India Is Not A Blind Spot

Q: Soon after your government came to power, prime minister John Howard signalled a new approach towards India. However, six months later, India still remains a blind spot. Would you like to clear the air, once and for all? Why is the prime minister not visiting India to launch the `New Horizons promotion?

A: India isnt a blind spot. I think the commitment of our government to build a bilateral relationship with India is an important component of our foreign policy. We are launching the `New Horizons initiative into which well be putting about $6 million. A large number of ministers will be visiting India, including me and the deputy prime minister Tim Fischer. In our brief period in government, we have demonstrated our commitment to building a meaningful relationship with India. Above all by changing the former governments position of opposition to Indias participation in the Asean Regional Forum, to a position of supporting Indian participation.

 

The prime minister will be visiting India in the fullness of time. Its just a coincidence of things which have crushed in together at that time in November. But this `New Horizons initiative is one of vast importance and symbolic of the relationship with India (which) goes up a very substantial step to the highest point than it has been almost since Indian independence.

Q: The Australian government is spending $3 million on the promotion and another $3 million is being raised by the private sector. But when the initiative was first launched, the government promised that $18-20 million would be spent. Does that mean that Australian business is not as interested in India today?

A: I was in the Opposition when that comment was made. However, at a time when weve had to go through big cuts in our government spending and business itself is always watching its bottomline, I think a $6 million promotion in any country is an enormous investment. Weve had no similar promotion in any other country in recent times. So it is a sizeable commitment.

However, were moving from one phase to another. Weve lived through many years when Indias economy was seen to be a regulated one and not very open to foreign investment. Even if it was welcoming it was difficult for foreign investors to operate there. Weve moved from that phase to a new phase, when the Indian economy is deregulating. There is a growing interest in Australia in investing and trading with India. But that takes time, the perceptions have to gradually change. And they are changing. But there has to be a feeling in the business community that Indias reforms are irreversible. I think that is increasingly the view of the business community.

Q: What are Australias foreign policy priorities?

A: We seek to advance our economic and security interests through our foreign policy and we do that by principally focussing on our own region. That has meant the Southwest Pacific and East Asia. As a government were saying that it should include the Indian Ocean and India. Weve been a part of the development of the Indian Ocean Rim initiative, which is very strongly supported by the Indian government also. Next year, we are going to have the `Year of South Asia so that `New Horizons doesnt quickly fade away.

Q: When Paul Keatings Labour government spoke of Asia, they meant East Asia and not South Asia. Why?

A: Thats because thats where our trade is. Towards the end of their term they recognised that they had, underdone the relationship with South Asia, particularly with India. A lot more needed to be done as regards the relationship with India. We as a government have picked that up very enthusiastically.

Q: There is an ongoing debate in your country about the recent comments made by the your prime minister in Indonesia, when he said `Australia is not a part of Asia and that `We dont want to build bridges with Asia. Would you like to comment on that?

A: Thats not what he said. As far as Asia is concerned, Australia is a continent in its own right, its not a part of another continent. Its simply a geographic point made by Paul Keating in his lecture in Singapore in January, which was simply repeated by the prime minister. I cant account for the commentary of the Australian media.

On the second point, he meant that Australia doesnt set itself up to be a cultural bridge between Europe and Asia. That Asia can deal directly with Europe. It doesnt need to go through Australia (or vice-versa). Its perfectly obvious, Australia is not a cultural bridge.

However Australia, in many respects serves as an adequate economic bridge. It is a good country for businesses from other parts of the world to use as a base, and operate through the Asia-Pacific region. That is a point we make in Europe.

Theres a sort of fascination in the media, brought about by some of the rhetoric used in the last election campaign by the Labour party, as to where Australia stands in relation to Asia. I mean, its obvious. Australia, like any country, focuses its foreign policy on its own region. We have global interests, but day-to-day we deal with issues that relate to our part of the world. And that has been true since the 1950s.

Q: Do you think this could be related to the debate on racial issues and immigration?

A: I dont know why the media is particularly interested in what an independent, backbencher member of parliament has to say. On immigration, the Australian governments position is clear. We do and we always will favour a non-discriminatory immigration policy. Every country has its mavericks, but thats not the view of the Australian government. So what if somebody makes a comment which the Australian government doesnt approve of or support it is certainly not our government policy. In an open, buoyant democracy like Australia that sort of thing happens. I guess it happens in India as well, its a pretty open, buoyant democracy. But we dont judge the positions of the Indian government by what backbencher members of the Indian Parliament say. We judge the Indian government by what the Indian government says.

Q: Coming back to your offer of using Australia as a gateway to the Pacific. Australia is a prime mover of Apec, would you support Indias membership to Apec?

A: Its a little early for me to make this judgement, but in the lead-up to the Manila leaders meeting, the impression I get is that there will be support for the moratorium on membership to be continued for a little while. Because many governments seem interested in consolidating the gains of Apec, which need to be consolidated through the individual action plans which will be discussed in Manila, although there are differences of views there. But, eventually the moratorium will be lifted, whether this year or one or two years later. The point is that India obviously has a very substantial place in terms of its participation in Apec. And I must admit Im heartened by the indications that I get from India, which are that it is a country committed to the trade liberalisation agenda.

Q: Would you be willing to make exceptions for countries like Vietnam?

A: That will be discussed in Manila by the leaders.

Q: Australia and India have been on opposite sides of the CTBT, what is your opinion on the fissile material cut-off?

A: We support that and I have already argued that case in the UN General Assembly.

Q: Will differences on CTBT affect the bilateral relationship?

A : No, I dont think you have to agree with each other on everything to get on very well. Clearly, our position is different from Indias position. Ive discussed that with the Indian foreign minister. And as we both agreed with each other, we wont let those differences stand in the way of our bilateral relationship. You can get on really well with somebody without having to agree with them on everything.

Q: But even as you sign the CTBT, Australia is resuming its uranium exports, including to countries like France, which have recently conducted nuclear explosions.

A: We had a moratorium on exports to France when they conducted their nuclear tests. Were now in the process of lifting that moratorium, thats all. Were not exporting uranium for nuclear weapons, were exporting it for nuclear power stations. We dont want to rid the world of electricity, we want to rid it of nuclear weapons. We have a nuclear safeguards policy which requires our uranium to be used according to certain conditions, and we will only export uranium in a way that is consistent with our safeguards policy.

Q: If India met those safeguards, you could in theory export uranium to India?

A: We simply take the view that if you sign the Non Proliferation Treaty and that you are subject to the IAEAs inspections and meet our safeguards requirements over and above that, then any country is in a position to buy uranium from Australia.

Q: Does Australia support the linkage of non-tariff barriers with international trade at the WTO?

A: We dont think linking labour standards with trade in the WTO is an appropriate approach. We think its more appropriate that labour standards should be dealt with by the International Labour Organisation.