Australian Minister for Defence on Afghanistan; Australia and China military; ADFA and ADF reviews

(Min­is­ter for Defence Stephen Smith on Late­line 28 April 2011)

ALI MOORE: Stephen Smith, wel­come to Late­line.
STEPHEN SMITH: Plea­sure.
ALI MOORE: You’ve just returned from a two-day vis­it to Afghanistan and you say that clear progress is being made on the secu­ri­ty front, and yet while you were there, some 488 pris­on­ers, many of them Tal­iban, escaped from a jail in Kan­da­har, and just last night eight Amer­i­can sol­diers were shot dead by an Afghan Air Force pilot at a NATO train­ing cen­tre. You’d have to have your doubts, would­n’t you?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well, it’s clear that we’ve made con­sid­er­able progress in Uruz­gan Province in terms of secu­ri­ty advances. It’s also clear that’s the case through­out the rest of the coun­try, but it’s also clear that there is a long way to go and there will be set­backs and there will be adverse inci­dents like the ones you’ve described. We also know that this will be a tough sum­mer fight­ing sea­son. The Tal­iban will strike back and try to recov­er ground, but they will also, we know, try to use high-pro­file inci­dents, again like the ones you’ve described, the prison escape, but also the attack upon the Min­istry of Defence in Kab­ul, also the assas­si­na­tion of the Kan­da­har Police Com­mis­sion­er, high pro­file inci­dents to essen­tial­ly use as pro­pa­gan­da events to under­mine con­fi­dence. So there’s a long way to go, but I believe we’ve got the strat­e­gy, both the mil­i­tary and polit­i­cal strat­e­gy, in place to make progress and the resources to match it.

ALI MOORE: Do you believe that the allied forces are still on track for a 2014 tran­si­tion to an Afghan led secu­ri­ty force?

STEPHEN SMITH: Cer­tain­ly in Uruz­gan we are. We’ve made very good progress with the 4th Brigade of the Afghan Nation­al Army. We will also, in the mid­dle of this year, take over the train­ing respon­si­bil­i­ty of the 6th Kan­dak and the 4th Brigade, tak­ing that from the Unit­ed States. We’ve been able to do that large­ly because of mak­ing up fur­ther ground, but also trans­fer­ring respon­si­bil­i­ty to bases, patrol bases, to the Afghan Nation­al Army itself and also to the Afghan Nation­al Police. We’re con­fi­dent that we’re on track for a tran­si­tion over the next cou­ple of years, 2013–14, and all of the con­ver­sa­tions I had with Inter­na­tion­al Secu­ri­ty Assis­tance Force com­man­ders leads us to the same con­clu­sion so far as the rest of the coun­try is con­cerned. It won’t be an even process. It will be dis­trict by dis­trict, province by province. We very much wel­come the fact that Pres­i­dent Karzai in March announced the tran­si­tion of the first tranche sev­en provinces or dis­tricts. That’s a good thing. We’re on track in Uruz­gan, also a good thing. There’s still a lot more work to be done, not just on the train­ing front, but also on the capac­i­ty build­ing and devel­op­ment assis­tance and ser­vices to local com­mu­ni­ties. That’s a very impor­tant part of the polit­i­cal strat­e­gy now.

ALI MOORE: I take your point that it might not be an even tran­si­tion, but if I can put to you some analy­sis by John Bolton, for­mer US ambas­sador to the Unit­ed Nations. He says in Feb­ru­ary the US with­drew units from the long-con­test­ed Pech Val­ley. They tran­si­tioned to an Afghan Gov­ern­ment force there and two months lat­er al Qae­da units were back, estab­lish­ing train­ing and oper­at­ing bases. That’s not promis­ing, is it?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well, again, we know that as a strat­e­gy, the Tal­iban, the insur­gency, will try to under­mine con­fi­dence in areas where there has been a tran­si­tion. We also know that there’s no point, as Prime Min­is­ter Gillard has said, tran­si­tion­ing out ear­ly just to tran­si­tion back in again. But we also know that it will be uneven and there will be set­backs. So we have to accept the fact that in some areas where a tran­si­tion occurs, the Afghan Nation­al Army, the Afghan Nation­al Police, will be under some con­sid­er­able pres­sure. That will be done delib­er­ate­ly. That will be done delib­er­ate­ly by the Tal­iban.

ALI MOORE: When the US starts to with­draw troops in just two months, pres­i­dent Oba­ma is yet to say how many, will you be urg­ing them to remove as few as pos­si­ble, as few as is polit­i­cal­ly palat­able?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well, the Unit­ed States admin­is­tra­tion is still work­ing through the detail of the first part of its draw­down. But I’ve nev­er seen an incon­sis­ten­cy between tran­si­tion by the inter­na­tion­al com­mu­ni­ty timetable of 2014 with a draw­down, and I think on that front it’s best to wait to see the details of what the Unit­ed States pro­pos­es. But, as we know from our own expe­ri­ence in Uruz­gan, as cir­cum­stances change, you’re able to allo­cate resources dif­fer­ent­ly. So as we have tak­en more ground, stopped the Tal­iban momen­tum in Uruz­gan and been able to hand over patrol base respon­si­bil­i­ty to either the Afghan Nation­al Army or to the police, that has freed us up to do oth­er things, par­tic­u­lar­ly on the train­ing front. The same will be true of Unit­ed States forces.

ALI MOORE: Won’t it depend on how many they with­draw?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well, it will be both quan­ti­ty and qual­i­ty. We know, for exam­ple, that Unit­ed States still has resources in Afghanistan, which has essen­tial­ly been back of office, so to speak, or back up to the surge which came just some 12 months ago. But I think on this mat­ter it is best to wait until Pres­i­dent Oba­ma and the admin­is­tra­tion announce the detail of the start of their draw­down in the mid­dle of this year.

ALI MOORE: Of course you’ve made it very clear you don’t see any draw­down of Aus­tralian troops over the next; the quote is 12 months to two years. That’s quite a dif­fer­ent time frame if you’re on the ground or there are fam­i­lies at home. Do you think this time next year, which would make it 12 months; we’ll start to see some of those Aus­tralian troops brought home?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well, no, I’m not propos­ing to speak in those terms. What I’ve made clear is that we have our, on aver­age, 1550 com­ple­ment. That’s been the case since April of 2009, when this Gov­ern­ment increased it from an on aver­age 1100. I am con­fi­dent that over the next cou­ple of years, some­time between now and the end of 2014, we will effect a tran­si­tion into Afghan-led respon­si­bil­i­ty, both the police and the army, in Uruz­gan. But I’m nei­ther antic­i­pat­ing nor pre­dict­ing any draw­down of our con­tri­bu­tion over that peri­od of time. What we do know is that we have made it clear that once the tran­si­tion occurs, we expect that we’ll be there in some man­ner or form. Now, it may be Spe­cial Forces, it may be over­watch, it will cer­tain­ly be capac­i­ty build­ing, insti­tu­tion­al build­ing, per­haps niche train­ing. But we’ve got a long way to go before we work through that. But our pres­ence will be there in its cur­rent for­ma­tion until we’ve done the train­ing and men­tor­ing and tran­si­tion job and there­after we expect to be there in some form, but we need to work that through, not just with our inter­na­tion­al secu­ri­ty assis­tance force coali­tion, but also in our own way.

ALI MOORE: Min­is­ter, if we can change sub­jects for a moment. The Prime Min­is­ter has now left Bei­jing, about you in her final talks with Chi­nese lead­ers; she spoke of want­i­ng more defence coop­er­a­tion with Chi­na. What does the Aus­tralian Gov­ern­ment have in mind?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well, we have had for a peri­od of years a strate­gic defence dia­logue on an annu­al basis with the Chief of our Defence Force and Sec­re­tary of our Depart­ment togeth­er with the Chief of the Gen­er­al Staff of the PLA. That will con­tin­ue and that’s a good thing. We also have high-lev­el dia­logue on a reg­u­lar basis. I, for exam­ple, met my Chi­nese Defence Min­is­ter coun­ter­part in Hanoi. He and I have agreed that I will vis­it Chi­na in the sec­ond half of this year for a defence min­is­ters’ dia­logue and last year we saw the vis­it to Aus­tralia for the first time of the vice chair­man of the Chi­nese mil­i­tary com­mis­sion, Gen­er­al Guo. Also, in Sep­tem­ber of this year, we’ve had essen­tial­ly naval exer­cis­es with Chi­nese sailors on an Aus­tralian ves­sel and live fir­ing exer­cise.

ALI MOORE: Giv­en all that, what more could be done?

STEPHEN SMITH: More of that can be done on a reg­u­lar basis. We’d like to see, for exam­ple, more reg­u­lar naval exer­cis­es. The increas­ing reg­u­lar­i­ty of the high-lev­el talks, essen­tial­ly in our per­spec­tive we’d like to have annu­al min­is­te­r­i­al dia­logues in addi­tion to the Chief of the Defence Force and the Chief of the Gen­er­al Staff of the PLA talks.

ALI MOORE: Is Bei­jing resist­ing that?

STEPHEN SMITH: No, no, this is a devel­op­ing defence and mil­i­tary coop­er­a­tion rela­tion­ship. We have a pos­i­tive and con­struc­tive rela­tion­ship with Chi­na. It start­ed eco­nom­i­cal­ly. It’s now broad­er than that, and it’s a very sen­si­ble thing for us to devel­op these rela­tion­ships and also to effect fur­ther prac­ti­cal exer­cis­es. It min­imis­es the prospect of mis­ad­ven­ture or mis­cal­cu­la­tion and it’s a very sen­si­ble thing for us to seek to enhance our defence coop­er­a­tion arrange­ments with Chi­na.

ALI MOORE: Julia Gillard has made it clear that the Chi­na ver­sus US propo­si­tion is not, in her view for Aus­tralia, a case of either/or, but when Chi­na does become the dom­i­nant mil­i­tary pow­er, as Australia’s own Defence White Paper says that it will be by a con­sid­er­able mar­gin, and the US wants to main­tain its strate­gic dom­i­nance that it cur­rent­ly has in the region, what then?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well, I don’t nec­es­sar­i­ly accept that char­ac­ter­i­sa­tion or cat­e­gori­sa­tion, but let me respond in this way; there is no doubt that the most impor­tant bilat­er­al rela­tion­ship between coun­tries in the course of this cen­tu­ry will be the bilat­er­al rela­tion­ship between the Unit­ed States and Chi­na. Just because we see Chi­na rise, does not mean that the Unit­ed States is going away, nor does it mean that we don’t have oth­er or anoth­er ris­ing pow­er, for exam­ple, India, which is also a coun­try of a bil­lion peo­ple. So it’s not just the rise of Chi­na, it’s the ongo­ing influ­ence of the Unit­ed States and also the rise of India. So we want Chi­na to emerge, as the Chi­nese would say, into a har­mo­nious envi­ron­ment or, as Bob Zel­nick said when he was US Deputy Assis­tant Sec­re­tary of State, as a respon­si­ble stake­hold­er. We are pos­i­tive and opti­mistic that this can occur, but we also know that Chi­na has dif­fer­ent val­ues from us in a range of things and we make these points to them pub­licly and pri­vate­ly. But we want Chi­na to emerge as a respon­si­ble inter­na­tion­al cit­i­zen which accepts inter­na­tion­al norms and con­ducts itself accord­ing­ly. Hav­ing an ongo­ing alliance rela­tion­ship with the Unit­ed States which, in my view, has nev­er been bet­ter or stronger is not incon­sis­tent with us con­tin­u­ing to have a pos­i­tive and con­struc­tive eco­nom­ic and gen­er­al rela­tion­ship with Chi­na.

ALI MOORE: But I sup­pose as China’s mil­i­tary might grow, does­n’t walk­ing that line between the two super pow­ers become increas­ing­ly dif­fi­cult?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well, as the Prime Min­is­ter said, it’s not one or the oth­er, or to use a phrase I’ve used in the past, it’s not a zero sum game. To advance our bilat­er­al inter­ests and rela­tion­ship with Chi­na does­n’t mean a diminu­tion of our alliance rela­tion­ship with the Unit­ed States or vice ver­sa. What we want in terms of Chi­na as a mil­i­tary pow­er is, we per­fect­ly accept and under­stand and acknowl­edge that as a country’s eco­nom­ic prowess ris­es, it’s per­fect­ly enti­tled to increase its defence and mil­i­tary assets and capa­bil­i­ty accord­ing­ly. We sim­ply want Chi­na to be trans­par­ent about its strate­gic inten­tions and I’ve made this point both pri­vate­ly to my Chi­nese coun­ter­parts and pub­licly, as have oth­er Aus­tralian min­is­ters.

ALI MOORE: I guess, though, we’ve already seen a more assertive Chi­na, cer­tain­ly towards its neigh­bours, we’ve seen more force­ful claims for sov­er­eign­ty in the South Chi­na Sea, there are a few coun­tries who are rel­a­tive­ly ner­vous. What if Chi­na were to decide it want­ed to take Tai­wan, that would be the ulti­mate conun­drum for Aus­tralia, would­n’t it? I sup­pose my ques­tion is it always going to be so easy to remain sit­ting com­fort­ably between Chi­na and Amer­i­ca?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well, I’m not propos­ing to deal with hypothe­ses, par­tic­u­lar­ly as it might relate to Tai­wan, that’s the first point. Sec­ond­ly, it’s not nec­es­sar­i­ly a mat­ter of, to use your expres­sion, sit­ting com­fort­ably between. It is to have an alliance rela­tion­ship with the Unit­ed States, which remains the bedrock of our secu­ri­ty strate­gic and defence arrange­ments and rela­tion­ships and, at the same time, to have a con­struc­tive and pos­i­tive rela­tion­ship and dia­logue with Chi­na, and we say to both Unit­ed States and to Chi­na, pub­licly and pri­vate­ly, that a con­struc­tive and pos­i­tive bilat­er­al rela­tion­ship between the Unit­ed States and Chi­na is absolute­ly essen­tial. At the same time we regard the Unit­ed States’ ongo­ing activ­i­ty, ongo­ing pres­ence in the Asia-Pacif­ic region as being absolute­ly cru­cial to secu­ri­ty and sta­bil­i­ty in the region. So far as Chi­na is con­cerned and China’s inter­ests in the South and East Chi­na Seas, we have made it very clear, and I’ve made it clear to my Chi­nese coun­ter­part at the ASEAN Defence Min­is­ters Plus meet­ing in Hanoi last year, that we expect Chi­na to abide by and con­duct itself in accor­dance with inter­na­tion­al law of the sea and inter­na­tion­al mar­itime norms. We don’t take sides or inter­vene in what are com­pet­ing ter­ri­to­r­i­al claims, either of land or of the sea, but we do expect these mat­ters to be resolved ami­ca­bly between the coun­tries con­cerned, whether it’s Chi­na or oth­er coun­tries, because Chi­na is not the only coun­try that has mar­itime issues or dis­putes. We expect them to be resolved ami­ca­bly.

ALI MOORE: We have about a minute left; A cou­ple of quick ques­tions. Have the myr­i­ad reviews into the Aus­tralian Defence Force Acad­e­my begun?

STEPHEN SMITH: We have affect­ed those reviews. The review by the Sex Dis­crim­i­na­tion Com­mis­sion­er is under way. We expect to announce short­ly the team to assist her. The Inspec­tor Gen­er­al has start­ed his work. The review or inquiry into the con­duct of the so called Skype inci­dent at ADFA is also in hand, and we are work­ing through the var­i­ous oth­er cul­tur­al ini­tia­tives that I have referred to and the Chief of the Defence Force and the Sec­re­tary of the Depart­ment and I are doing that as one.

ALI MOORE: I was going to say, final­ly, is the head of the Defence Force Acad­e­my, Com­modore Bruce Kafer, still on forced leave?

STEPHEN SMITH: He’s on leave, as direct­ed by the Vice Chief of the Defence Force. He will remain on leave until such time as these mat­ters are resolved.

ALI MOORE: Min­is­ter, many thanks for being gen­er­ous with your time tonight.

STEPHEN SMITH: Thank you. Thanks very much.

Press release
Min­is­te­r­i­al Sup­port and Pub­lic Affairs,
Depart­ment of Defence,
Can­ber­ra, Aus­tralia

More news and arti­cles can be found on Face­book and Twit­ter.

Fol­low GlobalDefence.net on Face­book and/or on Twit­ter

Team GlobDef

Team GlobDef

Seit 2001 ist GlobalDefence.net im Internet unterwegs, um mit eigenen Analysen, interessanten Kooperationen und umfassenden Informationen für einen spannenden Überblick der Weltlage zu sorgen. GlobalDefenc.net war dabei die erste deutschsprachige Internetseite, die mit dem Schwerpunkt Sicherheitspolitik außerhalb von Hochschulen oder Instituten aufgetreten ist.

Alle Beiträge ansehen von Team GlobDef →