Kevin Rudd outlines future of ‘robust’ Australia-US relationship: Sky News
BROADCAST TRANSCRIPT
TELEVISION INTERVIEW
SKY NEWS AUSTRALIA
21 NOVEMBER 2023
E&OE
INTERVIEWER: What is your assessment of how the relationship is going between Australia and the US at the moment?
KEVIN RUDD: It's really robust at multiple levels. The defence and security relationship speaks for itself and, to be frank, under governments of whichever political persuasion in times past, it’s prospered. So it remains strong and is getting stronger with the rollout of AUKUS legislation and also a whole range of other and additional forms of security engagement in our region and our part of the world. I think what's new and big is we’re expanding the economic relationship, and I draw attention there to the critical minerals compact signed between the Prime Minister and President Biden recently. And that was taken a step further during the state visit a couple of weeks ago. What does it mean for Australia? It means: us in Australia becoming a much more central supplier of the critical minerals not just only needed by the United States, but also by the Japanese, by the Europeans, who are concerned about their own long-term security of supply because of some of their historical experiences of China. Now, this is a big new area of the relationship and I'm pretty confident it's going to yield real economic benefits for Australia.
INTERVIEWER: When it comes to some of those concerns around China, we're looking at this issue at the moment with these divers. We've had the Chinese deploy a sonar which has injured at least one Australian diver. How do you think Australia's responded to this particular issue, especially in light of the fact that we have had more open communication between Australia and China since Anthony Albanese went to Beijing? Should this be happening now? Should this be happening when we're supposed to be having improving relations between the two countries?
KEVIN RUDD: Well, of course not. I think China's activities through the Chinese naval destroyer have been outrageous. Remember this incident occurred within the Japanese exclusive economic zone. It's not exactly a piece of contested waterway somewhere nearer to the Chinese coast. And secondly, as you rightly point out, this action against HMAS Toowoomba occurs at a time when the Chinese have said that they are seeking to stabilise the relationship with the United States, stabilise the relationship with China, and stabilise their relationships more broadly across the region. So I think it's been right to be direct, robust and frank in the response. The public statement by the acting prime minister Richard Marles didn't miss any points, it didn't pull any punches, and, of course, it's been more robust at the political and diplomatic level as well.
INTERVIEWER: What about Anthony Albanese’s response? He's said that he won't say whether he raised it with President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of APEC, should he just come out and say, look, I brought it up or say that he didn't?
KEVIN RUDD: I think it's just normal diplomatic practice, that when you have what's called in diplomacy, a pull-aside which is, in these leadership meetings where you’ve got 21 heads of government rolling around frankly a large reception room with couches here and couches there, what often happens is you pull a leader literally to one side for a quick chinwag. I presume that's what happened here as well. And the normal practice with pull-asides — the normal practice with non-formal meetings — is that no record is kept nor do people reflect on the substance of those discussions. But the PM would have known full well that there was a direct engagement with the Chinese system, through the normal diplomatic channels.
INTERVIEWER: Do you believe America would be prepared to defend Taiwan militarily if it came to it?
KEVIN RUDD: Well, we take seriously what President Biden has said — and he said it on four occasions — that the United States of America would defend Taiwan. Of course, the key question for all of us is, what are the scenarios for the future? Of course, the preferred scenario is through collective deterrence that, in fact, there is no unilateral military action taken by China against Taiwan because deterrence has been effective; in other words, we've caused the Chinese military to conclude the risks would be too great from taking any such action. And that is what the Australian Government, Japanese government, the United States government, and others are seeking to do. If deterrence fails, the question then is: what scenario unfolds? And I've been around long enough on this particular issue to know there are so many sub-scenarios about blockades, invasions, near-invasions, that it's very difficult to effectively war game. But I take the President at his word when he says that the United States would stand by Taiwan.
INTERVIEWER: What do you think our obligation is, then? Are we automatically part of that defence of Taiwan if it comes to it, because of our alliance with America?
KEVIN RUDD: The posture of Australian Governments since way back when — really since 1951, when we framed the ANZUS Treaty — has not to be engaged in particular hypotheticals over future Taiwan scenarios. And there's a reason for that: it's not just minding your P's and Q's; the reason for it is there are so many scenarios which are possible and frankly different scenarios which can be caused by different parties. What, for example, if in the future, if the Taiwanese were to unilaterally declare independence from the mainland? Under those circumstances, many in the international community would be, under those circumstances, that Taiwan was being a first mover. So there is a reason why successive Australian governments do not hypothetically speculate, which is that we do not know that scenarios. What I can say however is that Foreign Minister Wong and Prime Minister Albanese have been absolutely clear cut that our posture in relation to submarines is all part of our posture of engaging in collective, integrated deterrence to ensure that strategic equilibrium is maintained across the Taiwan Straits and broader East Asia. We think that's good for Australia's interests. We think it's good for US interests. It's good for allied interests.
INTERVIEWER: What do you think happens if we do face the scenario of a Trump presidency coming back? And it's not out of the realm of possibility. He's polling as the leading Republican candidate, Biden's approval ratings are down in the 30s; a lot can happen in a year, but this is a realistic prospect that we could have Trump back. What's your plan if Trump comes back? Because you've been quite critical of him in the past on the record and in media interviews, you've called him rancid, a trauma on democracy. What? How does that relationship work? He forced out the resignation of the UK ambassador in 2019 when private diplomatic cables were leaked criticising Trump. Do you think he would be happy with you as Ambassador if he comes back?
KEVIN RUDD: Well, the first thing to say is that my comments in the past have been those of an independent think tanker. I haven't done them as the Australian Ambassador to the United States. And, frankly, in this country as an independent think-tanker, people expect you to exercise a wide latitude of engagement in the public policy debate. And I certainly did so, as have I think most people who have run think tanks in this country. There's nothing particularly unique about my comments. Mind you, in that period of time, I've also been critical of Democrat administrations, as you'd expect. I've been critical of aspects of the performance of the Obama administration, I've been critical of certain aspects of policy even under the Biden administration prior to taking on this job. So you take that hat off and you put a new hat on. And remember: in the past, in Australian political and diplomatic experience, John Howard, as prime minister — not as a think tanker but as a prime minister — said that if Barack Obama was to become president of the United States, it would be a victory for the terrorist organisation al-Qaeda. I think what I’ve had to say as a think-tanker about President Trump back then, is fairly mild in relation to what John Howard had to say about Barack Obama as prime minister. So I think so I think we just need to take these things in our stride.