The following is a transcript of an interview with Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison with “Face the Nation” moderator Margaret Brennan at the Aspen Security Forum at the Aspen Institute
MARGARET BRENNAN: Thank you, Mr Prime Minister. With that, I’ll dive right in. You called COVID-19 an n unmitigated calamity. Today we heard from the World Health Organization that their investigators have begun conversations in Wuhan China, about the origins of COVID-19. Australia was the first country to come out and really press the World Health Organization to open such a probe. Do you know when the world will find out its conclusions, will there be Australian investigators included in any part of this team, and what do you plan to do with the information you receive?
MORRISON: Well, I’m glad it’s happening, and we’re not naive about the demanding situations of such reviews and investigations conducted through such organizations, it will be a challenge. We appreciate the appointment of former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark and the appointment of Ellen (Johnson) Sirleaf to the (inaudible) roles in this panel. Helen Clark is well known to us and our components in the other aspect of the gap in New Zealand, and she will perceive that I will think very deeply about what the expectations of this survey are and how much is at stake for WHO to get the answers. that is necessary, only answers were needed, which was the only motivation for our call to an investigation in such a way that we understood what happened Array so that we can make sure it doesn’t happen again. We live in a global component where these types of viruses can breed in many other places. These can take place in many countries around the world. It is therefore vital that we are informed of the lessons, it is a practical task, and it should not be noticed from a political point of view in any suggestion that I think is very unnecessary. It is a just and practical request from sovereign nations, through a vital multilateral forum, to pinpoint what happened and how we can prevent it from falling again. So that’s our aspiration, that’s our ambition. The question of whether the task, carried out through those who led it lately, can make this aspiration an ambition, is actually a question for them. Now Australia will make in each and every case the tendency to make suggestions. And in reaction to appointments, and we’ll stand firm until the end, however, whether we’re part of the procedure or not, that’s really not our concern, we just need to make sure it’s a success. But I took a look at the appointments, the panel coaches, other people of great reputation and I am sure that we are doing a wonderful task and we are very satisfied that someone is depressed and especially concerned at this important point: Helen has a lot of foreign delight in the multilateral field, as well as with the paintings she has made in the past with the UNArray , so I got really excited for this date.
MARGARET: I need to tell you how you treated the pandemic within your own borders. Australia had a good start fortune with strong action at first, with the status quo of this emergency cabinet for states to make decisions, focusing on a unified message there. Schools in some parts of your country have reopened, we wonder whether or not it will be done in this country. Why do you think your country has had this initial good fortune?
MORRISON: Well firstly we move very quickly. We called it a pandemic weeks before the WHO. We were acting in early January, we moved at the start of February on shutting down and borders, particularly for Mainland China. As the virus came out Wuhan, came out of China, we had a very large flow of people between China and Australia, and the those border changes were critical in preventing first wave in Australia, and particularly our wonderful Chinese-Australian community, here—we have over a million, and a population of 25 million people of Chinese heritage, and as they came back home after the Chinese New Year, the discipline they showed in self isolation in their communities was outstanding. And so, we were able to contain it.
And as he says, we have formed a national cabinet, as I called it, of all our provinces, states and territories, because, according to our constitution, they are the degrees of government that schools open or close, or if companies open or close all this, so it was very vital that we had a coherent national technique for those things. The matrix that provided a sense of national calm was essential.
Now, many of our states and territories are virtually free of COVIDOS. There are cases that happen occasionally, we have strong quarantine agreements for returning Australians. We have and are experiencing a very serious network epidemic in our southern state of Victoria, that is, in Melbourne, which I am sure would be known to everyone, and many have contacts in Melbourne today. We’re entering a new closure in Melbourne that will last the next six weeks, which means schools will be closed, as will all those facilities.
The other detail of our reaction was the economic reaction. Our physical reaction has been very strong: we don’t have to worry about overcrowded emergency centers or anything like that. We’ve strengthened our broad attention span, our ability to breathe in the first wave, very significantly, so we’re in a smart position there. But we have also launched large economies of more than three hundred billion balance sheets and direct tax interventions to the economy, source of revenue bills, stimulus bills for welfare beneficiaries, money for business, child care and the list goes on. and so, I don’t need to be boring about it. But they are proportional and similar to what has been done in Japan, for example, in many other countries.
It is obligatory because I said it from the beginning on the first call of the G20, and Prime Minister Trudeau was kind enough to recognize that we cannot see it as a fitness crisis. Of course, this is the worst pandemic we’ve noticed in a hundred years, but it’s also the worst economic recession, perhaps much worse, that the world has experienced since the Great Depression, and any of them takes place at the same time. And those two things take place at the same time as abundant strategic competition. So it has the overlap of an effect of strategic instability, especially in our global power, which in fact makes those times, unfortunately, interesting.
MARGARET: Well we’re aware of those very same debates here. It’s been strategically some different decisions made, and I am curious as to, you know, as a conservative, how you made those decisions to do things like expansion of unemployment benefits and childcare aid, in particular. I mean, it’s painful to have to spend like that, but you’re saying in the midst of the crisis, you can’t cut back on spending. Fundamentally, that’s your conviction?
MORRISON: Well conservatives are practical. I am a conservative and I’m practical. You use the tools you have to deal with the problem that you’ve got. You do it cautiously, you do it carefully. But you are very understanding of the circumstances you face. These are not things we would normally do in a normal manner of things. But these are not normal times. You know, people like Teddy Roosevelt many years ago I think had a very similar approach to the world which he faced, and he was put I suppose you could describe him as a progressive Conservative. But that said, ideology just doesn’t matter in times like this, and that’s certainly our approach. Australians want their government’s to help them through the worst circumstances they’ve seen in their a lifetime. And what we’ve also done, particularly to your point, is that we’ve time-limited all of this. These are not things that go off into the nether, so what we’ve done is for a time-limited support to get Australia pushing through because of the failures we’re seeing in the private economy. And the private economy is experiencing that not because of any weaknesses or failures on their part, and I think this is important to understand this point: the world has gone into a recession not because of some failure of the economic system. Capitalism hasn’t failed. That’s not what’s happened here. There’s a global pandemic that has necessitated the introduction of artificial restrictions on the private economy, and as a result when government does that, well, it also has to turn up to make up the difference to ensure that people can stay in their jobs and take their businesses. And a lot of our inventions has been about maintaining the viability of businesses, because we know what I want on the other side of this is businesses to be viable and to be able to move again to employ people, to invest. And at the same time, Australia is pursuing a series of longer-term economic reforms on the supply side, on skills training, we’ll be doing more on our industrial nation’s infrastructure, energy, gas, all of these things are very important to our future.
MARGARET: I need to move to China, but before I do, I’d like to temporarily locate where we are with vaccine diplomacy. If we’re lucky enough to get a vaccine on time, you know, if America. Or the UK gets its first vaccine, if China gets there first, will Australia have to? Do you know who will be the first online?
MORRISON: Well, no one knows who will come first, but through projects like GAVI and COVAX and others, we are very concerned about making Australia: we have the ability to produce the maximum of those vaccines ourselves. Not all other strains, because there are elements of vaccine studies that are unique to a production capacity only in the U.S., or in places like that. Having said that, in all the discussions I’ve had with other leaders, I think there’s a very strong view that whoever finds it deserves a percentage.
MARGARET: Give him back a patent, is that what it means? Or how would you focus it?
MORRISON: It deserves to be held as broadly and freely as possible, so that the world can cope with that. That’s actually our opinion, and we think that. I believe that the concept of a counterattack accumulating or seeking to limit the vaccine, in those circumstances, would, in our view, be unimaginable. And that’s important. I mean all countries: we are making an investment of more than $300 million in those initiatives, and we are doing it through other multilateral agencies, as well as here in Australia, and we are operating cooperatively. And with like-minded countries, I wouldn’t see any impediment to what I suggest. And we have had some notable discussions, whether it’s France or the United Kingdom or the Us or others, that we hope any answer you find is because this is because the global network is so open and transparent. I mean, Australia was the first counterattack to reflect COVID’s genetic code, and we shared it with the world. We didn’t register to sell it, we didn’t do it to capitalize on it or take credit for it. We share it so we have led by example.
MARGARET: And you had this verbal exchange with President Trump, have you been sure that’s the U.S. too?
MORRISON: We’ve had this discussion with all the leaders, and I’ve said it publicly many times: I think the world would look very weakly at any country that has discovered a vaccine that doesn’t save it a global reaction of compassion. , and outside the global interest.
MARGARET: When was the last time you spoke with Xi Jinping?
MORRISON: It was at the G20 last year.
MARGARITA: Last year. You noticed in your comments right there, and I noticed only in preparing this verbal exchange how much Australia has invested in trying to restore its military to counter China’s influence in this region. What motivates this? Do you think Australia wants to be able to assert itself more independently of the United States, which remains a key ally? Why do you think you’re doing this now?
MORRISON: Well, it’s not just now. Since we reached the government in 2013, we have increased our defense spending back to 2% of GDP, that’s one of our main commitments when we got to government and it took us a while to get there, and now we’re there. Year. And as I say, it’s a flat now, not a target. So we’ve been preparing that capskill for some time. We have one of the closest capskill investment plans, and finally, the largest since World War II, and we have followed it, whether it’s our submarine fleet, our skill as joint fighters or many other investments, our lands. based on our carriers, etc. So, it’s a very big investment.
The strategic upgrade of our defense plan strengthens the ability to keep our potential parties at war further. And I think it’s a recognition of the broader threats we’ll face in the future, and even in an era of shorter time, perhaps than we had imagined. These are all precautions, they are all preventive measures. These are all steps taken with like-minded partners. I mean, we’ve been raising the issue of our Quad: relations with Japan and India, USA. And Australia, for some time. We paint a lot with ASEAN and other Indo-Pacific countries. It’s about achieving the strategic counterweight, I think, within the region. What we need is peace and skill in the region. What we need is for industry with China and all countries in our region to continue to grow and develop, and to do so in a strong, non-violent environment. That’s what we need. And I hope that all the countries in our region will like this, that their own economic progression will not give them the opportunity to water the strategic balance of the region.
MARGARET: Well, Kevin Rudd, a former Australian prime minister, published an article this week about and predicting, he says, for the first time, a real armed confrontation between the United States and China is now imaginable for the first time since the end. of the Korean War. We face the prospect of what he called not a new Cold War, but also a hot war. Is it hyperbolic or do you see what’s going on in your garden as what it exposes?
MORRISION: Well, our defense update puts it another way, and actually not as dramatically as Kevin. But in our own defense update, we identified that what was in the past unlikely and that was not even considered imaginable or likely in terms of such effects is no longer considered as in those contexts. So there was a change, there was an obvious change, and I don’t think it’s extraordinarily remarkable. And so, I think, you know, alignment, the activities of countries that have similar perspectives, and infrequently not even the same. I mean, I discussed in my comments the ordinary quotes we had with Vietnam. Now maybe not, I couldn’t have two more systems from Australia and Vietnam. That said, we have a total percentage of perspectives on things like the South China Sea, industry relations in our region and many other vital issues, and I look forward to joining Prime Minister Phuc. It was a very warm scale and a genuine spotlight of our relationship with Vietnam.
So it’s not just those with whom you’d say you have like-minded political outlooks in terms of how we structure our societies. It’s also where we share outlooks about the future of our region. And in the Indo-Pacific one thing I know for sure, regardless of what someone’s political system is, they all want to be quite rightly independent, sovereign nations, free of any coercion or interference and with the opportunity to develop and enhance their economies and their societies for the benefit of their people. And the United States’ presence in the region has always been a very positive force us to achieve that. I would like to see, as China has grown as an economy, which we welcome very much, and I suppose that’s a bit of a different point of view from some of those views expressed the United States. We welcome China’s growth. It’s been great for Australia, it’s been great for our region. We just don’t want to see that growth translate into any broader instability in the region, because we believe that will undermine prosperity in the region.
MARGARETA: What do you mean, “instability”? What do you do when you use that phrase?
MORRISON: Well, it’s very important I think to look at this at two levels. There’s strategic competition between the United States and China. And the great difficulty I think the rest of the nations face in the region is that every action taken by one of us is only seen through the lens of that strategic competition between those two very large states. And the truth is, we’re all, we’re all countries with our own agency. We’re all our countries with our own interests and our own participation. And we’re not shy, particularly when we get around the East Asia Summit table, or the ASEAN plus dialogues that take place, that it’s an important opportunity, I think, for the United States and China to hear the views of the many other countries that live in this region. And China and the US both have a very strong role to play, which I think the United States has done benevolently now for a very long time. And I know that presence of the United States is very welcome , because it provides that stability. We just simply want to see that these issues are managed in such a way, and ambitions are managed in such a way so it’s not to undermine regional stability. And that’s our national interests, it’s the interests of so many countries in our region, and that’s why I think we have such an excellent relationship with so many countries in our region.
MARGARET: I take your point, particularly the Americans always think it’s about us.
MORRISON: (Laughs) No! No!
MARGARET: (Laughs) But, if you will indulge me: we’re self-aware on that point. But, we are right now in a very heated political climate and race in the United States, and I’m not going to ask you to talk about US politics. But I do want to frame it because right now both candidates are trying to argue that they will be tougher on China than the other one. Joe Biden is saying that, he’s called Xi Jinping a ;thug’, and Donald Trump is campaigning and certainly has upped his rhetoric, along with his administration, in terms of the threat posed by China. So putting the race aside, just look at the few months ahead of you, and how concerned are you that in this environment it’s not going to be possible to dial back tension, and that there is a collision course that you were in the middle of?
MORRISON: Well, first of all, there’s a political overlay you’ve met with a lot of the comments that are happening right now. And I think other countries, especially in our region, are quite capable of understanding this and the context in which many comments are made. That there is an understanding of this size of, if you wish, the warmth of some of those comments. That’s not to say that there isn’t a very genuine and original intention and meaning of those statements, but, you know, language is made up of the most sensible deep down. And I have no doubt that, whether here in Australia, or in Indonesia, China, Japan or elsewhere, we have this policy and we have the context in which the comments are made …
MARGARETA: But directionally, it describes a tension in development. Strategically, the technique would possibly be different.
MORRISON: What I mean about the United States and Australia is that we have another opinion on the subject, because our economic relationship with China is another. I mean, as the president has pointed out many times, I mean, the United States has a deficit with China. We have a surplus, and that adjusts the nature of the dating, in fact, its economic aspect. Now, that doesn’t mean we’re being held hostage to this financial date. The explanation for why we have such a smart industry that it dates with China, despite all the communication about what is perceived as tensions, is that our point of industry with China has never been stronger. For what? Because we do and sell the things they need, and they do and sell the things we need, and it’s a mutually economic relationship. And it goes above and beyond in a strategic marriage, but there’s an explanation for why, a mutual benefit, it’s a mutual relationship for Australia and China, and we need it to be preserved. But it cannot be preserved in an unbalanced way, it is preserved through each spouse respecting the interests and perspectives of each one, and I believe that it can be achieved.
The U.S. has another opinion on this issue, because of the nature of dating China and the nature of industry citations, and many problems arise around high-value assets and joint ventures, we also deal with that. Scale is simply another, due to the nature of what constitutes our dating, mainly resources and products in dollars and volume units. So, you know, assuming that Australia in the United States has the same vision of China would be wrong, because the cases are absolutely different, the geography is absolutely different. And while we are strongly incorporated and aligned with our global macroeconomic vision, the way we pursue, explain, and do it will be just Australian, as it deserves, we are an independent and sovereign nation. And I think one of the spaces that arises in the investigation of Australia’s position, and one of the criticisms that are made to Australia, is that one way or another, it is inextricably connected with the exact rhetoric of what is being done in the United States. That’s simply not true, and looking at it that way would be to misinterpret Australia and miss the opportunity to paint with Australia in a more constructive way.
MARGARET: What did you mean when you said recently in a speech: “We need to prepare for a post-COVID world that is poor, that is more dangerous, and that is more disorderly”. And you talked about “the region, facing an existential threat unseen since the 1930s and 1940s”?
MORRISON: I meant exactly what I said—
MARGARET: —What is that ‘threat’?
MORRISON: Well, what we’re seeing is three highly destabilizing elements in the world today and, from Australia’s point of view, they coalesce all here in the region in which we live. We have the biggest economic recession if not depression since the Great Depression. We have the largest health crisis, the world has seen in 100 years. We have a strategic instability in the Indo-Pacific, principally that goes back to the strategic competition between the United States and China that has been expressed through the region. There are obviously strong ambitions that follow the economic rise of China that is putting a lot of pressure on the system. Now, while the precise circumstances aren’t the same in what we saw in the 1930s, the combination of forces are very similar. Now, I am more optimistic, way more optimistic that the outcome of the 1930s doesn’t need to be the same today. And that’s why in the remarks I’ve made today is about ensuring that doesn’t occur by the like-minded alignment, by the by the actions of independent, sovereign states working together to avoid those outcomes, and to create the necessary balances that are needed to take the system working, to tend the garden as I’ve been saying. I mean, multilateral fora we support, Australia has been part of their inception. Australia has supported the continued funding of the WHO. Why? Because I know the work it does in our region, in Papua New Guinea and Indonesia and places like that. Sure we’ve got our criticisms about what happens further up the tree. But on the ground iIt makes a big difference, and we want to support that. We acknowledge its imperfections, and we think they should be fixed, and we’ll call it out as we see it. But we remain constructively engaged that multilateral fora can’t get ahead of themselves and think they can run around as institutions and bureaucracies telling the world how they should run their own countries. Sovereign states are still sovereign, and there needs to be, I think, a greater appreciation of that, and I think that’s what’s been behind some of the frustration with global institutions. That they feel they have a mandate that extends beyond what is given to them by sovereign states, and certainly as, you know, from my perspective on these things that have been a view I’ve consistently put for for many, many years.
MARGARET: I have few more questions, but I just want to remind those listening and watching that they should get their questions ready for the Prime Minister shortly, and get in that queue. You know, the rest of the world watches, particularly what Australia decides to do on the technology front with an eye towards China. Last month you said your government was looking very closely at TicTok, the social media company, and that you directed your intelligence agencies to look at it. Just this past week we had Microsoft announced that it was looking to buy not just the US company but the Australian entity, as well. Is that an acceptable solution to the risk that you saw posed by Tick tock?
MORRISON: Well we have had a look, a good look at this, and there’s no evidence for us to suggest having done that, that there is any misuse of any people’s data that had occurred, at least from an Australian perspective, in relation to these applications. You know there’s plenty of things that are on TickTok which are embarrassing enough in public, so, but it’s that sort of a social media device. That said, I think our responses that Australians have to be very aware, and it’s not just with TickTok and things like that. The same is true with you know Facebook and all these other social media platforms, enormous amounts of information have been provided that goes back into systems. Now, it is true that with applications like TickTok that data, that information can be accessed at a sovereign-state level. That is not the case in relation to the applications that are coming into the United States, but I think people should understand, and there’s a sort of a ‘buyer beware’ process, there’s nothing at this point that would suggest to us that security interests have been compromised, or Australian citizens have been compromised, because of what’s happening with those applications. But people should know that the line connects right back to China, and they should exercise their own judgment about whether they should participate in those things or not. There is a greater level of transparency, I would argue, about how applications like WhatsApp and things like that, you know, if you get one of those that the data is used and handled and managed, that’s pretty upfront relatively speaking compared to tiktok and things like that. So, I think, letting the sunshine in on all of these things is the best way to handle them, and for consumers to be aware of what they’re using.
MARGARETA, then, to be clear, have your intelligence agencies concluded that there is no security threat?
MORRISON: There is no explanation for why limit these programs at this time. Of course, we’ll continue to monitor them. And there is no evidence to recommend that this is a mandatory step. But I want it to be very transparent to all Australians who pay attention to this, and to those who report it, that other people want to perceive where the extension is.
MARGARET: Well, Australia was the first of five Eyes members to ban Huawei and ZTE, and the rest of the Western allies largely considered that resolution. How do you reconcile that, the resolve to deal with all the economic realities you’ve established in terms of having smart relationships with China on this front, with your considerations about the potential threat and possible espionage?
MORRISON: Well, 5G is another 4G. I mean, the Internet of Things opens up a wide variety of programs and uses for this generation far beyond what has happened before. That is why I believe that the integrity and security of Australia’s sovereign systems must be protected above all else. So it was a resolution that wasn’t necessarily for a single provider that only guaranteed that as Australia builds its 5G network, what happens as we speak, can be done at the point of sovereignty, and that’s what happens by employing the generation we believe can help the goals more. So that’s what we did, we did it in our national interest. Like I said, we didn’t say that others deserve to do that, others made the same resolution. We take the resolution in Australia’s interest and are taking action on this. But let me point this out, and because the point comes down to foreign investment: Australia has the highest liberal foreign investment regulations of all the Countries of the Indo-Pacific. I mean, the US is our main investment partner, and countries like the UK as well. I mean, China, although it has noticed the faster expansion of foreign investment in Australia, is nowhere near the point of foreign investment that has been in a direct sense from the United States to the United Kingdom. But you can invest in Australia in things that Australians can’t invest in many countries in our region, adding China. Now, those are not direct reciprocity agreements that we have in effect, we outline our foreign investment regulations, our technology regulations, our foreign interference regulations, our industry regulations; we outline all this in Australia’s interest, and that’s what determines our judgment and nothing else. But I would say that we have the maximum set of industry-friendly policies and investment from all the Countries of the Indo-Pacific.
MARGARET: Have you done a review of Chinese diplomats, or do you think it was done, given the resolution in that country to close the Houston consulate that the Trump administration made just a few weeks ago? Briefings noted that the consul general of this station had been stationed in Australia in the past and referred to Houston as a spy center. How do we perceive this and have you shared something?
MORRISON: Well, you wouldn’t expect any of the details to go through, I realize why you’re asking, but Australia doesn’t have support for the way we deal with our security business in a public forum. , and never does. Clearly, we have the intelligence relationships we have in the well-known Five Eyes associations. But I can assure you that Australia is very, very conscientious in protecting Australia from foreign interference and so that our citizens can live freely and without coertion. We are a giant multicultural society in Australia. I’d say we’re the richest, dirtiest immigration country in the world, and that’s clearly the case. This means that we bring other people from all over the world from many other languages and cultures, and it works here in Australia. We are a very dirty and rich multicultural society, and we need to protect all our students. So-
MARGARET: Right, but this was specifically about people who were credited as diplomats—
MORRISON: I understand that, but I’m not going to be drawn on on how we undertake our security operations in Australia and how we work with partners. I don’t—as I say, I’m sure you’d want to know, and it’s a reasonable question to ask, but it’s also appropriate for me to not give a detailed response.
MARGARET: Well we do you have questions from our viewers who will be unmuted in the queue as they are called on. The first I see here is from Sidhartha Sarma.
VIEWER Q: Good morning I have two questions, regarding two points you have mentioned about the threat of disinformation to free societies. So in recent times we have observed that strategy corruption has been used by certain states and (inaudible) in emerging countries. As a member of the Five Eyes Alliance, and as a stabilizing force in the Indo-Pacific, how will Australia act in preventing strategy corruption and resolving free societies as developing low and middle income countries? And how does Australia plan to engage with India going forward—apart from its (inaudible) in the Commonwealth, do we see containment, constraint and confronting in respect to China?
MORRISON: Thanks for those questions. There’s a lot in all of that. Let me start by saying that our relationship with India has gone, Sidhartha, to a whole new level. And that is principally been, I must put down to the great friendship we’ve had with Narendra Modi, who has been an extraordinary participant on the global stage, and a great partner in the sort of things that I’ve been talking about today, and the alignment, the appreciation, the understanding of the world in which we live, and what like-minded countries need to do to ensure stability and peace and prosperity in the future. That’s why we’ve upped the relationship with India at a strategic level, and we want to see the economic dimension of that relationship grow, the fence relationship, the intelligence relationship, all of this is on an upward curve. And it’s done in a shared appreciation of the very strategic issues that I’ve outlined today. And the Quad in particular is an important part of that relationship and that is elevating, but it is doing it at its own pace and respectful of the pace of all partners how they want to pursue it, particularly India, and so that’s all been a very positive thing. So, that is the principal means by which we would be working together to create this balance in the region, and I say India is absolutely central to that process. India’s own development and growth is something we are invested in, supportive evolve and we want to it see flourish. But there are many challenges in the Indian economy, Narendra knows that better than anyone. And his pro-growth policies, his pro-investment policies have been very aggressive and right, and going back to his time as a governor in Gujarat, I mean, they’re the sorts of things that we welcome and would like to see continue. So all I can really say is India is a huge part, a massive part of this strategic balance that’s necessary to ensure not only India’s success and growth in the future, but all of our success. And I’d say, China’s as well. Getting the right balance is good for China. I think this is an important point, Margaret: a strategic balance in the region is good for China, it’s good for people living in China, it’s good for their jobs, it’s good for their investment, it’s good for their education. It’s good for their outlook. We want that, and we believe that is achieved through a balance in the region, which enables everybody to share and grow.
MARGARET: The following is by Edward Luce …
VIEWER Q: Thank you. Margaret, and thank you Prime Minister for sharing your thoughts today. I’m with the Financial Times. I wanted to ask you just to deepen a little bit your comments you just made about China—it being in China’s interest to have balance in the region. Do you share the pretty much consensus view in Washington nowadays that we are in a new cold war with China, and if so, how would you like the next American administration, whether it’s a Trump administration or a Biden administration, to handle this cold war?
MORRISON: I don’t know if I’d use that term, and the mention was made of Kevin Rudd earlier and he’s made some comments on this and made, I thought, some very good observations about the differences between what we knew of the previous Cold War and today. I think it was Kevin who did that. I wouldn’t use the same terminology today, I think the circumstances are quite different.
But, to get back to its point on the United States, and again, it’s not an observation about the political scenario in the United States in any way, that would be completely inappropriate. But, I would say this: our dates and our alliance with the United States are frankly independent of anyone sitting in my chair or sitting in the president’s chair. We made that point when we were in combination last year. It is up to all the leaders on both sides of the dating to make sure it remains as strong as you can imagine and that it has always been so. I think it’s, you know, that we recently held a century of confrontation between the United States and Australia. And the U.S. It is aimed at our region, and your understanding of the precedence of this concentration is very vital to us. And I think that’s vital for every country in the United States. So, I think the key factor is the defensive position, which the United States can occupy in the world, and it is a deployment and its interest in diversity is obviously a very vital factor, if it contributes to the stability that is here. in our region Then, you know, without commenting on the explicit perspectives of Republicans or Democrats in the run-up to this election, this commitment to that date, this commitment to the long-term ability that the United States wants to help global stability, is very vital. And, of course, we’d like to see that mark reached.
MARGARET: We have time to ask Nick Burns for a new consultation, who will also jump in a moment to conclude, but I need to use that and ask him, Prime Minister, when I give it to Nick, why hasn’t he spoken? to Xi Jinping since last year?
MORRISON: There was no opportunity to do so, however, the welcome and invitation to such a discussion are there from our point of view. I spoke to Prime Minister Li Keqiang, we had our last discussion with the leaders as a component of the comprehensive strategic partnership that was held late last year in Bangkok in parallel with the East Asia Summit, and we appreciate it. And I’ve had those conversations with him every year. Therefore, there has been a continuation of comprehensive discussions on the leadership of strategic partnerships during this period. Then it’s important. But, look, I’m not clinging to those things to be honest, Margaret, the phone’s here, it’s working. And I mean, we’ve made a lot of commitments to countries, we have commitments through our embassies. I’m less involved with that kind of thing. The point is that the dating industry, economic appointments can continue, it happens, that it has its frustrations from time to time. But I just want to say that global stability, especially regional stability in the Pacific, is in everyone’s interest, that is Australia’s goal. The way we explain this will differ from time to time in the way the United States does, but I think that is also the absolute goal of the United States. The disruptions of the strategic festival between the United States and China are other of our dating with China, and that would explain to the maximum the differences you might see. But we greatly appreciate America’s participation in the region for this purpose.
MARGARETA: Nick.
Wba. NICK BURNS: Prime Minister, thank you very much for the interview. Margaret, thank you for being such a wonderful moderator. Prime Minister, there is a lot of confidence here in Australia, I think in any of our political parties, as we face a genuine risk from China. I think that’s how other people get it here. And we’re positive about the alliance with you and your government, as well as the Quad, with the Indians and the Japanese, and I was wondering if I had any final idea about how we deal with this wonderful force momentum. As we look at the Indian border, the Uighurs, Hong Kong, the South China Sea, through the Chinese army.
MORRISON: (mute)
MARGARETA: This line can be cut for now. Mr Prime Minster, can you reactivate your line?
MORRISON: Sorry. Thank you, Nick. What I was saying is, that is the question about all of these things that I was saying. That I’m an optimist, Australians are indefatigable optimists about these things. It’s our worldview, it’s how we are always able to push through, whether it’s COVID, floods fires, depressions. That’s just how we roll. And I think we have to take an optimistic attitude, but not an unrealistic, naive attitude. We are not naive about these tensions, these pressures, these issues. But we’ve got to set out, I think, and wed ourselves to the objective here. And that is not the suppression or the containment of any one state. It’s about the productive and strategic balance that can be achieved. And that’s why we’re in the Quad. That’s why we’re engaged in ASEAN, That’s why I went to Vietnam. That’s why we’re doing all of these things. There is an objective here which we genuinely believe benefits all interests here. But it does mean, and I made this comment at (inaudible), that there is a recognition that the balance has shifted based on the just the practical issue of China’s economic growth, which by the way we all champion, and we all encouraged, and I don’t regret, not for a second. I think it’s great. But I think there were different perspectives on what that would lead to, both from the rest of the world and from China themselves. And so, I think it’s time to sort of take stock of that and say, well, how can that all be accommodated appropriately and ensure that we have a strategic balance that does not impinge on the independence and sovereignty of nations in this part of the world. And that’s why things like the South China Sea, trading relationships, foreign interference, what’s happening terribly in Hong Kong, all of this is very important, because it goes to how this new strategic balance will play out. And our very strong view is it’s in everybody’s interest. It’s everybody’s interest that that strategic balance is achieved—not to have one one group up against another, or vice versa, but to ensure that the citizens of all of our countries can have a more peaceful future.
BURNS: Prime Minister, thank you for being with us. Everything for you and your government, the other Aussies at a difficult time.
MORRISON: Thank you very much. Thank you and luck to our friends in the United States. Thank you Margaret