Minister of Defence Stephen Smith on WikiLeaks and Australia’s detainee management framework in Afghanistan

ASHLEIGH GILLON: Join­ing me this morn­ing from Can­ber­ra is the Defence Min­is­ter Stephen Smith. Min­is­ter, good morn­ing to you.
STEPHEN SMITH: Good morn­ing.
ASHLEIGH GILLON: One of the key jus­ti­fi­ca­tions for Australia’s par­tic­i­pa­tion in the war in Afghanistan is that the allies want to clamp down on al-Qae­da in the region. This cable sug­gests that that’s already hap­pened, would you agree with the assess­ment?

STEPHEN SMITH: First­ly, I don’t com­ment on intel­li­gence pub­licly, that’s long­stand­ing prac­tice of all Aus­tralian Gov­ern­ments. And I’m not propos­ing to get involved in a run­ning com­men­tary on what appears in a news­pa­per alleged­ly sum­maris­ing a con­ver­sa­tion between mem­bers of the intel­li­gence community. 

But very gen­er­al­ly I’m hap­py to talk about the threat that inter­na­tion­al ter­ror­ism pos­es to Aus­tralia, both in the con­text of Afghanistan and Indone­sia. And whilst it is the case that we’ve made progress against al-Qae­da in Afghanistan, whilst is the case that togeth­er with Indone­sia, progress has been made against Jamar Islamir in Indone­sia, the threat of those two organ­i­sa­tions and the threat of inter­na­tion­al ter­ror­ism con­tin­ues. And that’s reflect­ed by the Government’s Counter-Ter­ror­ism White Paper which we released ear­li­er this year. It’s a regret­table fact of mod­ern life that this threat will be with us for a long peri­od of time. It’s endur­ing, it’s not lim­it­ed to one or two organisations.

ASHLEIGH GILLON: Has that threat though decreased in recent years?

STEPHEN SMITH: I don’t believe so and that’s why, not just Aus­tralia but oth­er Gov­ern­ments, oth­er coun­tries through­out the world have con­tin­ued to be absolute­ly vig­i­lant about counter ter­ror­ism mat­ters. That’s why we work very close­ly, not just with the Inter­na­tion­al Secu­ri­ty Assis­tance Force coun­tries in Afghanistan deal­ing with inter­na­tion­al ter­ror­ism in the Afghanistan/Pakistan bor­der area, but it’s why we work very close­ly with Indone­sia and oth­er coun­tries in our region.

ASHLEIGH GILLON: Just to clar­i­fy sor­ry, you’re say­ing that despite all of our efforts in Afghanistan, in our own region, that in recent years since per­haps 11 Sep­tem­ber and the Bali bomb­ings, the threat has­n’t decreased at all?

STEPHEN SMITH: There is an ongo­ing threat of inter­na­tion­al ter­ror­ism, an ongo­ing threat of inter­na­tion­al ter­ror­ism to Aus­tralia and Aus­tralians through­out the world.

ASHLEIGH GILLON: And that threat is as high now as it was back then?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well, there’s no point, noth­ing to be gained by engag­ing in rel­a­tiv­i­ties. What we do know is that in recent years, in the last cou­ple of decades, we have seen emerge a threat to Aus­tralia, the threat to oth­er coun­tries of inter­na­tion­al ter­ror­ism. We have regret­tably been on the receiv­ing end of that, Aus­tralians, whether it’s been in Bali, in Jakar­ta, in the Unit­ed States or in Europe, and we’ve seen the ter­ri­ble atroc­i­ties con­tin­ue. We have made ground we believe in Indone­sia and that’s been a result of the very good work of the Indone­sian author­i­ties work­ing in close coop­er­a­tion with us. 

We have made ground we believe in Afghanistan but the threat con­tin­ues. One of the fea­tures of inter­na­tion­al ter­ror­ism is it is very resilient, it is not restrict­ed to one or two organ­i­sa­tions or one or two indi­vid­u­als. It’s endur­ing, its’ resilient and the threat is ever present. And that’s why, not just the Aus­tralian Gov­ern­ment, but oth­er Gov­ern­ments through­out the world con­tin­ue to be vig­i­lant in efforts to reduce the threat and to pro­tect their citizens.

ASHLEIGH GILLON: How con­cerned are you that south­ern Philip­pines is emerg­ing as a ter­ror­ist haven?

STEPHEN SMITH: In our region we work very close­ly with coun­tries who do have dif­fi­cul­ties either from ter­ror­ism or from insur­gent activ­i­ty, whether it’s the Philip­pines or whether, for exam­ple, it’s in south­ern Thai­land, and we work very close­ly with those coun­tries. But again, the gen­er­al com­ment can be made whether it’s the Philip­pines, whether it’s Afghanistan, whether it’s the horn of Africa, whether it’s Yemen in the Gulf, that we know that there is a threat and Aus­tralia has to play its role in the inter­na­tion­al com­mu­ni­ty in seek­ing to stare down that threat and counter that threat.

ASHLEIGH GILLON: But is the south­ern Philip­pines a par­tic­u­lar con­cern for you?

STEPHEN SMITH: We have been work­ing close­ly with the Philip­pines Gov­ern­ment over a peri­od of time, over a num­ber of years, assist­ing the Gov­ern­ment of the Philip­pines with an insur­gent threat that they have in Min­danao. That’s well known. We’re not the only coun­try who pro­vides assis­tance to the Philip­pines in that respect, oth­er coun­tries from our region do. But that is just one exam­ple through­out our region and through­out the world where Gov­ern­ments, not just Aus­tralian Gov­ern­ments, have to be vig­i­lant in efforts to counter ter­ror­ism and pro­tect the cit­i­zens of our nation and oth­er nations.

ASHLEIGH GILLON: You’ve said that so far these Wik­iLeaks haven’t posed a nation­al secu­ri­ty risk to Aus­tralia. In that case has Julian Assange real­ly done any­thing wrong? Do you per­son­al­ly believe that there is a strong argu­ment and the pub­lic has a right to know some of this stuff?

STEPHEN SMITH: First­ly what I’ve said is that in the case of ear­li­er releas­es of Wik­iLeaks cables direct­ly in the defence area, we’ve done an exhaus­tive assess­ment in the case of those cable leaks, so far as oper­a­tional and nation­al secu­ri­ty inter­est mat­ters are con­cerned in Iraq and Afghanistan. And while we just need a lit­tle bit more time to con­clude our view, we’ve come to the con­clu­sion that no oper­a­tional secu­ri­ty mat­ters were put at risk. But more gen­er­al­ly, the release of such doc­u­men­ta­tion, whether it’s in respect of Iraq or Afghanistan or more gen­er­al­ly is not in my view in Australia’s nation­al inter­est or in the inter­na­tion­al community’s interest.

It does run the risk that oper­a­tional mat­ters can be put at risk. It does run the risk that people’s wel­fare and well­be­ing can be prej­u­diced and in the case of the most recent round of cables, it runs a very grave risk that the dis­course between the nations, the dis­course between diplo­mats won’t be as frank and as robust as it needs to be in the pur­suit of inter­na­tion­al and diplo­mat­ic relations.

So this is not in my view a good devel­op­ment and whilst peo­ple might be inter­est­ed in this par­tic­u­lar cable or that par­tic­u­lar view, my own judge­ment is that you need to be very care­ful in this area and the last thing we want is to stop coun­tries hav­ing frank and robust exchanges with each other.

ASHLEIGH GILLON: What would you say to those peo­ple though who have labelled Julian Assange a terrorist?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well, it’s not a label that I have used. 

I mean first­ly, he is the sub­ject of judi­cial pro­ceed­ings in Swe­den, cur­rent­ly the sub­ject of bail and extra­di­tion hear­ings in the Unit­ed King­dom on mat­ters entire­ly unre­lat­ed to the release of cables or diplo­mat­ic exchanges, and those things need to be dealt with on their mer­its. He’s cur­rent­ly before a British court in respect of bail mat­ters. The Swedish author­i­ties want to return him to Swe­den for tri­al on mat­ters entire­ly unre­lat­ed to these events and that’s entire­ly a mat­ter for the British jus­tice sys­tem and the Swedish jus­tice sys­tem. And those mat­ters will be resolved no doubt fair­ly and objec­tive­ly by those two judi­cial systems.

ASHLEIGH GILLON: Yes­ter­day, just on anoth­er issue, you con­firmed the detainee pro­cess­ing arrange­ments in place in Afghanistan. You said that for now our sol­diers only have 96-hours to screen Tal­iban sus­pects before hand­ing them over to the Amer­i­cans or to the Afghan forces. 

The Defence Asso­ci­a­tion is say­ing that that’s just not good enough, it says there’s a seri­ous morale prob­lem because often the troops cap­ture peo­ple only to see them released a few days lat­er, and some­times they go on to risk their lives cap­tur­ing the same peo­ple again. Do you acknowl­edge that that would be seri­ous­ly frus­trat­ing for our troops and that a change is needed?

STEPHEN SMITH: I think the com­ments from the Aus­tralian Defence Asso­ci­a­tion have mas­sive­ly over­stat­ed the issue and I reject absolute­ly the notion or the asser­tion that there is a morale problem. 

The his­to­ry of this is quite straight for­ward, which I detailed yes­ter­day. When I was in Afghanistan a cou­ple of months ago, the issue of the 96-hour peri­od was raised with me, it was also raised with the Prime Min­is­ter, it was also raised with the Leader of the Oppo­si­tion and I made it clear that that issue would be some­thing the Gov­ern­ment would exam­ine. So cur­rent­ly the rel­e­vant Gov­ern­ment agen­cies and depart­ments are look­ing at that issue and it will fall for Min­is­te­r­i­al and Gov­ern­ment con­sid­er­a­tion next year. 

ASHLEIGH GILLON: Do you expect there will be a change?

STEPHEN SMITH: I’ve indi­cat­ed yes­ter­day quite open­ly that my start­ing posi­tion is that I don’t see the need for a change. The 96-hour peri­od is the ISAF peri­od, the Inter­na­tion­al Secu­ri­ty Assis­tance Force peri­od. That peri­od can be extend­ed for med­ical or logis­ti­cal rea­sons but my cur­rent judge­ment is that that peri­od is suf­fi­cient to enable the Aus­tralian Defence Force per­son­nel to do their job, which is an ini­tial screen­ing of peo­ple who are detained. 

And then sub­ject to an assess­ment of the peo­ple they have detained, whether they are hand­ed over to the Afghan author­i­ties in Tarin Kowt or to the Unit­ed States author­i­ties in Par­wan Province and I out­lined those arrange­ments yes­ter­day, but we are giv­ing con­sid­er­a­tion to that 96-hour peri­od as a result of it being raised with me and the Prime Min­is­ter when we were both last in Afghanistan. And that’s a sen­si­ble thing to do and we’ll do that in an exhaus­tive method­i­cal way.

ASHLEIGH GILLON: Just final­ly Stephen Smith, the Wik­iLeaks releas­es last week did also sug­gest that when you were For­eign Min­is­ter you were intim­i­dat­ed by the brief and also by Kevin Rudd always look­ing over your shoul­der and watch­ing close­ly at what you were doing. Were you sur­prised to see that out­lined in those US cables?

STEPHEN SMITH: I’m very hap­py to let oth­er peo­ple make judge­ments about the job I do, whether it’s the job I’ve done as For­eign Min­is­ter or the job I’ve done as Defence Min­is­ter and con­tin­ue to do. 

I’ve also made the point gen­er­al­ly, just as a gen­er­al propo­si­tion, cables are a bit like news­pa­per — some­times you’ll see gos­sip, some­times you’ll see seri­ous and sen­si­ble analy­sis. But peo­ple should­n’t nec­es­sar­i­ly believe that one diplomat’s view in one cable about one issue nec­es­sar­i­ly reflects a con­sid­ered or delib­er­a­tive view. So there’s plen­ty of opin­ion and com­ment out there. I’m very hap­py for peo­ple gen­er­al­ly to make a judge­ment about the con­tri­bu­tion I make to our nation­al secu­ri­ty effort.

ASHLEIGH GILLON: Stephen Smith, thank you.

STEPHEN SMITH: Thank you. 

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

Face­book and/or on Twit­ter

Team GlobDef

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

Alle Beiträge ansehen von Team GlobDef →