Press Conference - Coolum Communiqué

Media Interview
Media Centre
COOLUM COMMUNIQUE
Tuesday, 5 March 2002

MR HOWARD: Ladies and gentlemen, the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting at Coolum has finalised. We have issued both a communiqué which summarises the main issues raised at the executive meetings and also the Coolum Declaration which encapsulates a future vision in relation to the Commonwealth coming out of the retreat and also deals with a number of issues of ongoing importance to us, including our ongoing commitment to shared political and democratic values, our condemnation of all forms of terrorism, our concern to ensure that all efforts taken by the Commonwealth to narrow the gap between rich and poor nations around the world, the importance of the ongoing fight against HIVAIDS all around the world and including, of course, in many Commonwealth countries.

There was an acknowledgement of the particular vulnerability of many of the smaller states; capacity building is an important issue for the Commonwealth and the adoption of the High Level Review Group will, I think, give greater focus to the good offices role of the Secretary-General and also, I believe, give some more coherence to the governance arrangements for the Commonwealth as a whole.

I think it is fair to say that in all the discussions at the retreat there was a very strong belief that more open trading practices between the nations of the world would do more than anything else to assist the poorest members of the Commonwealth. That is not to say that open trade alone is the solution to lifting poor nations into higher living standards. Clearly, in some nations better governance arrangements, better infrastructure and things of that nature are crucially important. But there is little doubt that more open trade, generically speaking, will do an enormous amount to help the less developed countries of the world, and I can but repeat the remark I made at the opening session and that is that the more open trading environment provided by the developed countries of the world would do far more than direct economic assistance; not that that is unimportant to relieve the poverty burden of the less developed countries.

The adoption of the High Level Review Group chaired by the President of South Africa provides a framework for dealing with governance issues that will arise in the future in relation to the Commonwealth and some of its members and any of its member states, and I want to record the thanks of the Heads of Government to President Mbeki for the leadership that he gave to that High Level Review Group.

Can I make but three other points. The first of those is that this has been an important and challenging meeting. The issue of Zimbabwe was not easy. I do believe that we have provided a mechanism, a framework, for dealing with that issue that represents the consensus view within the Commonwealth. In the end, an organisation such as this has to find a mechanism that works. We can all have our individual views. But at the end of the day you have to find a mechanism that works. What we have done in relation to Zimbabwe is find a mechanism that works and will provide, within a defined period of time, a process for a very clear outcome in relation to Zimbabwe's status within the Commonwealth, and I think that is a significant achievement because there are frames of views, as you all know, on that issue.

The second observation I would make is that this has been an occasion, this meeting, to honour in particular the contribution of Her Majesty, the Queen, to the Commonwealth. It is 50 years since she became Queen and became head of the Commonwealth, and it is also, by definition, her Golden Jubilee year; and Heads of Government were particularly pleased to have her amongst us and to pay tribute to her for the tremendous contribution that she has made to the Commonwealth. She has a very lively and genuine interest in it and a very informed interest in the Commonwealth, and that has been very much on display at this conference.

Finally, I think it is fair to say that the core values of the Commonwealth, which are a commitment to democratic practice, the rule of law and more open societies - those principles have been very much reaffirmed at this meeting.

Finally, can I record my thanks to the Secretary-General, Don McKinnon and the members of his secretariat for the arrangements in relation to this conference. I also want, speaking very directly to the Australian audience here today, to thank publicly Hugh Craft, the head of the CHOGM Task Force in my department, the wonderful volunteers who have worked here as they did so magnificently, like their fellow Australians at the Olympic Games not so long ago, and also a special word of thanks to the men and women of the Queensland Police Force for the work that they have put into securing the environment. You never know these meetings: they always represent unchartered security challenges and I do want to thank them and the Australian Defence Force for the contribution they have made to the security arrangements.

Australia was delighted to host this meeting. I think our guests enjoyed themselves. I think they take away some positive views and recollections about our wonderful country and can I also say I am delighted that so many media from around the world have descended upon Coolum. It's always happy to address press conferences of this gathering; there's something about size dissipates something or other, but it's very, very interesting to have you all - a few familiar faces, both from my country and also from watching international television: some of the face are very familiar but it's been great to have you. We think it's been a remarkably successful conference and I do again want to thank the Secretary-General and all of his team for the tremendous work that they have done.

MR McKINNON: Thank you Prime Minister. Certainly my thanks particularly go to you as obviously host chair, particularly the Australian Government and more probably the Australian taxpayers who really have had to prepare for two CHOGMs in a very short space of time but they have come off very successfully and I think have proved that the Commonwealth can be relevant. It is an issue that is raised from time to time but be assured that for many, many leaders from small states, or island states of the Commonwealth, this is a very useful and real chance for them to get a lot of really good quality time with other leaders, leaders with similar problems to themselves and of course to tap into the larger members of the Commonwealth to talk about how to go forward.

The High Level Review Report, which has been worked on for the last two years, I believe gives us a very good direction over the next decade. This is all about ensuring that we're relevant, we're credible, we're doing the things we do best at. We concentrate where we have a comparative advantage, the youth initiative, dealing with the digital divides, issues of globalisation.

CMAG's mandate is much less ambiguous now than what it has been for the last six years and that is particularly relevant when you come up to real problems that we've had on the issue of determining and definitions about what it can do about Zimbabwe. I have been able to respond to terrorism and again when you get 54 countries across the wide spectrum of the divide who can actually come to an agreement on how they can respond to terrorism certainly very well. As we have said a number of times, globalisation is something that really bothers more of our people than probably what we would have in this country or my own country of New Zealand. It is globalisation that we want to see the negatives reduced and the positives increased. We want to see a spirit of generous globalisation really move across the Third World. If it doesn't, democracy itself is under threat. So we've got a whole new series of programs here that we want to get underway. Looking at the issues of poverty development and democracy, the launching of the new investment fund in Africa.

Everyone talked about the need for greater trade access and we've got to keep beating that drum. Post the Dohar meeting, that's the one thing that all of our members are absolutely adamant about: trade access is everything. And, of course, on the issue of small states, which I think more time has been spent at a ministerial official and leaders level, talking about small states than probably any other subject because this is the one international forum that small states are truly recognised for their very real vulnerabilities and we want to make sure their voices are heard everywhere. So I certainly see this as giving us a good launching pad of activity and work for the next couple of years.

MR HOWARD: Any questions?

QUESTION: Following this CHOGM what is your view on the difference in the role of the Commonwealth in the 21st Century. Has this CHOGM made a difference in the role prior to what it was before the CHOGM started and if so how would you summarise the role of the Commonwealth in the 21st Century?

MR HOWARD: I think it does provide a unique forum for countries of vastly different ethnicity, religious background, economic strengths, size, regions. It does provide a unique forum for those countries to interact and it does have an impact on all. I mean, I think the way in which we were able to get an outcome in relation to Zimbabwe was a difficult issue but everybody had a bit of an impact on each other and the important thing is we have provided a mechanism that is going to resolve it in a very public and accountable way according to the principles of the Commonwealth. I mean, I make the point again that a mechanism whereby three people are identifiably and publicly charged with taking a decision in accordance with no one benchmarks which are far greater political accountability on those three people than does committing it to the discussion, the inevitable amorphous discussion of 53 or 54 heads of government.

So I actually think it's a demonstration that the, if you like, the impact of the interaction has on people. Look, you should never get, nobody should ever get unrealistic about what any international organisation can achieve and I'm not - I'm a realist about the Commonwealth. It's very big: it's nothing like smaller tighter organisations where the political goals and the economic standing is closer but does provide this quite unique, this unusual forum and I think that's one of its great strengths yes.

QUESTION: I see in the declaration you have got a reference to people-smuggling.

MR HOWARD: Yes.

QUESTION: Can you tell us a bit about the discussion that led up to that?

MR HOWARD: Well, there wasn't a lot of discussion but everybody is against people-smuggling and it was appropriate to be included; but you know my views on it and they're not views that I have found anybody disagreeing with. But it wasn't extensive discussion on it.
Perhaps I should have a non-Australian, a non-identifiably Australian. You maybe, this chap here.

QUESTION: Will the Coolum CHOGM now be a precedent for what future CHOGMs will be like, a retreat style CHOGM brought by events? Is it now going to be a precedent for what they will be like in the future?

MR HOWARD: Well, the Secretary-General may want to add to what I say on that, but I think the format was an outstanding success and the impression I get from anybody is that they rather like the idea that you didn't have to sort of come to one spot, spend 24 hours there and then pack your bags and go to another spot. Having it all in the one location meant that we were able to have a more focused discussion; we got to know each other better; we had more time for bilaterals.

MR McKINNON: That has come through very clearly from all leaders: this is the way we wanted it to happen. It makes it more comfortable, more useful for leaders. It puts a greater strain on the bureaucratic side but CHOGMs are all about the leaders, not to serve the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy is there to serve the leaders. So we will be talking to our colleagues in Nigeria who are hosting the next one. How can we do it again.

QUESTION: Mr Howard, does the organisation, the three chairmen, give the CHOGM an opportunity to respond to other issues not just Zimbabwe as they come on before CHOGM meetings; and secondly, in the communiqué, you refer to the Pakistan suspension as continuing: do you have any sort of word about Pakistan given their strong support in the coalition in the fight against terror and have you received any advice about Australian troops fighting in Afghanistan at the moment?

MR HOWARD: Well, the authority that I and the President of South Africa and the President of Nigeria have is specifically in relation to the Zimbabwe issue. It doesn't extend beyond that and I don't imply any authority in that mandate beyond dealing with the observer group on Zimbabwe. It may well be that this mechanism can be used again in the future: different issue, different personnel and there's obviously, in my judgment, some value in it because it does provide a mechanism and it does fix political accountability and political responsibility.

I think it's a valuable thing but all the Commonwealth heads have decided is in relation to this issue they want us to do the things that were outlined. The second question was about Pakistan. Pakistan clearly remains in breach because of the nature of the removal of the Musharraf Government and the status of the current government: clearly in breach of the Harare principles and the Millbrook Declaration.

Separately from that, speaking as the Prime Minister of Australia, and the question is clearly directed to me in that capacity, I have great respect for the role that Pakistan has played in the fight against terrorism. I think General Musharraf has displayed very considerable courage in relation to that and I publicly record my view on that subject without any qualification, but that is a separate issue from the - the status of his country and I certainly, as Prime Minister as well as Chairman in office of the Commonwealth, I certainly agree that Pakistan can't be readmitted to the councils of the Commonwealth while it remains in breach of those principles but I understand there are going to be elections in, what, October, of this year ,and I hope that there will come a day when Pakistan can return. But clearly she is in breach at present.

Finally, I don't want to add any operational detail because I think that is better left to spokesmen for the Australian Defence Force, but there are Australian forces involved very much in the current action. They are very much in my thoughts at the present time, as they will be of all Australians. The advice I have to date is that no Australian casualties have been sustained. Sadly a number of American service personnel have died and others wounded and I'm not aware of casualties amongst other groups: it is obviously the most intense from-the-ground exchange of the military involvement in Pakistan - in Afghanistan and it's a reminder to we Australians and to all who are involved just how dangerous it is, and it is a fierce operation and we will all keep our fingers crossed for the safety of our own men and also of those from other countries with whom they are fighting. There are non-Australians - that is a very bad generic description. I apologise to visitors.

QUESTION: I am from South Africa. Given the fact that there are two G8 members in the Commonwealth, are there any specific proposals to take to the G8 summit to facilitate the fairer trade regime in the world?

MR HOWARD: Facilitate a fairer trade regime? I think the market access issue would have certainly been pressed very much in the discussions on both the British Prime Minister and the Canadian Prime Minister. Can I say that when I heard some of the remarks being made about the agricultural policies of the European Union by the developing countries, I felt constrained to say "Here, here" from the chair but I withstood that temptation. I don't think there's any doubt that the cause of freer and more trade will be championed in the G8 by both the British Prime Minister and the Canadian Prime Minister if they were, as I believe they would be, consistent with what they said and what I understood them. They would certainly be putting those views very strongly in the G8.

QUESTION: Earlier this morning President Mkapa said that the core issue in the Zimbabwe crisis was the failure of the Commonwealth to take any initiative on land reform, and the failure of the Commonwealth in fact to provide funding for land reform. Do you believe that the failure of that initiative in any way mitigates what's happened in Zimbabwe or in fact that is the core of the crisis?

MR HOWARD: I don't think it's appropriate for me, given what I've been asked to do over the next few weeks, to get into a debate about this or that aspect of it. I know land is an important issue. That's acknowledged by everybody. There are two sides of the story, if I can put it that way. There were some agreements reached in Abuja which involved an offer from the British government to provide assistance on condition that certain things happened, and the British Prime Minister has given a very strong account of his government's position in relation to that. I have a role to try and make an independent fair judgment based on the report. I don't know that I should be making comments at this stage that might be suggested as disentitling me to make a balanced judgment when that report comes out.

MR McKINNON: I can tell you that the Commonwealth did make technical assistance to Zimbabwe some 18 months ago. It was accepted in principle but no date was set for an assistance team to go to Zimbabwe. At the same time we've had a Commonwealth officer with the UNDP team that was there for a couple or three weeks, just before Christmas. That UNDP team gave an interim report where they said it was really impossible to come to any conclusion given the volatility at the present time and they don't feel that they could possibly go back to that project until after the elections, but they have been engaged on and off with those issues of technical assistance for 18 months.

QUESTION: Do the Australian government -

MR HOWARD: Sorry, I can't hear you.

QUESTION: Will the Australian government reveal its plan on the LTTE, considering the peace talks now to be held in Sri Lanka - and, if so, under what circumstances?

MR HOWARD: Can I say that I would need to seek some advice from the Foreign Minister, my Foreign Minister, on that before giving a definite yes or no. I can say that I very much welcome the talks that are underway in Sri Lanka. They do offer the hope of the first real breakthrough for your troubled country and I hope profoundly that it is successful. As to the timing of any adjusted attitude towards that organisation, I would need, frankly, to talk with Mr Downer about it; I don't feel in full possession of all of the detail to offer a view.

QUESTION: Could I ask you to clarify how you see CMAG operating in future? We have had a quick look at the document and it basically seems to extend what CMAG can do if the good offices of the chairperson and officers and Secretary-General are exhausted. But it is still very ambiguous about what steps can be taken. Are there any cases in future where suspension could be applied by the CMAG group, or will this always be referred back to CHOGM for decision?

MR McKINNON: Sure. What the High Level Review Group tried to establish here was a better process prior to a country deemed to be in violation of Harare coming before CMAG, and it's always been arguing about are they on CMAG's agenda or are they not; are they under any other business, or are they not. So what the leaders have said here is that the Secretary-General will go through a whole series of procedures dealing with the issue at hand, dealing with the state that is so named. If in fact through all of this activity that its good offices are singularly unsuccessful, he can then pass the issue on to CMAG. CMAG can then clearly work on the basis that there is absolute certainty of their entitlement to deal with the issue; and their entitlement to deal with the issue therefore enables them to make a recommendation to governments.

Now, that recommendation to governments may merely be a letter from me saying 'CMAG has decided to do X, Y, Z with country A. Do you agree?' and it will move from there. But their capacity to either go through any one of those factors and Millbrook clauses, whatever they are - one to eight in Millbrook are still there. But the clarity is in before they arrive on the CMAG agenda.

QUESTION: Commonwealth countries have emphasised the need for more co-operation between themselves in the anti-terrorist fight. Do you see scope for links between the Commonwealth and the coalition against terrorism; and will you use your position as chairman to explore this?

MR HOWARD: Well, there is already co-operation between Commonwealth countries in the fight now going on against terrorism. There is very close co-operation between the United Kingdom and Australia, Canada and New Zealand in relation to intelligence and other matters.

QUESTION: As an organization?

MR HOWARD: As organisations. But you have to leave that sort of commitment very much as an generic one and, as opportunities arise. I mean the mere fact that we can include a very strong statement about it, given the spread of the Commonwealth, both politically and geographically, is a very valuable thing. I don't envisage that there is any separate Commonwealth action plan because, you know, it is unrelated to the activities of, obviously, the United States and other countries. But I think it does reinforce right across the Commonwealth the detestation of terrorism.

MR McKINNON: I had a meeting with Vice-President Cheney about three weeks ago in Washington and, as part of other activities, explained to him what the Commonwealth Ministerial Committee on Terrorism is all about; how we responded to those events. There was clearly merit in that line of communication, as much as anything, which they could see was a benefit.

QUESTION: The issue of Zimbabwe has clearly revealed deep splits between member states about how to deal with threats to democracy. What are the lasting repercussions of that for the Commonwealth, and does it diminish the effectiveness of the Commonwealth in handling these issues in the future?

MR HOWARD: Well, I don't think there are any lasting repercussions at present. I think you only have a lasting repercussion if the Commonwealth has manifestly, after all approaches have been exhausted, failed to maintain a consistent line. You are making a premature declaration of lasting repercussiveness - lasting repercussion, rather - and I don't think that's wise. I would counsel you not to do so.

QUESTION: In my defence, can I say that it does seem to have been an argument about principles.

MR HOWARD: You don't have a right of defence here. You have a right to ask a question, and you have to cop the answer.

MR McKINNON: If you read the Millbrook plan of actions, take it to the best lawyer you know, and ask him to take a view on any aspect and argue any aspect, they can argue either side of those definitions.

QUESTION: I just want to know what do you see as being part of the challenges that you have to face in the coming days of being the Chairman of the Commonwealth and, in context, what are you feelings about situations like Zimbabwe and Pakistan and some other small democratic countries where there are a lot of differences between the public and the level of income in the Commonwealth?

MR HOWARD: Well, I don't want to exaggerate a role for myself that is clearly not part of the authority I have. The chairman doesn't obviously become some sort of pinnacle of a federation of 54 countries: it's nothing like that at all. It is a title given to the person who chaired the previous CHOGM meeting, and I have been given a particular role in relation to Zimbabwe along with the Nigerian President, the South Africa President, and the High Level Review Group recommendations imply - suggest more than imply - that the Secretary-General and I will consult about a number of issues and it may be possible; but I don't want to exaggerate. I mean, we have to be very careful with things like this not to raise expectations and create some new kind of suggestion of a super international role. It's not like that at all but there will be ways in which, particularly having had the advantage now of attending three Commonwealth meetings and obviously knowing the leaders a lot more as a consequence of that and having a particular responsibility in relation to Zimbabwe, I hope I can make a constructive contribution as indeed President Mbeki has been able to do over the last couple of years.

He chaired a meeting of the High Level Review Group in New York at the millennium summit and was in touch with me on a number of other issues over that period of time and I see myself doing very much the same thing. He had a particular focus on Zimbabwe but we have to understand that the value of the idea but we don't want to elevate it to a position of authority and status that it simply doesn't have.

MR McKINNON: Leaders haven't a wish to make it overly prescriptive because every leader who becomes the chairperson of CHOGM will have their own imprint. It will not be circumscribed as to what they can do or not do; it's a matter of them working with and complementing everything else we do.

QUESTION: How much discussion was there morning on rising sea levels, climate change and Australia's proposed deal with the US on greenhouse gas emissions?

MR HOWARD: Well, there was quite a deal of discussion on this issue, very understandably, from the states of the Pacific. It is a matter of very great concern to them, and we in Australia are very sympathetic to that, and we have provided some additional resources to assist those countries in relation to that challenge. We haven't made a deal in the way that you suggest with the United States. Our position is more understanding of and closer to that of the United States than most others because we think the basis on which a lot of the international discussions so far occurred is - how shall I put it - faithfully and gently coincidentally more accommodating the European position than it is of the Australian position. Australia is a net exporter of energy. We are different in that sense and our view is that we need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. So do the Americans. So do everybody. We have the very strong view that unless you have the Americans and the developing countries, you can't have an effective international agreement and nothing I have seen or heard or has been put to me over the last couple of years alters that view.

It would not be in Australia's interest to enter a binding understanding on these matters which did not include the United States and did not include the developing countries and I, as Prime Minister of Australia, will never be part of an arrangement that doesn't - that you know is that detrimental to our national interest. Consistent with all of that there is plenty we can do to help the Pacific island states and I think that is understood and appreciated. I think we've two more Catherine and then we must go, I think.

QUESTION: Can I ask you: Helen Clark said in an interview with the New Zealand press that she hopes she never came to a CHOGM like this before, like this again. She said that in her view Zimbabwe has clearly breached the principles of the Commonwealth in … can you respond to her comments -

MR HOWARD: Well, I'm not going to respond to her comments without actually having seen them myself. I'm certainly not going to do that. I don't know exactly the context in which that was said. I would just make the general observation that the outcome that has been achieved in relation to Zimbabwe represents the consensus of the meeting. It clearly wasn't majority support for suspension before the election. You have to deal with whatever people's individual views are, I mean I have an individual view as Prime Minister of Australia. Helen Clark has an individual view; Tony Blair has one; the President of South Africa has one; the President of Nigeria has one. We all have individual views.

My Foreign Minister in the councils of CMAG had stated Australia's view as a nation but my role as chairman, I think the role of all of us, was to try and get a consensus. People are entitled to criticise that consensus if it provided no framework for resolving the issue on its merits, if we had come out of the meeting and said we're going to have a report and it's going to go to Australia and Nigeria and South Africa. If they are going to make a recommendation at the next CHOGM meeting you would have been entitled to say that was a cop out. You would be perfectly to entitled to say that. I would have regarded that as a cop out. But that didn't happen, provided a mechanism where a decision would be taken within a very short period of time, that was the optimum that could have come out of the meeting given the attitudes. We could be realistic: you can have an individual views and individual views may not change. They ought not to change if you hold to them sincerely and my individual view hasn't changed but, as a member of the meeting and as a chairman of the meeting, my first responsibility was to try and get a respectable consensus and we got that and I think it would only have been opened to challenge if it clearly failed to provide a proper mechanism and that is not something you can say of this, is that it will provide a mechanism and that mechanism will be put into action very quickly.

This will have to be the last one I have got to go back to Canberra.

QUESTION: Given that one of the objectives of the Commonwealth is to promote non-racism, would you say that the suggestions that the Zimbabwe issue created a racial division in the Commonwealth has the potential to do just that?

MR HOWARD: That suggestion wasn't made by anybody at the meeting. I read it in some headlines but don't blame me for those. That observation was not made by anybody in the meeting and it is not an observation I would make and is - in fact it's an inaccurate assessment of the situation. There was a whole range of views and it would surprise you the different views and the intensity with which they were expressed but I think it is those people who write the things in those do the cause of anti-racism, they don't do the cause of harmony any good. It's not like that really. I think that is a gross distortion and I can say that I didn't find any accusations of racism being flung around in the meeting and, what is more, I thought the meeting was conducted in - it was strong, it was passionate but it was extremely civil. Look, the last thing I want to do is indicate, for the benefit of the Australian media, that I have an announcement about our Youth for the Future Project and it includes the involvement of two young Australians, Lisa Thompson and Mark … who have been involved in voluntary programs in the Highlands of New Guinea and in Kirrabati but out of the courtesy of the international bureau, I thought I would do that separately in another room … and the young people … so thank you very much.

ENDS