the North Koreans have one or two nuclear weapons now. There was no question in our mind, and I don't think in the minds of anyone in the governments in Asia including China and the Republic of Korea now, that North Korea was intent on reprocessing the spent fuel in the so-called 8,000 rods, and I think there's very little doubt that there was a highly enriched uranium facility. After all, you don't have to take the word of the US Government or the Australian Office of National Assessments or anything else, you can just listen to what North Koreans say about their own capabilities and come up with a pretty good picture over time of what they say they have.

Mr. Armitage, it's Greg Cusack from Bell Potter Securities. Just on that North Korean question. Do you regard their focus on nuclear weaponry more of a political means to blackmail or something more sinister?

Well, I don't know that I can get inside the head of Kim Jong-Il, but I don't think that any of us should look at anything other than the threat it represents, and the threat to me is several-fold. The real threat is not so much the use of a weapon, which I think is possible, but it is the proliferation of technology or fissile material that clearly is a need for cash in North Korea for a number of reasons well known to this audience. And fissile material to rogue states or transnational actors would be a tempting possibility. This is the real and the major concern that we have about North Korea. We wish North Korea no ill will. We have differences with them over their conventional force posture, certainly over their human rights and their disregard for the rights and livelihoods and lives of their people. But as I say, we wish them no ill will but we have a real concern-- I believe shared here-- that proliferation of not only technology, but fissile material, is a line we don't want to see crossed.

Mr. Armitage, Trevor Rowe. If you subscribe to the proposition, sir, that most terrorists seem to emerge from either a situation where they're disenfranchised or from countries that are poor in terms of standard of living where there's poor education or little hope or opportunity, is it feasible that we globally should be looking at some form of Marshall Plan? And in fact is a Marshall Plan indeed feasible, or what's your thoughts in terms of dealing with the root cause, as I see it, of terrorism?

I disagree with your view of the root cause. Clearly disenfranchisement, political or economic are a breeding ground. We saw that most specifically in Morocco. But if you look at the Saudis -- the 15 Saudis who attacked the World Trade Center -- you do not see the same sort of economic problems. You do see some political disenfranchisement. If you look at the leadership of Al Qaeda, whether it's Osama bin Laden or Dr Zawahiri, you find that people came from actually privileged positions. So I think it's a lot more complicated and the ideology is not simply that it's bred in slums, though certainly people who have no hope can become willing foot soldiers.

Regarding a Marshall program, I guess I would say in principle sure, that's a great idea. The United States has historic levels of monies these days going into including $15 billion in an HIV/AIDS program for primarily Africa but also for Haiti and Guyana and the Russian Federation once they really come to grips with the totality of their problem. We are the leading donor and we not only are the leading donor around the world, we look and try to lead others to join us in their own programs in various countries. So I don't know that I could go so far as to call it a Marshall Plan but the general proposition of raising the level of the general public good is one that George W. Bush would heartily subscribe to.

We've got time for just two more, I think.

Mr. Armitage, can you say a few words about progress being made on the roadmap, the Palestinian-Israeli thing, because surely that must be one of the most dangerous spots in the world.

Yes, there are a lot of unfortunately I think a lot of dangerous spots in the world. India-Pakistan comes to mind with Kashmir. You saw it in Jakarta just a couple of days ago. God knows we have our hands full of challenges. The Middle East peace process, we feel that there's an interlocutor in Abu Mazen who does instill assurance of confidence in our Israeli friends. And although Mr. Sharon is a tough nut to crack, he will do what he says he'll do. We're convinced that he is a man of his word and we've just begun the first steps on that road to peace. The two suicide bombings of yesterday-- responsibility has been claimed by Hamas-- are a real hiccup. I won't call it a roadblock but it's something we have to get over. To get over it we're going to need much more aggressive activities. Mr. Dahlan and his security apparatus in the Palestinian Authority to not only have a hudna, a so-called cease fire, because that's only temporary, but a dismantlement of terrorists who threaten innocent civilians.

So the President, at Sharm-el Sheik in Aqaba about six weeks ago and the Secretary of State, have got this bit firmly in their teeth and they're not going to quit. As I say, we've got a difficult problem presented to us yesterday. The Secretary of State has been on the phone, I know, with leaders of both the Palestinian Authority and Israel. We'll continue to work the program. This is not something that we - to follow our football vernacular - lends itself to a "Hail Mary" pass. This is going to be a game of inches, unfortunately. But we've got to make sure that those inches are in a positive direction and not the reverse.

Rich has a very busy schedule. I know there are many, many questions. We have time for one more (crosstalk).

We'll have two questions, okay.

Thank you. Mr. Armitage, it's interesting to hear you eventually mention Al Qaeda. Stopping Al Qaeda getting hold of weapons of mass destruction was one of the reasons that we were told we went to war in Iraq. It doesn't seem to have stopped them at least from claiming to have done all kinds of things with those weapons since the war, so to speak, ended. Is it really Al Qaeda that we should be worried about here? I've noticed that one of your generals just in the last couple of days has said that Ansar al-Islam is in fact the main problem inside Iraq nowadays, and people with a long memory will remember this, this was the group that was said to have killed the Australian journalist Paul Moran early in the war. They've also been said by several of our ministers to be affiliated in different ways, some say with the Shi'ites, some say with the Sunni, some say with Osama bin Laden, some say - in fact the Attorney General said that they have connections with Saddam Hussein. It's a very shady operation this. We need to have more information about this, and if this is the group that is now running opposition to the American presence in Iraq, when are we going to be told the truth about it?

You're terribly misinformed. I believe our public would say we are telling you the truth and I'll give you a definitive answer. Ansar al-Islam is affiliated with Al Qaeda. Ansar al-Islam lived, before the war, in the area close to the Iranian border, inside the territory of Iraq not controlled by Saddam Hussein. There is, I think, information available both to your intelligence and to ours that would indicate that at one point in time that Saddam Hussein had a very loose affiliation with Ansar al-Islam. The question of Saddam Hussein's affiliation with mainstream Al Qaeda is a much more murky one and one that we've been approaching very judiciously.

You say I didn't mention Al Qaeda to the end. We live with Al Qaeda, as you do, daily. It's part of the daily fabric of our lives and most recently evidenced in Jakarta. It is something that we get up in the morning and think about and we go to bed at night and think about it. I am sorry that it doesn't appear to be a phenomenon that can be turned on and off like a light switch. The President of the United States has made it very clear that this is a long term war. This is not a short term war and that it's going to outlive his presidency and he has prepared the American public for it. I'll leave it to Australian leaders obviously to speak about their preparations for the Australian public, but where you may be having some trouble coming to grips with it, I think people in my nation are much more comfortable that they've got the picture on Al Qaeda and they don't like what they see and they're hunkering down for the long run.

This has to be the last question.

Mr. Armitage, Peter Harvey from the Nine Network. Could I get you to comment on some things that were said earlier this week by Dennis Richardson, the head of ASIO. He says that a catastrophic attack involving WMD is a certainty and only a matter of time. And specifically on Australia he says the fact that we, Australia, were early and actively engaged in the War on Terrorism does contribute to us being a target.

On the latter point I disagree. I think you're a target because you're a free, open democratic society who feels that everyone should have a fair go, including women. You don't espouse any particular religions, everyone is free to choose their own. I think every facet of Australian life is a threat to what Al Qaeda stands for. Regarding the first question of whether a WMD strike is absolutely a foregone conclusion, I think many of your citizens and mine spend their days and nights trying to make that not happen. The difficulty is we've got to be right 100 percent of the time and a terrorist only has to be right once. You can't count those things that didn't happen. We can sit around in our private councils and high-five each other about the things we think we've disrupted, but if they don't happen they don't count. They're not seen in the general public, or perhaps by Channel Nine, as a victory. For me they're victories.

Thank you all very much.

Original document from www.state.gov.

Last update: Thursday, 14 February 2008 GMT+1000

back
top of page^