Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, , 4:03:32 to 4:17:19
Debate over the rules-based international order, Trump's peace plan, and Greenland's sovereignty.
Topics: International law, National security
Speakers: David Shoebridge, Hon Penny Wong, Jamie Isbister, Unknown Speaker, Raff Ciccone
>> Uh thanks, Chair. Uh, and Minister, I had a series of questions about northeast Syria, but we received some correspondence from you dated today. And you may have you may have um and I just for the record wanted to thank you for the response and particularly the the commitment that's been made to raise substantial issues about human rights and minority rights, the Kurdish rights directly with Syria's transitional government and in multilateral forums. I I think it's um I know the Kurdish community, the Yazidi community in Australia um appreciates Australia making those representations directly. So um um and um and and I hope it's a matter of ongoing um ongoing attention for yourself. But um as I said, I just for the record want to thank you for the correspondence. I'm now going to ask you some questions about um, Donald Trump's board of peace.
>> I've gone to Syria.
>> Yes. >> Was a deliberate misdirect. Minister, Donald Trump's port of peace is seen by particularly many international lawyers um and many informed observers. was as an effort to sidestep the UN. It has been publicly and roundly rejected by the UK, by France, by New Zealand, by Germany, many other members of the UN who we share values with. Why hasn't Australia rejected the invitation to join Trump's board of peace?
Uh Senator um as you know the initial um background of the border piece was it was part of a resolution in relation to the Gaz and the transitional administration. Um when it was announced um when it the charter came out it was a uh it obviously had a broader um approach. Um, as the foreign minister has said um publicly, it's a um a treaty that potentially has international legal um considerations that we need to look at and the Australian government obviously looking at how we support um broader peace elements, peace issues uh are considering the issue. Um there's other countries that have also made considerations and looking at at the the border piece and the charter at this
Well, Minister, the UK, France, New Zealand, Germany, they've all had a look at this and taken a strong and principled stance and said, "No, your counterpart in the UK, the British foreign secretary, gave us one of the reasons the UK wouldn't join is she'd never be part of a so-called something that's talking about peace when President Vladimir Putin's got an invite to the same organization. Um, UK Labor can clearly say no. The New Zealand government can stand up and say Why? Why the silence from you, Minister, about this bizarre plan from Donald Trump?
>> Uh, well, Senator, I have been asked about this and so has the prime Um so I think silence defined by you means we don't say what you want us to say which is not unexpected because we have a different view about the alliance the relationship of the United States and how to handle um the relationship. Um the point I have made is the f the board of peace is an international treaty. It would have legally binding obligations for Australia. uh uh you know that that requires a range of considerations that are um quite different to those which apply to other international groupings or commitments we've entered into. Uh we will continue to work with the US constructively uh for uh particularly for peace and prosperity and stability in our region. uh we um have very important economic and security uh engagements or relationships particularly in the Quad uh as well as Orcus uh and obviously we remain supporters of both of the UN um uh and active members of the United Nations and also of the G20.
Well, Minister, how long does it take to make a decision to not join something when its charter places Donald Trump personally as the nominates him uh grants him unlimited sole authority to nominate his designated successor provides Donald Trump in his personal capacity exclusive authority to create, modify or dissolve D um parts of the board um gives him sole power over revising the charter and inviting members and then says that he'll retain the chairmanship whether or not he's president of the United States. And he said he wants to remain chairman for life. How long does it take Australia to say actually we don't want any part of that? You can say it nicely if you want. Thank you for the invitation but no. But how long does it take to look at that and say we don't want be within a bull's roar of that?
>> I think I've answered your question, Senator. Uh and I it is important to note M as Mr. Vistister said the um the original I think security council discussion of this uh focused on Gaza and the peace plan. We are strong supporters of the peace plan. uh and we want to work to provide practical support to the board's work to to implement the 20point plan. Um you know and you know we obviously uh want to work through that in relation to the UN. I'd again say to you, the prime minister stood up at the United Nations last year, gave the the um spoke on behalf of the nation and made clear our continued support for the United Nations.
>> Well, Minister, the so-called Board of Peace is part of a a general attempt to unravel the international order from the Trump administration. Do you agree with the Canadian Prime Minister when he said in in his recent address to the World Economic Forum about the fiction of the rules-based international order, he said this, "This fiction was useful. An American hedgemony in particular helped provide public [snorts] goods, open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security, and support for frameworks for resolving disputes." And then he says, "But that bargain no longer works. And let me be direct. We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition." and he placed the blame for that rupture on the Trump administration tearing down that order. Do you agree with the analysis of the Canadian prime minister?
>> I'd make a few points. Uh I think if you read what I have consistently said I think since 2017 and what the prime minister has said is we have been very open about what is occurring uh to the rules-based order and it is not just the United States. It is uh a permanent member of the security council uh using its veto uh to uh avoid accountability for a war, a conflict, an aggression which is a breach of the charter. So let's be clear that is what that is what Russia has done. uh and the UN charter did not contemplate uh the extent to which the veto could be used to justify uh the abrogation of the charter or to avoid avoid um accountability for that. We've also seen it um and we have been upfront about uh China's increased assertiveness in our region uh and uh uh the ways in which um it has uh sought to exercise its interests and assert its interests including uh uh in ter in the context of trade. Uh and we have of course I have been upfront with the Australian people too about uh President Trump envisioning envisioning a different role for the United States in the world. uh and uh why what we have to do about that. And I suppose that one of the differences between um the Australian Labor Party and the the government and the Greens political party uh is we don't see the sum total of the our work as simply uh making uh loud statements of criticism. We see our work as securing Australia's interests in a much more uh uh challenging environment in the way
see minister it's statements like that where you criticize with good cause the abuse of the UN veto by Russia. You criticize similar conduct by China, but you fail ever to call out, the same conduct from the United States, who has used its veto to prevent the criticism of Israel 45 times since 1972. It's it it is when you keep providing a bully with a get out of jail free card, it only emboldens their behavior and and the failure to call out the US and particularly under President Donald Trump emboldens a bully, kidnapping leaders, threatening
I think I and the prime minister have been very clear about Greenland uh so I'd refer you to our previous comments which is very clearly that we believe that the future of Greenland is only a matter is a matter only to be determined by the people of Denmark and the people of Greenland. So um I think articulating a position a clear position uh in the way we have is uh is consistent with Australia's interests. Look, Senator Street Bridge, um you have had your party has had the same position on the United States for decades. Uh this your position is not related to the new administration. You don't support the alliance. I we disagree with you. Uh you don't support the US in terms of its the role in the security of our country or or the Australia's economy. You're entitled to I don't [clears throat] we don't agree with you. Um, unlike you, Senator, we don't believe our job is just to protest. We believe our job is to navigate the nation's interest in a world that is much more difficult and much more complex. And that is what we are seeking
to do. Well, indeed, Minister, but last minute, >> when you when you make statements like we believe that the future for Greenland is a matter for the people of Greenland and the people of Denmark, you know, you can make similar statements about the future of France is about the matter matter for the people of France. The future of Italy is for the matter for people of Italy. But what you failed to say when you [clears throat] make that statement about Greenland is you failed to point out what the threat is. You failed to even mention the threat. And the threat isn't Russia. The threat isn't China. The threat is Donald Trump and a threatened military inter invasion. The threat is punitive tariffs being directed against our friends in Europe. The threat is um our so-called indispensable ally who we're inhinging our military with. So when you you make a generic comment but you don't address the threat, >> it has almost no meaning.
>> Okay, that's your opinion, Senator. I think most people looking at a response to a range of the facts that have been in the public record would recognize that that is Australia asserting the principle of sovereignty.
>> And you just forget that the threat is Donald Trump.
>> Thank you, Senator. Now um Senator Cash.