GARETH EVANS INTERVIEW - Friday 2nd May, 2008
When Dateline was reporting from Oslo, it caught up with the
former Australian foreign minister Gareth Evans. These days, he's the
CEO of the European-based International Crisis Group, whose board of
political luminaries was meeting in the Norwegian capital. When we sat
down to talk, 'garrulous Gareth', as we affectionately used to call
him, certainly lived up to that description.
GEORGE NEGUS: Can we start by my quoting to you something from Kofi
Annan, the former UN chief. He said, "Where are the Africans," talking
about Zimbabwe - "Where are the leaders in the countries in the region.
What are they doing?" You could say, in fact, where has the world been,
where Zimbabwe's concerned?
GARETH EVANS, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP: Yeah, but
Kofi Annan is spot on on putting the immediate finger on the African
leadership and in particular the southern African leadership and in
particular Thabo Mbeki in South Africa, which has frankly been a very,
very disappointing performance from day one. It's clear that the only
kind of pressure that is ever likely to make any impact on Mugabe is
peer group pressure from those who he counts as his liberation allies
and their voice should have been heard much louder and clearer than it
has been.
GEORGE NEGUS: How did you react when he, in fact, said there
was no crisis in Zimbabwe? I mean, he talks about 'soft diplomacy'. I
mean, it's soft to the point of being marshmallow.
GARETH EVANS: Yeah, this was just grotesque and I think it
generated an immediate reaction not only worldwide but also within
South Africa itself. It's been a very, very disappointing role. For a
long time we kept our voice mute as an organisation, International
Crisis Group, because we believed that that kind of regional diplomacy
was probably the most productive way forward, in fact, probably the
only game in town given Robert Mugabe's indifference to the views of
the Western world and his imperviousness to sort of the impact of
sanctions or any other kind of rational response.
GEORGE NEGUS: You, in fact, expressed some optimism that the
people of Zimbabwe had had a taste of democracy and things would
probably work out, but no sign of that. I mean, you actually also said
you didn't think we could bludgeon Mugabe out of power.
GARETH EVANS: Well, the people of Zimbabwe have been very
intimidated by the security forces, by the environment in which they
have been in. And it is very difficult for us from outside to argue
that we should be fighting to the last drop of someone else's blood.
And I never want us in the West or my
organisation…
GEORGE NEGUS: You have mentioned military forces as a last
resort.
GARETH EVANS: In other contexts, but I mean, and if it came to
really sort of genocidal burst of violence, which is not inconceivable
in Zimbabwe - it's remote but it's not inconceivable - then I think the
rest of the world does have to look very quickly at some kind of
coercive military intervention. But we're not there yet and I think
diplomacy, mediation is still the way forward. Giving Mugabe some kind
of soft landing - as little as he deserves one - is the way through
this. And the opposition has to be listened to, Morgan Tsvangirai and
the others, when they look for a solution in those terms.
GEORGE NEGUS: How would you describe Zimbabwe? We know what a
failed state is these days. It strikes me that Zimbabwe is a ruined
state, almost a non-country. Is it almost the case - such a crisis of
such enormous human proportions have to start all over again?
GARETH EVANS: Well, Zimbabwe is in a very, very ugly position.
It is going to be a long haul back. But I think with very, very
concerted, consistent international support, focus, attention, the
situation can be turned around really pretty rapidly, pretty
dramatically in Zimbabwe. It's always been one of the African good news
stories
GEORGE NEGUS: True, ironically.
GARETH EVANS: and this is one of the biggest tragedies of
Zimbabwe because it just had so much infrastructure, so much sort of
depth in its economy. That is going to be hard to do, to fix, but it
can be done.
GEORGE NEGUS: What would your word be to Thabo Mbeki? If the
finger of blame has to be pointed at anybody would you point it at him?
GARETH EVANS: I don't want to talk in terms of blame but I
wish to God that he would recognise the gravity of the situation, the
degree of influence that he and South Africa have - if they choose to
exercise it - and get on with applying all the pressures, the
peer-group pressures, including the threats of further economic
isolation and so on that would actually make a difference.
GEORGE NEGUS: I'm glad you didn't blame him. Can we move on to
China, because that's another area that's not actually a crisis point
but could become a crisis point. Do you think the turmoil is so great,
maybe the whole thing could unravel and we could find ourselves in an
international crisis situation because of the torch, because of China's
record on human rights, because of the protest against the situation in
Tibet?
GARETH EVANS: No, that is a very considerable overstatement.
That is not going to happen. The Chinese are too committed to making
these Games work. There is too much national commitment to this and I
think too much international willingness for the whole show to go ahead
for it to be disrupted in that kind of way. What they need to
appreciate is that the Dalai Lama is the best thing they are ever
likely to have going for them, in terms of someone that is not arguing
for independence, is only arguing only for cultural autonomy, is
capable of carrying the Tibetan people with him both inside and outside
the country. The trouble is - I mean, for the Chinese as with the
Taiwan issue, this is a really emotional, existential issue in a way
that, I think from outside we don't fully appreciate. People with whom
you're having an otherwise perfectly balanced, ordinary kind of
conversation get very, very excited when this subject comes up.
GEORGE NEGUS: But have we underestimated the extent to which
the Chinese have not learnt much over the last decade or so? We thought
they were becoming more and more sophisticated about Western politics,
about human rights - all sorts of protestations on the Human Rights
front and now we are not seeing it at all, that we can tell.
GARETH EVANS: Well, they are getting much more sophisticated
they are getting more appreciative of the responsibilities that come
with really exercising global power. And I think we saw that, to be
very fair, in the time of the Burma-Myanmar crackdown last year, where
the Chinese played a very significant role behind the scenes in
pressuring the generals not to go on with the kind of full-blooded
massacre which was almost certainly - they were willing to do.
Similarly, I think it is very fair to say that the Chinese behind the
scenes in Darfur have been playing a reasonably constructive role -
much more so than has been acknowledged internationally.
GEORGE NEGUS: In the current situation, with the wisdom of
hindsight, should they really have gotten the Games without rock-solid
guarantees where things like human rights and Tibet are concerned?
GARETH EVANS: No, because this was always going to be a
country in transition so far as human rights and democracy of course is
concerned and Tibet
GEORGE NEGUS: Did we give them the Games too soon?
GARETH EVANS: No, I don't think that is a fair comment. China
is one of the biggest - the biggest country in the world, potentially
one of the most powerful, it has a great and fantastic history, huge
amount of national pride and it was, I think, if anything, overdue to
give them this of recognition. But with that comes responsibility. And
I for one, the Australian Government very effectively, I think, has
been communicating this, and every major leader in the world has been
communicating to them, "For God's sake, try to respond a little more
you know, in a more balanced way to the Dalai Lama and stop using this
language of the cultural revolution which is just so contradictory to
everything we are hoping in terms of the country's advancement."
GEORGE NEGUS: Are you confident that they will change? I mean,
you could say that the immense power that they're developing
economically, that we know they've got militarily, coming with that is
an arrogance that says, "Well, you can bleat all you like in the West,
we're not going to change."
GARETH EVANS: I wouldn't put it in those terms at all. I mean,
when we look at the way other powers in the West, other emerging
powers, have behaved in the past, there is always an element of
chest-beating, there is always an element of national pride perhaps
carried a bridge too far. And we're going to see a bit of that bumping
and grinding in the years ahead, but basically I see, frankly, China as
a very potentially very constructive player indeed on the world scene
and one capable of playing a really very useful role in dealing with a
lot of these other conflicts around the place where they do have some
potentially great influence.
GEORGE NEGUS: You have been watching from afar Kevin Rudd's
performance as Prime Minister. Do you think maybe he could have been a
little tougher with the Chinese in his comments?
GARETH EVANS: From everything I have heard I think he did
remarkably well in communicating to the Chinese that we weren't just
friends in the kowtow sense but friends capable of communicating to the
Chinese very real concern in a spirit of friendship, but nonetheless in
quite a tough-minded spirit in terms of conveying what needed to be
done. I think Kevin has done very well indeed and Australia's
reputation is already standing pretty high internationally in terms of
the stances we have taken and the role we have played. Not only in the
obvious external things like Kyoto and so on but the Sorry day. The
speech - I can't tell you the number of people around the world -
literally dozens of them - who said that was fantastic what you guys
did and that was a very moving speech that your guy made. So this stuff
does have an impact.
GEORGE NEGUS: You have been involved in the ongoing
negotiations and discussions over Iran and nuclear power, etc. So how
did you react when a prospective and aspiring US presidential
candidate, Hillary Clinton, used the word 'obliterate' in referring to
Iran and nuclear weapons?
GARETH EVANS: Well, she said it in the specific context of
Iran actually acquiring and using a nuclear weapon against Israel, and
in that context, that is an entirely reasonable thing to say. And the
rest of the world should not be in the slightest bit hesitant in making
clear to the Iranians that if they step across all those red lines they
have to face horrendous consequences. To be fair, I think the Iranians
fully appreciate that, and that is one of the reasons I, for one, don't
think they're in the bomb making business. I think they are in the
business
GEORGE NEGUS: You are convinced of that?
GARETH EVANS: Yeah, I am, and I don't think that is naive. I
think they understand that not only if they use a bomb but if they
acquire one, given the tensions in the region, given their own past
form, give the anxiety about what they might do, I think they know they
would get zapped very early on. But that's very different from what
they are determined to do, and that is to acquire a fuel making
capability and the perceived capability at some stage, should they want
to, to make a bomb. In other words, they want to play themselves up
into the league of Japans and maybe 12 or 13 countries around the world
with that perceived technological capability and they want to have a
big political win over the West, which has tried to deny them that,
although they are technically entitled to that under the treaty. So I
think that there is where the Iranians are at, I think there is a
doable deal there to recognise that, but to constrain them with a whole
variety of safeguards, guarantees, inspection regimes, which I think
can be negotiated.
GEORGE NEGUS: Good to talk to you.
GARETH EVANS: Thank you.