World - Q&A Australian Foreign minister

Australia shares values with India that transcend the niceties of the nuclear issue. This was indicated by Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith in an exclusive interview to P. S. Suryanarayana at the Singapore airport, before his departure for Chennai on Monday. Excerpts from the interview: Sir. The most topical issue is the Nuclear Suppliers Group’s clearance of India’s case.
Australia supported the forming of consensus, both at the Board of Governors of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) and the NSG. We adopted a positive and constructive approach; and we welcome the outcome. It reflects the rise of India as a significant power.
We bore two things in mind. One, [the] non-proliferation implications; but, secondly, we also took into account the strategic implications: from India’s and the United States’ perspective. And, we placed a lot of weight on the strategic implications from India’s point of view. Was Australia’s support passive or proactive?
We indicated both to the IAEA Board of Governors and to the NSG that we wanted to take a positive and constructive approach. We didn’t put any reservations or support any changes to the arrangement [that were proposed by others]. As [Australian] Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had suggested, in response to a question from me at a public function here some time back, Australia did not stand in the way.
We did more than just not stand in the way. We indicated to other nations that our attitude was positive and constructive; and we supported the formation of a consensus. Did you play any role in trying to bring New Zealand around in favour of the India?
New Zealand’s approach and attitude is a matter for New Zealand, a sovereign nation-state. One of the formulations in the final [NSG] document specifically mentions: “Without prejudice to the national positions” of the participating governments. And, Australia certainly has a national position, especially in regard to the export of uranium.
In the Australian mind, in the government’s approach, these two issues [NSG waiver and the export of uranium] have always been separate.
We don’t export uranium to a country that is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which India is not. But, I think, if you ask India, ‘What is more important [to it] strategically, the civil nuclear agreement with the United States or from where it sourced its uranium?’— it would choose the former.
Currently, India receives uranium from a range of nation-states; [and] the Australian position is well understood. Will Australia consider re-considering that position, in the light of the NSG decisions?
No. It is a long-standing Party policy position. [Australian Labour Party rules the country]. Can India source from Australia, in the context of the NSG waiver, dual-use technology, dual-use materials, dual-use equipment for civilian nuclear purposes?
Our starting point is that we are not proposing to export uranium to India. We are not proposing to open that issue. What other technological capacity we may wish to share with India is a matter for the future. It’s not something we [have] put our mind to; and it’s not something that, at this point in the cycle, I am aware that we had any request from India to contemplate. Are you keeping the option open of exploring the possibility of exporting to India dual-use technology or materials?
[In a genial but firm tone]. You have put the question to me. It’s not something that I have previously considered. It’s not something that has been suggested to us. If India wants to contemplate that, then we can have a look at that. We’ll have a look at that within the context of our long-standing policy position so far as uranium and nuclear technology is concerned and also within the context of the detail of the NSG agreement. But, in the first instance, that would be a matter for India to raise with Australia.
[The non-export of uranium] is not an India-specific policy. And, it’s also something which can be separate from any subsequent or future consideration of what, if anything, India may wish to do with us in a cooperative way as a result of the exception that the NSG and the IAEA have decided upon. It’s not something which I am aware as being the subject of a request to us by India. Would Australia be open to the idea of doing a separate safeguards agreement with India for the purpose of exporting either uranium or dual-use technology?
No, no, no. Not for the purpose of exporting uranium. Dual-use technology is something that I would have a look-at in the context of the detail of the NSG, firstly; secondly, our long-standing approach to sharing nuclear and other technology. But, the starting point for that would be a request from India or interest by India.
I expect that we will have a conversation [with the Indian leaders] about the NSG. And, if we have a conversation about uranium, which I doubt, then it will simply be a repetition of that which is well known.
To use the Australian expression, we want to put India at the frontline of our international relationships. And, in the context of India emerging as a great power, it is absolutely essential for Australia to take that relationship to a greater level. There are a range of things we have in common, which transcends the niceties of uranium or nuclear policy – shared values; attachment to parliamentary democracy; a great complementarity, not just on values and virtues but also on our trade, food security, energy security; the number of [Indian] students. A whole array of trappings to our relationship, which transcends the detail of a particular [issue]! Is there any possibility of Australia asking India to sign the NPT?
I am not proposing to ask India to sign the NPT. Are you puzzled or surprised that a country like India is enchanted by what some observers like Jonathan Schell have referred to as the “allure” of nuclear weapons? Are you puzzled or surprised that India is so fond of nuclear weapons?
(In a contemplative tone) I am not proposing to turn up to New Delhi and suggest to India that it change what I understand to be a long-standing position. Moving on to the broad spectrum of relationship, do you have any particular agenda [now] of advocating or advancing new practical initiatives?
That’s really a matter for [External Affairs] Minister [Pranab] Mukherjee and I to talk about and to announce, if we so chose, in Delhi (next Friday). Are you looking at any MoU on economic or defence cooperation pact?
What we are trying to crystallise is taking the relationship to a new level. [At the regional and global level] we were very pleased, for example, that India supported our application to be a dialogue partner of SAARC [South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation]. We very strongly support India’s claims to permanent membership of a reformed [United Nations] Security Council. We support India’s accession to APEC [Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum] after 2010. And, at WTO [World Trade Organisation], whilst there may have been differences about various approaches, we have been working closely with India. And, that’s an unambiguously good thing. Two of Australia’s new ideas have been the proposal of Asia Pacific Community and the formation [already] of the Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Commission, which is a non-official body.
India has evinced interest in both. The [Australian] Prime Minister’s initiative on the Asian Community is not necessarily all that dissimilar to India’s policy of looking east. There is not one piece of regional architecture, where all of the key players are in the same room at the same time, having a conversation both about economic and strategic matters. India is not in APEC, United States not in the East Asia Summit. Our rationale for that initiative is this is the century of the Asia-Pacific.
[As for] the Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Commission, the short-term objective is to try and get some good work done in advance of the NPT review conference in 2010. Our ultimate objective would be the abolition of all nuclear weapons. In the meantime, would you suggest any amendments to the NPT to make it more universal to accommodate countries like India?
Well, Not so much. [The commission] is a genuine second-track initiative. We are fully expecting that one of the co-commissioners will be an outstanding Indian with interest in this area. On the India-Australia bilateral front, some problems exist for the Indian students in Australia. And I would also like to know whether Australia has got any concerns about its citizens or companies in India?
We are now, after the United States, the largest single destination for Indian students. That’s a terrific thing. In 2007, by the end of the first nine months, there were 75,000. We are seeing a continuing increase. We welcome that very much. Recently, we have changed some of the levels of assessment for Indian student visas. That’s not something which is aimed at India. We have done that to about dozen countries.
We had a bit of difficulty, in the past, where there were suggestions that some Indian students had been badly treated. I have written to all of my state and territory counterparts drawing attention to some of the concerns, and all have responded well. .
I haven’t had any examples drawn to my attention [about] individual Australians being treated badly [in India]. Australian companies are voting with their feet, wanting to invest [in India]. A shared value and virtue is respect for the rule of law, the law of contract, for intellectual property. Dr. [Mohamed] Haneef’s case has been particularly sad, in the sense that he was wrongly implicated on terrorism charges [in Australia]. There is now a process — the inquiry panel. What is that the Australi an government proposes to do for making amends?
Because there is an inquiry on, I am not going to be drawn on that question. Except to say two things. Firstly, the Australian Federal Police recently indicated that Dr. Haneef was no longer a cause of inquiry for them. Secondly, one of the reasons we established that judicial inquiry was to ascertain, from an objective point of view, what transpired. We will await the receipt of that report and give that very careful consideration and make our judgments.