ANZUS

The US-Australian Alliance has “a foundation deeper than the policies or political parties of the day”, according to the United States Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Ambassador R. Nicholas Burns.

Addressing the Lowy Institute in Sydney, Burns said he was “impressed by the new Australian cabinet”. He said “Australia is as good a friend to the US as any country in the world” and there is “no reason for that to change”.

The speech by Burns is the first delivered by a senior U.S. official since the election of the Rudd Labor Government.

Listen to Nicholas Burns’ Speech to the Lowy Institute:

• Lowy Institute For International Policy
  

This is an extract from the speech by Nicholas Burns, as published in The Australian on December 7, 2007.

This week I met Australia’s new leaders in Canberra. I had good and extensive talks with Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard, Foreign Minister Stephen Smith, Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon and Agriculture Minister Tony Burke, and I participated in two days of meetings with the Australia-Japan-US Trilateral Strategic Dialogue.

I was impressed by the new Australian cabinet. They are uniformly smart, open and, I sensed, friends of the US. The US looks forward to continuing with the new Government the close alliance and partnership we have enjoyed with all Australian governments and indeed with the people of Australia.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd noted recently that our partnership blossomed under Labor prime minister John Curtin when, in 1942, Australia and the US together faced and triumphed in the most terrible war of modern times.

In my personal view, Australia is as good a friend to the US as any country in the world. And there is no reason for that to change. More than partners, we have been long-time allies. On Tuesday, my first stop in Canberra was the Australian War Memorial. I was, frankly, overwhelmed by it. The memorial is an extraordinarily moving tribute to the 102,000 Australians who died in some of the most historic battles of the past century. Ninety years ago, American soldiers fought under Australian command at the battle of Hamel in World War I. Aussie Diggers and American GIs have served side by side in every major conflict since: World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, two Gulf wars, and at present in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Australian officers and soldiers in exchange billets are sprinkled throughout units in the US Pacific Command, their distinctive headgear a dead giveaway before they reveal their accents.

On a global basis, Australia punches above its weight, militarily, diplomatically, on intelligence and now on the cutting edge of trade, investment and technological innovation. Australians are seen to be effective in the world and we are proud to be your friends.

Our partnership and alliance are founded not in sentimentality - although there is plenty of that in our long friendship - but, most importantly, shared values, shared world views and shared national interests. This is the glue that will maintain the US-Australia friendship and alliance through political transitions in your country this week and in mine in about a year.

The Australia-US alliance begins with geography. The US, like Australia, is a Pacific nation. We share a common view of the strategic importance - and the particular 21st-century challenges - of the Asia-Pacific region. American strategy for the region is actually rather straightforward. We, like Australia, aim to ensure the peace by promoting freedom, justice and human dignity, and by supporting free and open markets.

We are fortunate in the US to enjoy a bipartisan consensus that America needs to remain fully engaged in the Asia-Pacific region.

That means we must maintain our broad military presence, sustain strong political ties to our allies and partners, work to engage a rising China constructively, and advance open trade and investment to lift all boats on the tide of what may be a Pacific century to come.

The absolute core of US policy is the tremendous value we place on our relationships with our treaty allies in the region - Australia, Japan, South Korea, Thailand and The Philippines - and with other partners who share these values such as Singapore, whose leadership I met this week.

What in diplo-speak we refer to as regional architecture - that is, ASEAN, the ASEAN Regional Forum and APEC - plays a huge role in promoting greater stability and economic integration.

The US was pleased with the great success of the recent APEC meetings hosted by Australia in Sydney.

Together, we produced constructive action on climate change. We built support for advancing the Doha Round negotiations. We made progress towards a free trade area of the Asia-Pacific. And we strengthened APEC as an institution, never an easy task since the organisation includes so many disparate interests. But such good co-operation can occur only in a region that is at peace with itself. The 62 years that have passed since the end of World War II on September 2, 1945, represent a unique period in the history of the region.

Our most important, vital and overarching strategic aim must be to avoid the repetition of such a tragic conflict that our parents’ generation knew all too well. Since World War II ended, we believe the US military presence in Asia has been the most important factor in producing stability and security in the region.

The US presence has guaranteed freedom of navigation in the Asia-Pacific sea lanes, which has underpinned the region’s extraordinary economic growth.

This American security guarantee has, in many cases, obviated the need for countries in the region to spend vast sums on their militaries. We continue to hear from the overwhelming majority of countries in the region that they welcome the US presence and want us to remain active in the region and continue to play this stabilising role.

On the fight against international terrorism and nuclear proliferation and on so very many other tough issues, I cannot stress enough how much the US appreciates the support of Australia and respects its steadfastness. Americans overwhelmingly like Australia. We are unreserved in our admiration of things Australian. We are deepening our political ties. We are bolstering our trade relations. We co-operate closely on defence issues and intelligence sharing. In truth, it is no exaggeration to say that the US has no closer friend and ally in the world than Australia.

As Australians welcome a new government and as we enter our own election season in the US, I want to assure you that our long history together, our friendship and the alliance have a foundation deeper than the policies or political parties of the day.

Nicholas Burns is US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs.

The incoming Minister for Foreign Affairs, Stephen Smith, has outlined the three pillars underpinning Federal Labor’s foreign policy approach.

In a statement issued today, Smith said those pillars were:

Our policy of comprehensive engagement with Asia.

Smith said: “Federal Labor has consistently emphasised the need to focus our foreign policy and diplomatic efforts on Australia’s national interests within our own Asia-Pacific region.

“With Kevin Rudd, I look forward to working to ensure Australia takes a lead role in addressing our shared global challenges.

“Following Monday’s official swearing in ceremony, I anticipate meeting and consulting with our neighbours, partners and friends.”

These are the speech notes of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Stephen Smith, at the Annual Diplomatic Corps Christmas Party, in Canberra, on December 3, 2007.

Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Michael L’Estrange. Thank you for that introduction.

Your Excellencies.

My parliamentary colleagues, the Minister for Trade, the Hon. Simon Crean, and the Parliamentary Secretary for Trade, the Hon. John Murphy.

Chief of the Defence Force, Air Chief Marshall Angus Houston.

Peter Shergold, and other Department Heads,

Distinguished guests,

Ladies and gentlemen.

It is a great pleasure to be here this evening with my Cabinet colleague the Minister for Trade, Simon Crean.

As you know, I was sworn in this morning and as a consequence, this is my first official function as Minister for Foreign Affairs.

For over the last decade your host has been Alexander Downer – Australia’s longest-serving Foreign Minister. I had the chance to speak with Alexander this afternoon.

He asked that I pass his thanks and best wishes to you and express his appreciation for the work of your missions over not just the past year but his period in office.

I also take this opportunity, whatever our policy differences, to acknowledge his personal contribution in our national interest in the Foreign Affairs portfolio.

It is a great privilege for me to be here tonight as Australia’s 35th Foreign Minister, the sixth from Western Australia and the sixth Labor Foreign Minister since the Second World War.

I am very conscious of the role my Labor predecessors have played in helping to establish Australia’s name and reputation in international affairs. I aspire to carrying on that Labor tradition of service.

At the heart of the new Rudd Labor Government’s foreign policy approach lies the responsibility to protect, defend and enhance Australia’s national security, to maximise our economic opportunities and to advance Australia’s national interest across the range of international issues.

There are three pillars that underpin the Labor Government’s approach to foreign policy.

First, our relationship with the United States. Australia’s alliance with the United States was forged during the Second World War.

John Curtin is a hero in my own State of Western Australia, not because he lived in Cottesloe, but because through his forging of the US alliance, he saved our nation at its moment of greatest peril.

That alliance has since been supported and developed by both major political parties in both of our countries since that time, Labor, Liberal, Democrat, Republican.

It remains a key pillar of our foreign policy approach. Our friendship with the United States is deep and valued by both sides. I look forward to pursuing that in a way which advances both our nations’ mutual interests.

Second, our membership of the United Nations. The international legal obligations and responsibilities that brings is another fundamental pillar of our foreign policy approach.

Australia, through Prime Minister Ben Chifley and Foreign Minister Herbert Vere Evatt, was instrumental in helping to found the United Nations. We took, for example, an active role in the first phase of United Nations activity, helping Indonesia achieve its independence.

We will work cooperatively with and in the international community on the mutual challenges we face. We will play our part in finding solutions to what are sometimes difficult issues.

Third, our strong focus on Asia and the Pacific. We are in a unique position as a nation state, a country of 21 million people nestled in the Asia-Pacific region. Our diverse region is our home and home to many of our closest friends and neighbours.

We have important relationships with New Zealand and the Pacific Island countries. We have significant relationships with the countries of South-East Asia. We are closely linked to the economic powerhouses of North-East Asia. Our relationships with our traditional post World War Two trading partners, Japan and Korea, and our relationship with the rapidly developing powerhouse, China, are crucial to our future economic and social prosperity and our national security.

We will build on the strength of these relationships – both bilaterally and through our regional and multilateral diplomacy – in the period ahead.

These three pillars are the framework through which we can achieve our foreign policy goals and enhance Australia’s national interest.

In Government, the great task of the Australian Labor Party is twofold; to uplift the lives of our citizens and to uplift the spirit of the nation – to give working Australians the opportunity to realise their dreams and give our nation the opportunity to realise its potential.

Australia is a great trading nation. Our social and economic prosperity has always depended on international trade. That remains the case even more so today. To uplift the lives of working Australian families, we must continue to look outwards.

Governments also represent their people and should reflect their national characteristics, values and virtues. For an Australian Labor Government, that means reflecting the quintessential Australian value of a “fair go”. It means putting out a helping hand to those less fortunate and standing by them.

Just as we want a “fair go” at home, we must deal with other nation states with civility, dignity and respect. That is a good basis for a government dealing with its nation’s citizens. It is also the basis of being a good international citizen.

Civility, respect and dignity: at home and abroad.

I am unashamedly a proud Western Australian. Sometimes I look at the world from a Western Australian perspective. In the past this may have been seen as parochial. Not today. And not for the future.

The great outlying State of Western Australia underlines the importance of international trade to our nation’s economic and social prosperity. Western Australia looks naturally to the Indian Ocean. When the sun sets in the West, it sets on the Indian Ocean, not the Pacific.

I believe it is essential to ensure that Australia looks to our important neighbours and partners to our west. India’s remarkable development only encourages me to bring us closer together. I look forward to working with the Indian Government and the Indian people to add depth and vigour to our relationship.

Ladies and Gentlemen it is a great pleasure to be here with you tonight. I hope that this is just the first of many meetings. I look forward to working with you, and through you, your governments, in the period ahead. Whatever issues, difficult or otherwise we confront, the Labor Government, on behalf of Australia, will deal with them and your Governments in a cooperative and productive way.

Thank you.

President Bush “failed to provide either a plan to successfully end the war or a convincing rationale to continue it”, according to Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed.

Delivering the Democratic Party response to Bush’s address, Reed said “an endless and unlimited military presence in Iraq is not an option”.

Listen to Senator Jack Reed’s Response to Bush:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRI0IeBjMQ0[/youtube]

This is the text of Senator Jack Reed’s Response to President Bush’s Speech on Iraq.

Good evening.

I’m Senator Jack Reed from Rhode Island, and I was privileged to serve in the United States Army for 12 years.

I opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. It was a flawed strategy that diverted attention and resources away from hunting down Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network. And since then, too often, the President’s Iraq policies have worsened America’s security. Hundreds of billions have been spent. Our military is strained. Over 27,000 Americans have been wounded, and over 3,700 of our best and brightest have been killed.

Tonight, a nation eager for change in Iraq heard the President speak about his plans for the future. But once again, the President failed to provide either a plan to successfully end the war or a convincing rationale to continue it. The President rightfully invoked the valor of our troops in his speech, but his plan does not amount to real change. Soldiers take a solemn oath to protect our nation, and we have a solemn responsibility to send them into battle only with clear and achievable missions.

Tonight, the President provided neither.

As a former Army officer, I know the great sacrifices our soldiers and their families make. Our military can defeat any foe on the battlefield. Yet, as General Petraeus has repeatedly stated, Iraq’s fundamental problems are not military, they are political. The only way to create a lasting peace in Iraq is for Iraqi leaders to negotiate a settlement of their long-standing differences.

When the President launched the “surge” in January, he told us that its purpose was to provide Iraqi leaders with the time to make that political progress. But now, nine months into the surge, the President’s own advisers tell us that Iraq’s leaders have not, and are not likely to do so. Meanwhile, thousands of brave Americans remain in the crossfire of another country’s civil war.p

So tonight, we find ourselves at a critical moment. p

Do we continue to heed the President’s call that all Iraq needs is more time, more money, and the indefinite presence of 130,000 American troops — the same number as nine months ago? Or do we follow what is in our nation’s best interest and redefine our mission in Iraq?p

Democrats believe it is time to change course. We think it’s wrong that the President tells us there’s not enough money for our veterans and children’s health care because he is spending $10 billion a month in Iraq. We have put forth a plan to responsibly and rapidly begin a reduction of our troops. Our proposal can not erase the mistakes of the last four and a half years, but we can chart a better way forward.

That is why our plan focuses on counter-terrorism and training the Iraqi army. It engages in diplomacy to bring warring factions to the table and addresses regional issues that inflame the situation. It begins a responsible and rapid redeployment of our troops out of Iraq. And it returns our focus to those who seek to do us harm: Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

An endless and unlimited military presence in Iraq is not an option. Democrats and Republicans in Congress and throughout the nation can not and must not stand idly by while our interests throughout the world are undermined and our Armed Forces are stretched toward the breaking point.

We intend to exercise our Constitutional duties and profoundly change our military involvement in Iraq. We ask Americans of good will of whatever party to join with us in this historic effort to restore the strength and security of the United States. I urge the President to listen to the American people and work with Congress to start bringing our troops home and develop a new policy that is truly worthy of their sacrifices.

Thank you.

The United States President, George W. Bush, held a joint press conference with the Prime Minister, John Howard, in Sydney today.

The press conference followed Bush’s arrival in Australia last night, ahead of the APEC meeting at the end of the week.

The two heads of government discussed APEC, Iraq, climate change and Australia-United States relations. Both men reiterated their commitment to the Iraq occupation.

Listen to the Bush-Howard Press Conference:

This is the transcript of the press conference held by President Bush and Prime Minister Howard. It took place at the Hotel Continental.

Howard:

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. I’d like to welcome the media to this news conference. I’ll say a couple of words, invite the President to speak briefly, and then we’ll take a couple of questions from each of the press groups.

It’s always a great pleasure, George, to welcome you to Australia. The United States President is always welcome in our country. We have no closer alliance with any country in the world than we have with the United States. Both historically and contemporaneously, the importance of the alliance between the United States of America and Australia is deeply embedded in the minds of millions of Australians.

And you, Mr President, and I have shared a number of very special experiences over the past few years. I remember our first personal meeting was on the 10th of September of 2001. And of course, as a consequence of that meeting and the events that horrifically followed the other day, the paths of our two countries have been parallel in so many ways, in the fight against terrorism and the promotion of democracy and freedom around the world. And in that context, as well as the more generic national context, I welcome you very warmly on a personal basis to my hometown of Sydney, Australia’s largest city and, in my view, the most beautiful big city in the world.

But we had a very broad-ranging discussion. We talked extensively about Iraq, about the climate change aspects of APEC, the American perception towards conditions in the Middle East and in relation to Iran, and also the prospects for something we both hope for, and that is a lasting settlement between Israel and the Palestinian people which does justice to the right of the Israelis to exist unmolested as a free and proud nation, and also the right of the people of Palestine to have a homeland.

On a bilateral basis, we have agreed to a number of new arrangements including a treaty relating to exchanges concerning defence equipment which effectively will remove layers of bureaucracy for defence industries in Australia acquiring American technology, and we’ll enter that market on the same basis as do companies coming from the United Kingdom.

We also agreed on joint statements regarding climate change and energy, a joint nuclear energy action plan which involves cooperation on civil nuclear energy, including R&D, skills and technical training, and regulatory issues. Australia intends to participate in the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, and there will be great benefits in terms of access to nuclear technology and non-proliferation. And the United States will support Australian membership in the Generation IV International Forum, which involves R&D to develop safer and better nuclear reactors.

I’m also pleased to announce that we’ve entered arrangements that will allow something in the order of 15,000, we estimate, young Australians who are students or graduates to visit the United States on the basis of some kind of gap year in their studies, and that will be a facility available in the United States which is currently available and very widely utilised by young Australians in the United Kingdom and other European countries.

We have also agreed to have further detailed discussions involving taking our defence cooperation even further - and this involves four components to be explored. The first of those is enhanced cooperation on humanitarian assistance and disaster relief and that could, in fact, involve a stationing - basing in Australia by the United States equipment and stores and provisions that would be available for ready use in disaster relief in our immediate region. And we think in particular of any repetition of the tsunami disaster or things of that kind which occurred a couple of years ago. Secondly, a further enhancement of the joint training capability by providing additional support for training by American and Australian forces in Australia, and also further cooperative efforts to develop access and capabilities for intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance. And finally, a further enhancement of our already robust program of military exchanges and joint operations. We’ve asked our officials to work in more detail around each of those four headings, and as a result of that, I’m very confident that there will be further and very significant enhancement of an already very close relationship.

Can I just conclude by saying that in our discussions I made it very clear to the President that our commitment to Iraq remains. Australian forces will remain at their present levels in Iraq not based on any calendar, but based on conditions in the ground. Until we are satisfied that a further contribution to ensuring that the Iraqis can look after themselves cannot usefully made by the Australian forces, they will not be reduced or withdrawn. It may over time be that their role will assume greater elements of training or greater elements of other aspects of what their capabilities include, but their commitment, their level and the basis on which they stay there in cooperation with other members of the coalition will not change under a government that I lead.

We believe that progress is being made in Iraq, difficult though it is, and we do not believe this is the time to be setting any proposals for a scaling down of Australian forces. We think that is objectionable on two grounds. Firstly, it misreads the needs of the Iraqi people, and secondly, at the present time, a close ally and friend such as Australia should be providing the maximum presence and indication of support to our very close ally and friend in the person of the United States. That is our position and I’ve made that very clear to the President in our discussions and I make it very clear to you at this news conference. George.

Bush:

Mr Prime Minister, thanks for your hospitality. You’ve been telling me how beautiful Sydney is. I now agree. Laura sends her very best to you and Janette, and we congratulate you on - like your grandfatherhood.

Howard:

Thank you.

Bush:

I admire your vision, I admire your courage. One thing that’s really important when it comes to international diplomacy is when a leader tells you something, he means it. And the thing I appreciate about dealing with Prime Minster Howard is that, one, you know where he stands, you don’t have to try to read nuance into his words. And then when he tells you something, he stands by his word. And I thank you for that. I appreciate as well our personal friendship. I’m looking forward for you to buy me lunch today. I’m a meat guy.

Howard:

We know that.

Bush:

I’m looking forward to some Australian beef. We did sign a treaty today that was important. It’s the US-Australia Defence Trade Cooperation Treaty. And I think John put it best - it helps cut through the bureaucracy so that we can transform our forces better, share technology better and, frankly, enable our private sectors to work together to develop new defence capabilities to defend ourselves. And it is an important treaty. It took a while to get here, but it’s - we were able to get it done and I thank you for giving me a chance to sign it here.

We spent a lot of time talking about Iraq and Afghanistan. As I told John, we’re in the midst of an ideological struggle against people who use murder as a weapon to achieve their vision. Some people see that, some people don’t see it. Some people view these folks as just kind of isolated killers who may show up or may not show up. I happen to view them as people with an objective, and their objective is to spread a vision that is opposite of the vision that we share.

There are two theatres in this war on terror; they’re evident. One is Afghanistan, the other is Iraq. These are both theatres of the same war. And the fundamental question is, is it worth it to be there, and can we succeed? And the definition of success are countries that can govern themselves, sustain themselves, defend themselves, listen to the people, and serve as allies in this war against extremists and murderers. And if I didn’t think we could succeed, I wouldn’t have our troops there. As the Commander-in-Chief of our military, I cannot commit US troops into combat unless I’m convinced it’s worth it, important to the security of the United States, and we can meet our objectives.

And as you know, I just came from al-Anbar province in Iraq. This is a province that some six months ago, or eight months ago, had been written off by the experts as lost to al Qaeda. The people that presumably had taken over Anbar have sworn allegiance to the very same bunch that caused 19 killers to come and kill nearly 3,000 of our citizens. And the experts had said, well, Anbar is gone; al Qaeda will have the safe haven that they have said they want. By the way, a safe haven for al Qaeda anywhere is dangerous to those of us who believe in democracy and freedom. That’s one of the lessons of September the 11th.

The province I saw wasn’t lost to the extremists. The place I went had changed dramatically - fundamentally because the local people took a look at what al Qaeda stands for, and said, we’re not interested in death, destruction. We don’t want to be associated with people who murder the innocent to achieve their objectives. We want something different for our children. And as a result of our alliance with these folks, we’re now hunting down al Qaeda in this province. And the same thing has taken place across Iraq. The security situation is changing. That’s the briefing I received from David Petraeus, our general on the ground, General David Petraeus.

He says the security situation is changing so that reconciliation can take place. There are two types of reconciliation, one from the bottom up. I met with sheiks that are tired of the violence. They’re reconciling. They’re reconciling after decades of tyranny. They’re reconciling after having lived under a dictator who divided society in order to be able to sustain his power.

At the national level there is reconciliation, but not nearly as fast as some would like. By the way, people who don’t believe we should be in Iraq in the first place, there’s no political reconciliation that can take place to justify your opinion. If you don’t think Iraq is important, if you don’t think it matters what the society looks like there, then there’s not enough amount of reconciliation that will cause people to say, great, it’s working. If you believe like I believe, that the security of the United States and the peace of the world depend upon a democracy in the Middle East and Iraq, then you can see progress. And I’m seeing it.

Is it perfect? Absolutely not. Is there more work to be done? You bet there is. But the fact that their legislature passed 60 pieces of legislation I thought is illustrative of a government that’s beginning to work. It’s more than our legislature passed. They got a budget out. We’re still working on our budget, Mr. Prime Minister.

Do they need an oil law? You bet they need an oil law. Why? Because it will be part of saying to Sunnis, Shia, and Kurd alike, the oil belongs to the people. It’s a way to unify the country. On the other hand, they are distributing revenues from the central government. In Anbar province they have distributed $107 million this year, about $96 million last year. There’s only one place they could have gotten the revenue from, the oil resources. So there is distribution taking place, in spite of the fact there’s not a law. They got a budgeting process that’s funding their military. In other words, there is a functioning government.

Again, I repeat, there’s plenty of work to be done. There’s more work to be done. But reconciliation is taking place. And it’s important, in my judgment, for the security of America, or for the security of Australia, that we hang in there with the Iraqis and help them. If this is an ideological struggle, one way to defeat an ideology of hate is with an ideology of hope. And that is societies based upon liberty. And that’s what’s happening. And it’s historic work, Mr. Prime Minister, and it’s important work, and I appreciate the contribution that the Australians have made. You’ve got a great military, full of decent people. And you ought to be proud of them. And I know the Australian people are.

The same work goes on in Afghanistan. The degree of difficulty is just about the same. After all, this is a society trying to recover from a brutal reign. But it’s the same principles involved, and that is to help them have their style democracy flourish. And it’s happening in Afghanistan. People who have been to Kabul will tell you it’s dramatically different than what it was like when we first liberated Afghanistan.
I believe that when the final chapters of the 21st century are written, people will say, we appreciate the courage and sacrifice made by our respective countries in laying the foundation for peace.

It’s interesting we’re having APEC here in Australia. And the Prime Minister and I, of course, will be sitting at the table with the Prime Minister of Japan. Sixty years ago we fought the Japanese. We’ve got a great relationship - I’m sure much is going to be made of, well, do personalities define the relationship? Well, this relationship has been forged based upon values and doing hard work together. Personalities matter. It helps that he and I are friends, by the way, in terms of the alliance. But the alliance is bigger than the individuals. Our alliance has been forged in battle and in friendship and through trade. And yet we’re sitting down with the former enemy, which ought to be an historical lesson of what can happen when liberty takes root in certain societies. And of course, we’ll be talking about the peace. We talk about North Korea, we’re talking about Asia, we talk about we can work together to achieve peace.

We are talking about trade here at the APEC summit that the Prime Minister is ably leading. I happen to believe trade is important. I think the free trade agreement between Australia and the United States has been beneficial to both our peoples. Trade is up. When trade is up it means commerce is up, goods and services are flowing more freely. It means people are more likely to make a living. And by the way, when you’re trading with somebody you want their economy to be good. And I congratulate you on having such a strong economy. That’s important for our trading partners to be wealthy enough to have something to trade.

And so the question is can we advance the Doha Round here at the APEC. And I believe we can. I want to thank you for your able leadership. It’s a hard issue to get done, but I believe, with will and determination, we can get it done. And as I’ll say in the speech here Friday, we’ll show flexibility when it comes to making sure this round is as successful as possible.

I am looking forward to speaking out about Burma at the APEC conference. It’s inexcusable that we’ve got this kind of tyrannical behaviour in Asia. It’s inexcusable that people who march for freedom are then treated by a repressive state. And those of us who live in comfort of a free society need to speak out about these kind of human rights abuses.

And so, Mr Prime Minister, I hope you don’t mind me speaking as clearly as I possibly can about the fate of Aung San Suu Kyi and her friends, and average citizens who simply want the same thing we have, to live in a free society.

I do want to thank you very much for your leadership on climate change. Now, I know some say, well, since he’s against Kyoto he doesn’t care about the climate change. That’s urban legend that is preposterous. As a matter of fact, the United States last year reduced overall greenhouse gas emissions and grew our economy at the same time. In other - we showed what is possible when you deploy modern technologies that enable you to achieve economic growth so your people can work, and at the same time, become less dependent on foreign sources of oil, and at the same time, be good stewards of the environment.

So I appreciate you bringing up the nuclear power initiative. If you truly care about greenhouse gases, then you’ll support nuclear power. If you believe that greenhouse gases are a priority, like a lot of us - if we take the issue seriously, if you take the issue seriously, like I do and John does, then you should be supportive of nuclear power. After all, nuclear power enables you to generate electricity without any greenhouse gases. Anyway, your leadership at APEC has been really strong.

And I’m looking forward to my discussions with the leader of China about a lot of issues, one of which, of course, will be climate change. And my attitude is as I explained to you, is that in order for there to be an effective climate change policy, China needs to be at the table. In order to get China at the table they have to be a part of defining the goals. Once we can get people to define the goals, then we can encourage people to define the tactics necessary to achieve the goals. I believe this strategy is going to be a lot more effective than trying us - people - countries to say, this is what you’ve got to do. We’re telling you how to behave - as opposed to why don’t we work together to achieve a common consensus on being good stewards of the environment. APEC is a good forum to do this. You provided great leadership on the issue, and I appreciate it. We’ll take some questions.

Howard:

We’ll start with the American.

Bush:

Bret Baier.

Journalist:

Thank you, Mr President. You’ve described the US relationship with China as complex. US military sources are now confirming that Chinese hackers hacked into the computers at the Pentagon in June, hackers linked to the government in Beijing. And it’s being described as a complicated cyber attack. Have you been briefed on this attack? How much more complex does this make the relationship with China? And do you plan to bring it up with President Hu Jintao on Thursday?

Bush:

I’m very aware that a lot of our systems are vulnerable to cyber attack from a variety of places. And therefore, the first question should be - not to put questions in your mouth, Bret, but - what are you doing to defend America against cyber attack? Are you aware that we have vulnerabilities, that people can hack into sensitive systems? And are you then providing expertise and technology necessary to defend? And the answer is, yes. We understand that we’re vulnerable in some systems - some, by the way, more valuable than others - or less valuable than others, I guess is the best way to put it.

In terms of whether or not I’ll bring this up to countries that we suspect may - from which there may have been an attack, I may. In this instance, I don’t have the intelligence at my fingertips right now. Whether it be this issue, or issues like intellectual property rights, I mean, if you have a relationship with a country, then you’ve got to respect the country’s systems and knowledge base. And that’s what we expect from people with whom we trade.

Our relationship with China is complex. On the one hand, we appreciate the opportunity to trade goods and services. We certainly hope that China changes from a saving society to a consuming society. Right now, because of the lack of a safety net, many Chinese save for what we call a rainy day. What we want is the government to provide more of a safety net so they start buying more US and Australian products. We want there to be a - the middle class to feel comfortable coming into the marketplace, the global marketplace, so that our producers can see the benefits directly with trade with China.

By the way, our exports to China are up, Mr Prime Minister, which is positive. We still have got a huge trade deficit with China, which then causes us to want to work with them to adjust - to let their currency float. We think that would be helpful in terms of adjusting trade balances.

We’ve got great relations with China from a diplomatic perspective. In other words, we’re able to talk with them openly and candidly. But do we agree on every issue? Not at all. I mean, for example, I’ve spent time talking about dissidents who have been jailed. I’m concerned about the treatment of the Dalai Lama. I want China to be more aggressive when it comes to Iran. I’m interested to hear President Hu Jintao’s attitudes toward the humanitarian crisis in Darfur. In other words, there’s a lot of issues which we wish they would - wish they would have a different lean to their policy. So I’m going to discuss these with him. But it’s best to be able to discuss these issues in an environment that is frank and open and friendly, as opposed to one in which there’s tension and suspicion.

And so when I say we’ve got great relations, I will sit down with the President and have a good honest, candid discussion, and he’s going to tell me what’s on his mind and I’m darned sure going to tell him what’s on my mind.

One area where we are making good progress is on North Korea. As you may remember, I shifted the whole strategic approach to North Korea. I’m convinced that it’s more effective to have five countries to say to North Korea the same thing than just one country, so that if North Korea makes the decision not to honour their word, that there’s a better chance that there’s consequences that they’ll feel. And so as a result of getting China to the table on North Korea, the North Koreans are going to realise there is a lot more than one voice. And China has been instrumental in helping move this process forward. Chris Hill, Ambassador Hill, briefed me and Secretary Rice this morning on the fact that North Korea still looks like they’re going to honour their agreement to disclose and to shut down their nuclear programs which will be good for peace.

Anyway, a long answer because it’s a complex relationship.

Howard:

Australian side.

Journalist:

Mark Riley for Seven Network Australia. Mr. President, welcome to Sydney.

Bush:

Thank you, sir.

Journalist:

I can assure you it doesn’t always look like this, with steel fences and concrete barricades and armed guards on the street. But I wonder, is the…?

Bush:

I hope you feel safe.

Journalist:

I feel…

Bush:

You feel inconvenienced, obviously. Let me just say, before you get - you’re trying to maybe get a response. But to the extent I’ve caused this, I apologise. Look, I don’t want to come to a community and say, you know, what a pain it is to have the American President. Unfortunately, however, this is what the authorities thought was necessary to protect people. And you live in a free society. People feel like they want to protest; fine, they can. And unfortunately, evidently, some people may want to try to be violent in their protests. But I apologise to the Australian people if I’ve caused this inconvenience.

Journalist:

Well, I wasn’t going to blame you personally, sir. But anyway…

Bush:

I guess I must be feeling guilty, you know what I’m saying?

Journalist:

The point I was going to make is, as leader of the free world, the people of Sydney don’t see their city looking all that free at the moment. And how’s that going? We thought that we weren’t going to allow terrorists to do this to our free society. And so your very positive view on Iraq and progress towards reconciliation there is of interest to us if you’re meeting the Opposition Leader tomorrow, and his view is that there should be a staged withdrawal of troops from Iraq next year. How would that affect the positive view you put today? And what will you say to disavow him of that decision?

Bush:

First of all, in terms of whether Sydney is going to return to normal after I leave, or after we leave, I suspect it might, don’t you? I don’t think this is a permanent condition. I think the great freedom of the city of Sydney is going to return quite rapidly, which is different from other societies in the world.

First of all, I’m looking forward to meeting with the Opposition Leader - I believe I did that on my last trip here to Australia, if I’m not mistaken - and I hope we have an honest exchange of views. You just heard my opinion about Iraq and whether or not, one, we can win, and two, if it’s necessary to win. I believe it’s necessary, and I believe we can. And I’m looking forward to hearing his opinion.

I’m also wise enough not to prejudge the election results here in Australia. Yours is a slightly loaded question in trying to get me to comment about what it would be like to work with somebody who hasn’t even been elected. And therefore, I’m going to let the Australian people express their opinion. My own judgment is I wouldn’t count the man out. As I recall, he’s kind of like me: we both have run from behind, and won. So that’s going to be part of my - I can tell you relations are great right now. I also, as I told you earlier, and I believe this, that our relationship is bigger than any individual in office. It’s a relationship based upon values, common values. It’s also a relationship - it’s enforced during tough times. When we fought fascism we learned a lot about each other. And the American people have got great respect for Australians. Anyway, thank you. Suzanne.

Journalist:

Thank you, Mr President. Yesterday you said that General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, if the kind of success we are now seeing continues, it will be possible to maintain the same level of security with fewer American forces. There are many who believe that you were suggesting you’d make an announcement to lower American troop levels. White House officials dismissed that. But later you were asked aboard Air Force One why it was that twice you mentioned troop levels that have peaked our interest, to which you said, “Maybe I was intending to do that.” You pride yourself on being a straight shooter, not coy or cute, so what it is at this time?

Bush:

Surely not cute, I agree. Whatever you do, don’t cause me - call me cute, okay?

Journalist:

Okay. So is the administration at this time trying to play it both ways, by appeasing the critics, suggesting that troop withdrawal is right around the corner, at the same time making no real commitments?

Bush:

Suzanne, I think I went on to say on Air Force One, if I recall, somewhere between Baghdad and Sydney, that, why don’t we all just wait and see what David Petraeus says when we comes - General Petraeus when he comes back to America. He and Ambassador Crocker are going to come back and they’re going to report to me and report to the Congress and the American people about their recommendations on the way forward. I will then take their recommendations into account as I develop the strategy necessary to win in Iraq.

That’s what I’m interested in. I’m not interested in artificial timetables or dates of withdrawal; I’m interested in achieving objective. I repeat, if you think it’s not important that we’re there, then you’re going to find excuses to get out. If you think it is important to be there, then you ought to be thinking about ways to achieve our objectives. And we are achieving our objectives.

And so I was being as candid as I could with the people on the airplane. And what I said in Baghdad was exactly what they told me; that if conditions still improve, security conditions still improve the way they have been improving, is that we may be able to provide the same security with fewer troops. And whether or not that’s the part of the policy I announce to the nation when I get back from this trip, after the Congress has been briefed by David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, why don’t we see what they say, and then I’ll let you know what our position is and what our strategy is.

Howard:

Dennis.

Journalist:

Dennis Shanahan from The Australian Mr President. Mr President, John Howard put climate change at the centre of this APEC meeting. Haven’t you undermined his attempt to establish aspirational goals here by scheduling your own meeting in Washington? And to what extent do you regard ratification of Kyoto as being relevant to addressing climate change?

Bush:

Let me start with the latter. Since I’m getting older, you may have to repeat the first part of the question. Kyoto may work for other countries, it may have made sense for certain countries that ratified it. It just didn’t make sense for the United States. And so, therefore, I told the truth. And by the way, prior to my arrival in Washington, the United States Senate was given a chance to express their approval or disapproval of whether or not Kyoto made sense to the United States: there was a 95 to nothing vote against Kyoto. So it’s just not my opinion. There’s a lot of people who thought Kyoto wasn’t the way to go.

So we developed a different approach: energy efficiency standards based upon new technologies. And as I told you, we reduced greenhouse gases in America last year and our economy grew at 3 percent. I don’t know if many countries can make that claim, but we can - because our strategy of putting new technologies in place is working.

I happen to believe that we can do a better job of becoming less dependent on foreign oil. As an energy exporter, that might kind of frighten some of the energy exporters, but we’ve got to reduce our dependency on oil, and, therefore, have put forth what’s called the 20-in-10 program. Over the next 10 years, we will reduce our gasoline consumption by 20 percent by using ethanol and other new technologies. I believe battery technology is going to be coming on so that people in Sydney can drive the first 40 miles in their cars on battery without your car looking like a golf cart.

There’s new technologies coming to market and the fundamental question is how to get them to market as quickly as possible. And Kyoto didn’t do that as far as we were concerned. As a matter of fact, if you begin to take an assessment or inventory of countries that are actually meeting the Kyoto targets, I think you’ll find that maybe a different approach makes sense. So the reason we rejected Kyoto is because it wouldn’t have allowed us to do what we wanted to do, which is grow our economy, become less dependent on foreign oil and be good stewards of the environment.

John and I have talked about his desire to put climate change at the forefront of APEC, and I was a strong supporter of that. I also reminded him that at the G8, I took the message that said to our partners there that if you really want to really solve the global climate change issue, let’s get everybody to the table. Let’s make sure that countries such as China and India are at the table as we discuss the way forward. Otherwise, I suspect, if they feel like nations are going to cram down a solution down their throat and not give them a voice on how to achieve a common objective, they’ll walk. And then you can’t have effective global climate change, if a nation like China is not involved.

I thought the Prime Minister did something smart in this protocol. He announced that we need to cut back on tariffs that prohibit the exportation of technologies that will enable China, for example, to burn coal in a cleaner way. They’ve protected their environmental industries. And he wants to tear down those tariffs and barriers and we support him strongly on this, so that technology is more likely to be able to flow from those of us who have it to those who don’t.

And there are fundamental questions: how fast can we get effective technology to the market, coal sequestration technologies, nuclear spent fuel reprocessing technologies to the market? And once to the market, can we help developing nations acquire those technologies? Otherwise, it’s an exercise that’s not going to be effective.

I believe the strategy that we have laid forth is the most effective way to deal with this issue in a serious way. I also appreciate the fact that the Prime Minister is the one that brought the issue to focus; and two, is talking about energy dependency, energy efficiency standards, which is a part of the global climate mix. He shows that leadership on the issue and I’m proud to be here, talking about the issue.

Howard:

Okay.

Bush:

Thank you.