Australia/NATO — Minister Smith transcript doorstop Lisbon

STEPHEN SMITH: Thanks very much for turn­ing up. I’m very pleased to be here in Lis­bon for the NATO ISAF sum­mit. The Prime Min­is­ter of course will arrive lat­er today. This of course is the sec­ond NATO ISAF Lead­er­ship sum­mit that Aus­tralia has attend­ed, the last one in Bucharest.

This is a very impor­tant sum­mit. It will con­sol­i­date the notion of tran­si­tion to Afghan respon­si­bil­i­ty for secu­ri­ty in Afghanistan by the end of 2014. The sum­mit will see the estab­lish­ment of a joint NATO-ISAF-Afghan tran­si­tion group to deter­mine over time the province by province, dis­trict by dis­trict tran­si­tion to Afghan secu­ri­ty respon­si­bil­i­ty. In the NATO for­mat we’ll also see an endur­ing part­ner­ship between NATO and Afghanistan mak­ing the point, as the Prime Min­is­ter did in the Par­lia­men­tary debate in Aus­tralia, that once the tran­si­tion has occurred there will still be things for the inter­na­tion­al com­mu­ni­ty to do. There will cer­tain­ly be a long-term require­ment for devel­op­ment assis­tance and civ­il capac­i­ty build­ing.

Of course in addi­tion to the for­mal NATO/ISAF ses­sion tomor­row, the Prime Min­is­ter and I will be engag­ing in a range of bilat­er­al meet­ings. In my own case with rel­e­vant coun­ter­parts but also with Unit­ed Nations offi­cers, with Gen­er­al Petraeus from ISAF, with Ambas­sador Sed­will on the civil­ian front, also Pres­i­dent Karzai. And all of these meet­ings will under­line Australia’s com­mit­ment.

We are the largest non-NATO mil­i­tary con­trib­u­tor. We’re in the top ten mil­i­tary con­trib­u­tors. We are in the top twen­ty devel­op­ment assis­tance and civil­ian capac­i­ty build­ing con­trib­u­tors. We are in the top twen­ty train­ers. And in terms of spe­cial forces, we are in the top three after the Unit­ed States and the Unit­ed King­dom.

So we con­tin­ue to make a sub­stan­tial and endur­ing con­tri­bu­tion to Afghanistan. Our nation­al inter­est rea­son for being there is, of course, that we want to ensure that Afghanistan does not again become a breed­ing ground for inter­na­tion­al ter­ror­ists.

I’m hap­py to respond to your ques­tions.

JOURNALIST: There have been reports in the media that the Amer­i­cans have repeat­ed­ly asked you or your depart­ment for more troops over sev­er­al years. Do you absolute­ly deny that that’s occurred?

STEPHEN SMITH: These reports are absolute­ly with­out any basis what­so­ev­er. And I don’t know what the jour­nal­ists con­cerned were doing this morn­ing, but as I was fly­ing with the Chief of the Defence Force who again, not for the first time, made the point to me that there is no basis for these sug­ges­tions, some of which I’ve seen in the past, indeed our Ambas­sador to NATO made the same point to me as well. We’ve seen these sug­ges­tions in the past. There is no basis for them.

I think there are three very impor­tant points to make here. First­ly it is the extent of our com­mit­ment. As I said ear­li­er we are the largest non-NATO con­trib­u­tor in terms of mil­i­tary con­tri­bu­tion, in the top ten. We’re in the top twen­ty when it comes to train­ing effort, and the top twen­ty when it comes to civil­ian devel­op­ment assis­tance capac­i­ty build­ing, and in the top three when it comes to the use of spe­cial forces.

If you look at what the Amer­i­cans have said on and off the record, we saw it again when Sec­re­tary of State Clin­ton and Sec­re­tary of Defense Gates were in Mel­bourne a cou­ple of weeks ago for AUSMIN, again laud­ing the con­tri­bu­tion that we make. That’s the first point.

Sec­ond­ly, from time to time there are gen­er­al or gener­ic requests that are made through NATO or through ISAF and from time to time we respond to these. As I have recent­ly, for exam­ple, when I was in Kab­ul with Gen­er­al Petraeus: we received an express request for artillery train­ers, we respond­ed to that request. We are now the lead artillery train­er. We’ve also received requests for fur­ther con­tri­bu­tion to the so-called Cen­tre Field Oper­at­ing Train­ing Cen­tre in Afghanistan. We will, in the course of this sum­mit, make a fur­ther con­tri­bu­tion to that.

So from time to time we get express requests and we do what we can to meet these requests. Gen­er­al McChrys­tal did make a very impor­tant request of the Chief of the Defence Force. It was to sup­ply a senior offi­cer to be embed­ded in Gen­er­al McChyrstal’s head­quar­ters which we respond­ed to pos­i­tive­ly very quick­ly.

I’ve read the sto­ries. There is no basis to them. They are with­out foun­da­tion. And the Unit­ed States has not made repeat­ed requests. What the Unit­ed States has repeat­ed­ly done is to tell us pub­licly and pri­vate­ly how much they appre­ci­ate the con­tri­bu­tion that Aus­tralia makes.

JOURNALIST: So someone’s lying some­where?

STEPHEN SMITH: You would need to ask the jour­nal­ists which of the three un-named sources that the sto­ry relies upon might want to pop out pub­licly.

JOURNALIST: Would Aus­tralia send more troops to Afghanistan if they did receive a request from NATO lead­ers at this sum­mit?

STEPHEN SMITH: We’re not expect­ing to receive such a request and we don’t believe we will. One of the very impor­tant items that will be con­ceived in the course of this sum­mit will be a NATO and ISAF request for a fur­ther train­ing effort. We’ve already respond­ed to that with our response to artillery train­ers. We’re also giv­ing fur­ther con­sid­er­a­tion to addi­tion­al police for police train­ing pur­pos­es.

So we increased our con­tri­bu­tion from 1,100 to 1,550. We did that in April last year, some six months before the so called surge. So we increased our mil­i­tary con­tri­bu­tion by between 40 and 50 per cent in April of 2009. We saw a com­pa­ra­ble increase as a result of the McChrys­tal-Oba­ma review, the new strat­e­gy, at the end of last year from oth­er coun­tries.

So we are mak­ing a con­tri­bu­tion that is appro­pri­ate for the job that we have to do in Uruz­gan, and it stands very well when com­pared with oth­er coun­tries, both NATO and non-NATO coun­tries.

JOURNALIST: Can you clar­i­fy Min­is­ter, what’s the dif­fer­ence between a gen­er­al or gener­ic request and a spe­cif­ic request? Are you say­ing you haven’t received for­mal­ly or infor­mal­ly a spe­cif­ic request for ground troops, but you’ve received a request for train­ers?

STEPHEN SMITH: Since we increased our com­pli­ment to 1,550 on aver­age, we have not received a request from the Unit­ed States for addi­tion­al troops. That’s the first point. And the asser­tions that we have had, quote repeat­ed requests from the Amer­i­cans for addi­tion­al troops, is base­less and with­out foun­da­tion. That’s the first one.

Sec­ond­ly, from time to time either NATO or ISAF will pro­duce what are called Gen­er­al Force Require­ments. They are pub­lished to all of the pre­vi­ous­ly 47, now 48 with the addi­tion of Ton­ga, all of the ISAF and NATO coun­tries. And peo­ple respond accord­ing­ly. And from time to time we have respond­ed to such gen­er­al requests for niche or par­tic­u­lar areas of oper­a­tion.

From time to time we’ve also received express or par­tic­u­lar­ly requests either from Gen­er­al Petraeus or from some­one in ISAF or NATO and where we have been able to do this we have respond­ed pos­i­tive­ly and favourably. The most recent exam­ple is the addi­tion­al artillery train­ers that we are pro­vid­ing for the Kab­ul Artillery School.

JOURNALIST: Could it be that there have been less for­mal sound­ings out with Aus­tralians….

STEPHEN SMITH: When you are talk­ing about the com­mit­ment of a country’s troops to war­fare there is no such thing as an infor­mal request. You are either asked advis­ed­ly by our ally the Unit­ed States, you are either asked advis­ed­ly by NATO, you are either asked advis­ed­ly by the Inter­na­tion­al Secu­ri­ty Assis­tance Force, or you are not asked at all. When it comes to the com­mit­ment of troops to a for­eign land there is no such thing in the eyes of the Aus­tralian Gov­ern­ment as an infor­mal request.

JOURNALIST: Min­is­ter, what should we expect at this NATO meet­ing, it’s out­come in terms of the tran­si­tion, the exit strat­e­gy?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well the out­come I’ve referred to in pass­ing, it will be the estab­lish­ment of a NATO-ISAF-Afghan group respon­si­ble for pro­cess­ing the tran­si­tion, mak­ing judge­ments about province to province, dis­trict to dis­trict, when and where the tran­si­tion to Afghan-led secu­ri­ty respon­si­bil­i­ty can occur. And we expect that by the end of this year the pre­lim­i­nary work for that would have been done. We expect by the mid­dle of next year that group will have been able to make deci­sions on the first provinces where a tran­si­tion can occur. In our own case we are not expect­ing on any mea­sure that Uruz­gan will be part of the first tranche or the first group.

JOURNALIST: There was a sug­ges­tion of mov­ing into Kan­da­har Province. Can you clar­i­fy whether there’s any sug­ges­tion of shift­ing our con­tri­bu­tion?

STEPHEN SMITH: Two things, first­ly we are, of course, based in Uruz­gan Province. I have seen sug­ges­tions in the after­math of AUSMIN that we were request­ed by the Unit­ed States to con­tem­plate mov­ing our spe­cial forces to Kan­da­har. This is not the case. No such request was received by us from the Unit­ed States to move our spe­cial forces from Tarin Kowt in Uruz­gan Province to Kan­da­har. That’s the first point.

The sec­ond point, in accor­dance with the flex­i­ble oper­at­ing arrange­ments that we have, and this has been the case for some time, from time to time at the request of ISAF, at the request of the Inter­na­tion­al Secu­ri­ty Assis­tance Force through Gen­er­al Petraeus’s head­quar­ters, from time to time we do agree to allow our spe­cial forces to oper­ate with­in Kan­da­har when they can pro­vide some spe­cial assis­tance. That occurs in accor­dance with the flex­i­ble oper­at­ing arrange­ments and pro­ce­dures that we have put in place. They’ve been in place for some time.

JOURNALIST: How much con­flict is there in terms of the tran­si­tion strat­e­gy between the sort of ideas that Pres­i­dent Karzai has put for­ward for a time­line, a dead­line, and the ideas that Aus­tralia and oth­er forces have put for­ward about a con­di­tions-based exit?

STEPHEN SMITH: I think the impor­tant point is that both the Afghan Gov­ern­ment and the Inter­na­tion­al Secu­ri­ty Assis­tance Force, the inter­na­tion­al com­mu­ni­ty, want to tran­si­tion to Afghan respon­si­bil­i­ty. Aus­tralia does not want to be in Afghanistan for­ev­er. We know we can’t leave tomor­row because we know we need to effect that tran­si­tion to the Afghan Nation­al Army, the Afghan Nation­al Police, the Afghan Secu­ri­ty Forces, to enable them to man­age these mat­ters by them­selves. And we have seen in recent times con­sid­er­ably improve­ment.

So there is a shared view, the inter­na­tion­al com­mu­ni­ty has a view that we want to tran­si­tion to Afghan respon­si­bil­i­ty. And the Afghan Gov­ern­ment and the Afghan nation and the Afghan peo­ple also want to take, for sov­er­eign­ty rea­sons, respon­si­bil­i­ty for these mat­ters. It needs to be con­di­tions-based which is why one of the things we’ve been work­ing very hard on is to put our­selves in the posi­tion of being able to mea­sure both quan­ti­ta­tive­ly and qual­i­ta­tive­ly improve­ment in capac­i­ty on the part of the Afghan Secu­ri­ty Forces. One of the very impor­tant point­ers I believe in recent times has been that when the Par­lia­men­tary elec­tions were held this year, for the first time the Afghan Secu­ri­ty Forces took lead respon­si­bil­i­ty for the secu­ri­ty arrange­ments, for the plan­ning, the on-the-day arrange­ments for that par­lia­men­tary elec­tion. We know the Tal­iban tried to dis­rupt the elec­tion. Aus­tralia and oth­er Inter­na­tion­al Secu­ri­ty Assis­tance Forces were effec­tive­ly held in reserve on that day. We weren’t required.

So that was a sig­nif­i­cant improve­ment and a sig­nif­i­cant pos­i­tive sig­nal of the grow­ing capac­i­ty of the Afghan Secu­ri­ty Forces. And in recent times in Uruz­gan Province, as you would have seen from releas­es issued from time to time by Defence, we are now becom­ing much more effec­tive in the joint oper­a­tions we do with the Afghan Nation­al Army, includ­ing recent­ly a very suc­cess­ful patrol which the Afghan Nation­al Army itself effec­tive­ly led.

JOURNALIST: The British Gov­ern­ment has said by 2015 we are out of here and that is an immove­able date. Is that too pre­scrip­tive and why hasn’t Aus­tralia done the same thing?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well what the British Gov­ern­ment does and says is a mat­ter of course for the British Gov­ern­ment. What Aus­tralia has said is that we believe we can meet in Uruz­gan Province the inter­na­tion­al timetable, the inter­na­tion­al ambi­tion set by the end of 2014 to make a tran­si­tion. We con­tin­ue to get advice, not just from the Chief of the Defence Force, but also from Gen­er­al Cantwell and our oth­er senior offi­cers on the ground, that we are on track to effect our train­ing mis­sion in Uruz­gan Province over the next two to four years.

But we also very impor­tant­ly, and this will also be part of the Sum­mit, we’ve also very impor­tant­ly made the point that once that train­ing oper­a­tion has been suc­cess­ful­ly com­plet­ed, there will be oth­er things for Aus­tralia to do. It might be an over­watch capac­i­ty as was the case in Iraq, it might be some use of spe­cial forces. Cer­tain­ly there will be the need for longer-term civil­ian capac­i­ty build­ing and devel­op­ment assis­tance. And you’ll see in the Sum­mit com­mu­niqué tomor­row the ref­er­ence to the tran­si­tion­al invest­ment, invest­ing the pro­ceeds of tran­si­tion. In oth­er words, once the train­ing oblig­a­tion has been com­plet­ed, what is the capac­i­ty for a coun­try to make a fur­ther con­tri­bu­tion?

You’ve seen a cou­ple of exam­ples. The exam­ple that I have just giv­en in Australia’s case where we’ve made it quite clear that once the train­ing job is over, we see a role for us to do oth­er things, the detail of that to be deter­mined into the future. But also take Cana­da. Cana­da has deter­mined to with­draw its com­bat con­tri­bu­tion but it has also said that it will make a sub­stan­tial train­ing con­tri­bu­tion, 950, near­ly 1,000 train­ers. So hav­ing made the deci­sion to with­draw a com­bat force, it’s now mak­ing the deci­sion to rein­vest a sub­stan­tial train­ing capac­i­ty. And that’s a very good thing and we wel­come that.

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 →