Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister report on his recent visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories? What is the government’s approach to the Middle East peace process?

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Fremantle for her question and for her support of the Middle East peace process. Since the House last met, on 28 October I visited Israel and the Palestinian territories. The objective of the visit to Israel was, firstly, to relay to the Israeli government congratulations on behalf of Australia on the 60th anniversary of the independence of Israel, of the creation of the Israeli state. The second purpose was to underline Australia’s very strong support of a two-nation-state solution to the Middle East—a nation-state for Israel within defined and secure boundaries and borders and a nation-state for the Palestinian people.

In Jerusalem I had the opportunity of meeting with Prime Minister Olmert, Foreign Minister Livni and Opposition Leader Netanyahu and I had the privilege of laying a wreath at the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum. In the Palestinian territories I met with Palestinian Authority Foreign Minister al-Maliki, visited the Kalandia refugee camp in the Palestinian territories and also announced the final allocation of the $45 million announced by Australia at the Paris Donors Conference to support the Palestinian territories and humanitarian assistance in the Palestinian territories. Of the final $10 million allocation, $7.5 million will be ascribed to the Palestinian Authority for capacity and institution building and $2.5 million for further humanitarian assistance.

Whilst much of my time in the Palestinian territories and Israel was spent discussing the Middle East peace process, I think it is true to say that the issue uppermost in the minds of the Israeli leadership is Iranian nuclear activity. In this respect, Australia’s recent adoption of autonomous sanctions so far as Iran and its nuclear program is concerned was very warmly welcomed by the Israeli government and the Israeli leadership.

So far as the Middle East peace process is concerned, I underlined very strongly to both the Israeli leadership and the Palestinian Authority Australia’s very strong support for a two-nation-state solution, the Annapolis process, the 2002 road map for peace process and the 2007 Annapolis initiative commenced under the Bush administration in November 2007.

In that context, I warmly welcome the statement overnight by the so-called Middle East quartet, comprising the United Nations, the European Union, the Russian Federation and the United States. The quartet have reported that President Abbas and Foreign Minister Livni reaffirmed their commitment to ‘vigorous, ongoing and continuous negotiations in order to conclude a peace treaty resolving all outstanding issues, including all core issues without exception’.

As the quartet emphasised on the weekend, both sides must abide by their road map obligations to create an atmosphere conducive to negotiations. Over the weekend the quartet also reiterated that both parties must:

… fully implement their obligations under phase one of the Roadmap, including in relation to freezing settlement activity and the dismantlement of the infrastructure of terrorism.

The Australian government very strongly shares this sentiment, as we share the sentiment expressed by Secretary of State Rice on more than one occasion in the course of this year that, ‘at a time when we need to build confidence between the parties, the continued building and settlement activity has the potential to harm the negotiations going forward’.

Both parties need to abide by their obligations under the 2002 road map for peace and not do anything which disturbs or jeopardises the Annapolis peace process: peace and security, non-use of force and terrorist activities insofar as the Palestinian territories are concerned and settlement activity insofar as the Israeli side is concerned.

I take this opportunity to update the House on resolutions dealt with before the United Nations General Assembly fourth committee on Friday night and Saturday morning. The General Assembly fourth committee dealt with nine resolutions relating to the Middle East. In respect of these nine resolutions, the Australian government instructed our representative to the United Nations to change Australia’s vote from the previous voting habits of the last few years on two occasions. It is important to make the point to the House that, when it comes to General Assembly resolutions, the government adopts the following approach. Firstly, we treat these resolutions on a case-by-case basis and consider them on their merits. Secondly, we consider these resolutions firmly within the context of our very strong adherence to our support for a two-nation-state solution and our support of the peace process. If the resolutions are consistent with that approach then we support them.

In 2003 the General Assembly made a reference to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on the legality of the construction of the Israeli security barrier. Since that time, the Australian voting practice changed on a number of significant resolutions, including, for example, the resolution on settlements. The Australian government has come to the view that, whilst the reference by the General Assembly to the International Court of Justice was not supported by the Australian government or by the opposition at the time, and whilst we regard—as the previous government did—that advisory opinion as an advisory opinion and not a binding opinion, we will not oppose a resolution in the General Assembly on the Middle East simply because it refers to that advisory opinion. That is the case as far as the resolution on settlements is concerned where, on behalf of the government, I instructed our permanent representative to the United Nations to change Australia’s vote to support the resolution as far as settlements were concerned because this was consistent with our approach for a two-nation-state solution, our support for the road map for peace and the Annapolis process.

In doing so on that and on the second resolution on which I instructed a change in the Australian voting position, regarding the Geneva convention, Australia joined another 160 nation-states in support of those two resolutions as compared with two-nation-states who abstained and six who opposed. In that context, we joined the overwhelming majority of the international community. It is not necessarily about the quantity; we also need to look at where some of our longstanding, like minded colleagues are. In support of the settlements resolution we find the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand and the European Union. It is not so much the number of nation-states; it is whether these resolutions sit squarely within the Australian government’s policy. Australia’s longstanding policy on a two-nation-state solution for the Middle East and support for the road map for peace and the Annapolis process was in every respect consistent with the nine resolutions voted on by the General Assembly on Friday night and Saturday morning.

This is not just a government view; this is a longstanding Australian position shared by both sides of the House. This government will do nothing to jeopardise our longstanding public policy and foreign policy commitment to a two-nation-state solution for the Middle East and our very strong support of the road map for peace and the Annapolis peace process.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer to the answer just given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I ask the Prime Minister: why has the Australian government switched its vote in the United Nations to support these two resolutions of which the foreign minister spoke, which are not simply highly critical of our friends in Israel but which accuse the state of Israel of acting in breach of international humanitarian law? Does the Prime Minister consider this change of policy, with Australia making that grave allegation of misconduct against Israel, conducive to achieving peace in the Middle East?

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Prior to 2003, resolutions of a similar type to the two matters referred to were supported by the then Liberal government. That is the first point. The second is, as explained just now by the Minister for Foreign Affairs at the dispatch box, what occurred subsequent to that was the request for the advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the question of the security wall. The other point I would draw the honourable member’s attention to is that, if we are serious about a long-term Middle East peace process based on a two-state solution, part of that—a huge part of it—lies in dealing with the threat of terrorism to the state of Israel. That remains the position of this government, as it was the position of the previous government. Part of that also lies in what you do about the challenge of the settlements.

I draw to the honourable gentleman’s attention the statement overnight by the quartet comprising the government of the United States, the Russian Federation, the European Union and the United Nations which explicitly reiterates that both parties—Israel and Palestine—must ‘fully implement their obligations under phase 1 of the road map, including in relation to freezing settlement activity and the dismantlement of the infrastructure of terrorism’.

As the honourable gentleman would know, this is a very complex matter. The whole Middle East peace process is littered with failed negotiations up until now. But if there is a prospect of delivering peace in the Middle East, part of that hinges on the question of how we deal with settlements in future. A huge part of it hinges on how we provide Israel with an appropriate state of security, given the threat of continued terrorism which Israel has suffered under for many decades now.

There is a lot of sensitivity attached to these matters. We on this side of the House are as acutely conscious of this as those on the other side. But, as stated by the foreign minister, it is with the absolute best intentions that we will work constructively towards a two-state solution, mindful of all of these realities. The future of settlements is part and parcel of the road map to peace which was drafted by President Bush several years ago. That has been reiterated by the quartet in the last 24 hours. That informs the position taken by the foreign minister and the instructions that he has provided to former Senator Hill, our representative in New York.