澳洲广播电台第十三集：青年论坛(页 1) - 澳洲留学移民 - 澳大利亚广播电台 -
2006-8-7 04:30
城市童话
澳洲广播电台第十三集：青年论坛
堪培拉和华盛顿的学生通过这一双向论坛连线，探讨全球化、跨文化交流、宗教观念、国家安全、恐怖主义及公民自由等问题。
[color=Red]详细内容请看二,三,四楼[/color]
堪培拉和华盛顿的学生通过这一双向论坛连线，探讨全球化、跨文化交流、宗教观念、国家安全、恐怖主义及公民自由等问题。
[color=Red]详细内容请看二,三,四楼[/color]
2006-8-7 04:31
城市童话
中文详细内容
[quote]
[b]苏·斯拉梅：[/b]
嗨，大家好，我是澳洲广播电台的苏·斯拉梅。这里是“今日澳洲”系列节目的最后一辑，与澳大利亚总理相约在“对讲课堂”。
二〇〇三年六、七月份，约翰·霍华德总理参加了一次十分特殊的“提问时间”的活动，因为这次提问和回答并不是在国会中进行的。
学生提问的镜头剪辑：
“总理先生，我问您的第一个问题是……”
“这是否会引发您在道义上的担忧？”
“您是否感到应对此负一些责任呢……”
“您当时感想如何呢？”
“霍华德先生……”
“您为什么选择了……”
“当时您受到哪些道德问题的困扰呢？”
[b]苏·斯拉梅：[/b]
霍华德先生并不是第一位参加澳大利亚广播公司“对讲课堂”节目的政界人士，但此次活动却开辟了由国内外学生组成的座谈小组来探讨国际事务的先河。
澳大利亚总理约翰·霍华德同意回答由澳大利亚和美国中学生组成的座谈小组现场提出的问题，中心围绕“9.11事件后的世界”。
澳大利亚学生座谈小组及观众在位于堪培拉的澳大利亚国家博物馆里进行提问，而美国学生则在位于华盛顿史密森学会的美国国家历史博物馆内，节目通过国际链接系统来进行。
作为正在开展的公民教育计划的一部分，学生论坛节目由澳大利亚博物馆和联邦国会教育办公室联合资助。
节目吸引了众多媒体的目光，人们可以听到频频响起的相机快门声。对他们来说，听十五、六岁的“记者”们采访实在获益匪浅。
美国的座谈小组由华盛顿特区的十一年级学生组成，他们是戈登·苏、露西·黑格和伊莱·戈德法布等；澳方的座谈小组成员是来自墨尔本的十二年级学生真中茂四颐、丹尼尔·昆利范和安·博亚帕蒂。节目在安·博亚帕蒂的主持下开始了……
[b]安·博亚帕蒂：[/b]
欢迎收听“对讲课堂”节目，我是安·博亚帕蒂。今天的嘉宾是澳大利亚总理，尊敬的约翰·霍华德先生。欢迎您，总理先生。
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
谢谢你，安。
[b]安·博亚帕蒂：[/b]
媒体常常就您与美国总统乔治·布什的亲密关系大做文章，那么您怎样描述你们之间的关系呢？是伙伴吗，或是密友？
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
这个嘛，我们之间的关系可以说是国家领导人之间所能建立的最亲密的关系。直到二零零一年九月十日，我才第一次与乔治·布什见面，之前我们只是通过电话。我一直认为他是一位亲切随和、才智过人的领导人；由于性格相投，加上政见一致，我们相处得非常融洽，也许就个人关系而言，我与布什先生要比同前任美国总统关系密切些，当然并不是说我与前任总统的关系不融洽。我认为乔治·布什十分睿智，虽然历任澳大利亚总理与美国总统的政治观点不尽相同，但我们有着共同的责任和义务，那就是使两国间的关系和睦、健康地发展。有了乔治·布什，这就变得异常容易，因为我非常喜欢他。
[b]安·博亚帕蒂：[/b]
那么就个人而言，你们有那些共同的价值观念呢？
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
我想我们两个都深信家庭是最为重要而且是最具凝聚力的社会单位，我们都致力于以合理的方法在抑制走向极端的同时发展资本主义制度，我们都倡导自由企业的市场体制。当然，我们都坚决奉行民主进程，尽管美国与澳大利亚的民主进程有很大的不同，但两者之间在质量和程度上并不存在任何差别。这就是我们的一些相似的看法和观念。
[b]丹尼尔·昆利范：[/b]
布什总统曾说过您是个钢铁一般的人，从与布什总统的交情上以及从政治意义上您对这一评价有何感想？
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
噢，你也看得出，我体格并没有那么强壮。他能这么说，我很高兴，但我也没有因此而得意洋洋四处炫耀或是……
[b]安·博亚帕蒂：[/b]
在您看来，布什总统为什么会这样说？
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
是这样的，每个人都有自己的词汇。但显然布什总统对澳大利亚支持美国对伊战争的立场是大为称赞的。“9.11”之后，全世界进入了一个关键的历史时期，特别是美国，遭受了大量的无理批评与谴责，布什总统本人也因对伊战争的立场而遭到各种批判与抨击，而澳大利亚是为数不多、并且自始至终都支持美国的国家之一。这是正确之举，就像其他性格率直的人一样，他这样说是在表达赞赏与感激之情。
[b]安·博亚帕蒂：[/b]
那么霍华德先生，在您看来，您与乔治·布什的个人交情或者说个人关系在多大程度上影响了您派兵参加反恐战争的决定？
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
哦，不管谁是美国总统，我们都会参战的。但我认为正是因为我们有着良好的个人关系，布什总统才会随时告知我一切新情况新动向，同时诚恳地征求我们的意见，并十分珍视我们两国之间的亲密盟友关系。我的意思是说，尽管我们所看到的是领导人之间的往来，但这种亲密关系实际上超越了领导人的个性，而存在于美国与澳大利亚两国之间。澳美两国永远都会是亲密的朋友，因为我们有着许多共同的价值观念…… 是不是？
[b]戈登·苏：[/b]
我只是想知道您决定对伊派兵的主要原因是什么？是由于大规模杀伤性武器吗？
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
我们当然确信伊拉克有制造大规模杀伤性武器的能力和计划，现在我仍然对此坚信不移。当时和现在我都坚持这样的看法，如果我们允许像伊拉克这样的流氓国家保持制造大规模杀伤性武器的能力，就会有更多的流氓国家效仿。能制造杀伤性武器的国家越多，这些武器落入恐怖分子之手的可能性也就越大。这将会给许多国家，尤其是澳大利亚与美国，带来潜在的威胁。不过，我是说以上是最主要的原因，对此我没有回避过，现在也不回避。除此以外，我还要说的是在派兵介入美伊军事冲突之前，我们就已经指出了伊拉克骇人听闻的人权记录。那些指责我们和英美的国家是否真的认为如果萨达姆·侯赛因政权没被推翻，如果他重掌大权，或者他还活着随时可能重新掌权的话，伊拉克人民的日子会更好过些？我想所有那些尸体的发现，以及战争开始以来萨达姆种种骇人听闻之暴行的公诸于世正说明了这一点。
[b]安·博亚帕蒂：[/b]
那么，丹，咱们谈谈伊拉克战争吧？
[b]丹尼尔·昆利范：[/b]
就像乔治·布什一样，您参战的决心是不可动摇的。并且，您似乎对参战的必要性没有任何质疑。但这样的行动，这种先发制人的行动和所谓的反恐战争就没有让您在道义上产生什么顾虑吗？
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
我一直也在考虑对错的问题。我认为这样的军事介入是正义的，确实是这样，否则我就不会支持这一行动了。我想这场战争会产生极大的积极成果，我觉得其中一个成果已经显而易见，那就是我们取得了更多进步。过去几周里世界在中东和平解决方案的道路上所取得的进展比过去的几年中都要多。事实上，巴格达是实现中东和平解决方案的必经之路，这话并不是我自己杜撰的，而是出自英国作家威廉·肖克罗斯之口。事实证明在伊拉克发生的一切有着重大的历史意义——我们在伊拉克取得了胜利，消除了对以色列的潜在威胁，随之而来的还有更进一步的努力，特别是布什总统为实现中东和平解决方案所做的尝试和他决定为此倾其全力的坚定决心，他还敦促以色列和巴勒斯坦双方为实现和平方案作出必要的让步。那么谁又能否认这对于中东乃至全世界来说都是件好事呢？
[b]安·博亚帕蒂：[/b]
霍华德先生，谈到恐怖主义的根源，首先我们想知道盟军为参战已付出了多少代价？财政支出方面的情况如何呢？
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
这个，我只能回答澳大利亚的有关情况。
[b]安·博亚帕蒂：[/b]
您能估计一下吗，大概的数字？
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
我不能做任何超越澳大利亚总理职权范围的事情，至于盟军的财政支出，我无法回答。
[b]安·博亚帕蒂：[/b]
有几十亿吗？
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
根据我们的计算，澳大利亚提供了约五亿到十亿澳元。只有具体数据出来以后我们才能知道确切的数字，我现在无法告诉你们到底是多少。但这是预算分配中的数字。
[b]真中茂四颐：[/b]
和我国的对外援助相比如何呢？
[b]安·博亚帕蒂：[/b]
和人道主义援助比起来怎么样呢？
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
与所有的人道主义援助相比吗？
[b]真中茂四颐：[/b]
反恐战争中的人道主义援助。
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
稍等，你是问所有的人道主义援助吗？我们已经向伊拉克提供了一亿澳元的人道主义援助，迄今为止一亿澳元。伊拉克的人道主义救援任务远不及人们所预料的那样严峻。人们说会有数百万难民，油井会被点燃，还说底格里斯-幼发拉底河谷会洪水泛滥，但这些灾难并没有发生。我们会继续在人道主义援助中发挥重要作用。据最新统计，澳大利亚的人道主义援助在各国中排名第五或第六，我想是第六位。我得到的最新消息显示，我们的捐赠多于某些对澳大利亚颇有微词的国家，而这些国家都比澳大利亚大，因而更有实力提供援助。我为我们在人道主义援助方面发挥的作用倍感自豪。
[b]安·博亚帕蒂：[/b]
联合国建议发达国家将国内生产总值的百分之零点七用于对外援助。而澳大利亚仅用了百分之零点二五，美国仅用了百分之零点一。那么考虑到贫困是恐怖主义的重要根源，您对这些数字做何解释呢？
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
我想，我们的援助计划耗资十六亿澳元。
[b]真中茂四颐：[/b]
但我是说这个数字仍然低于联合国向发达国家提出的建议？
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
并不是每件事都……我非常尊重联合国在国际事务中所发挥的作用，尤其是联合国各职能部门。而且我认为现任联合国秘书长可以说是联合国有史以来最出色的秘书长，我在解决东帝汶的有关问题时就与他有过非常密切的工作联系。但这并不意味着联合国规定了数字我们就该惟命是从。
[b]露西·黑格：[/b]
霍华德先生，我想就您早些时候谈到的问题再说两句。您说如果我们不参加对伊战争，那么就会促使更多的流氓国家获得大规模杀伤性武器。我很想知道您指的是哪些国家呢？您认为他们将会为世界恐怖主义推波助澜吗？
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
我只是泛泛而谈。我确实是有所指，但现在这个阶段就指出这些国家，我认为于事无益，我也有责任在指出这些国家时要小心谨慎。但很明显的一点是，那些流氓国家十二年来一直对伊拉克公然蔑视联合国的行径冷眼旁观。如果我们所有的说服工作和警告到头来都不奏效，萨达姆·侯赛因还在执政，那么那些企图效仿伊拉克的国家和企图步萨达姆·侯赛因后尘的领导人就会说，好得很，我也可以这么干，而不会受到任何制裁，我只要对世界舆论嗤之以鼻，他们早晚会放弃，会垮下，我就能继续执政，就能像个暴君一样为所欲为。我们不采取行动的话，他们显然会这么干。
[b]安·博亚帕蒂：[/b]
伊莱，你有问题要问吗？
[b]伊莱·戈德法布：[/b]
是的，我也想说说刚才谈过的问题。您认为对伊战争及其影响有可能带来中东和平进程中的重大突破。而美国和澳大利亚在对伊战争问题上无视其它国家一直反战的立场和世界舆论，您认为这将对其他斡旋于和平进程中的国家造成何种影响？您不认为这可能造成世界各国之间的不和睦，并降低和平解决方案的合法性吗……
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
不，我不这样认为。伊莱。更多的国家对战争持默许的态度。比方说在我们这个地区，许多人，这里是亚太地区，许多人错误地认为澳大利亚的立场与亚太地区很多国家背道而驰。但事实是，我们和美国所坚持的立场，日本支持，韩国支持，菲律宾支持，新加坡也支持。当然，印度尼西亚和马来西亚立场有所不同；中国对此采取的是实用主义态度，没有公开表示支持，处理得比较低调。而现在，关于中东局势，重要的是欧盟、美国、俄罗斯和联合国都达成共识，来解决中东问题。毫无疑问，很多阿拉伯国家为萨达姆·侯赛因下台而欢欣鼓舞。澳大利亚外交部长刚从中东访问回国，他告诉我和国会，如果你去中东国家走走，你会发现所有的人，不管他们在战争之前有什么样的看法，他们对萨达姆下台还是很高兴的。我觉得把这些事情放在一起考虑，我们会感到现在和平解决中东问题的国际环境要比以前好多了。
[b]苏·斯拉梅：[/b]
您现在收听的是澳洲广播电台——“对讲课堂”，我们今天的嘉宾是澳大利亚总理约翰·霍华德先生，节目主题是“‘9.11’之后的世界”。
[b]真中茂四颐：[/b]
“9.11”事件之后，我们政府很快就把难民和恐怖主义联系起来。恐怖主义在多大程度上影响了我们的边境保护政策？
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
茂四颐, 我们并没有把寻求庇护的难民和恐怖主义联系起来，因此这种说法不恰当。不过，我想既然这个问题提出来了，我自然会给你们一个答复。如果有人非法进入一个国家，而我们不是很清楚他们的情况，或者说是一无所知，那么很可能他们当中就混入了恐怖分子……
[b]插入：[/b]
对，你刚问了这个问题，我现在回答你。我来谈谈，茂四颐，如果你觉得我们把寻求庇护的难民和恐怖主义联系起来的话，这种说法不对。我的意思是说，我们之所以对那些寻求庇护的难民采取这样的立场，是因为我们不允许那些违反国际法程序的难民来到这个国家。我们坚信必须有一个井然有序的难民入境政策。这就是我们的观点。
[b]真中茂四颐：[/b]
但是彼得·瑞斯却把这两件事情联系在了一起。下面是他说的话，难民潮会“为恐怖份子提供进入的通道，并把你们的国家作为从事恐怖活动的集结地”。
[b]安·博亚帕蒂：[/b]
这是引用彼得·瑞斯的原话，他多次发表过这样的言论。
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
我知道他发表过这样的言论，但我还是说，如果我们回顾一下当时政府对此所发表的意见，说我们建立这种联系的说法是不合适的，我们并没有把寻求庇护的难民和恐怖主义无端地联系起来。但是，这个问题依然存在：只要还有非法移民的存在，这就可能成为恐怖分子进入澳大利亚的渠道。当然，我不是说事实就是这样，但是有这种可能性。我是说从理论上来讲，这种可能性是存在的。
[b]伊莱·戈德法布：[/b]
既然难民和恐怖主义没有联系，那么为什么在澳大利亚我们要设立移民拘留中心呢？
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
这是因为我们有拒绝非法移民入境的政策，政策规定就是这样，你刚才所说的移民拘留中心就是根据这项政策建立的。而且，我可以说过去十年里朝野两党都奉行这一项政策。我们认为，在我国的移民计划中，接收难民的比例要比其他国家高得多。我们每年要接收大约一万二千名难民。所以，我们认为每个人都应当通过相同的程序，即依照国际通行的标准来甄别他们的难民身份；同时，对那些试图非法进入澳大利亚的人都要按照法律程序审理，这样对于每一个想移民澳大利亚的人来说才有公平、公正可言。
[b]安·博亚帕蒂：[/b]
霍华德先生，关于移民拘留中心的问题，露西有她特别关注的问题，那么，露西，你有什么想要特别了解的吗？
[b]露西·黑格：[/b]
是的，同一些澳大利亚听众一样，我很想了解一下在移民拘留中心里的儿童的情况。美国有线新闻网曾经报道，在伍默拉移民拘留中心，有好几个儿童达成了一个自杀的协议。另外，还不断有对这个中心过于拥挤以及不满情绪滋长的报道。这些都是真的吗？移民拘留中心在押儿童的生活条件到底怎么样呢？
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
我想大家首先得弄清楚的是，我们并不喜欢拘禁任何人，如果你说我们乐于开设这些移民拘留中心的话，那我要告诉你：我们不愿意这样做。但是，我们移民拘留中心还是提供了相当好的卫生保健服务。鉴于这些设施是拘留中心的事实，我们提供了合理的住宿条件和膳食标准。同其他国家相比，我们拘留中心的条件如果不说是更好一些，那至少也是一样的。至于中心里的儿童，我们也尝试过，我们试图为他们安排其他的居住地点，可是这种努力的进展不大。其中一个原因是人们不愿意一家人分开，比如说让父亲呆在移民拘留中心，母亲和孩子却住在为他们特别安排的居民住宅区，人们不愿意这么做。目前，我想在移民拘留中心大概拘禁了一百个儿童，可能这个数字不是很确切，但是差不多也就是这个上下吧。这个数字正在逐年下降，这是因为我们一直奉行的政策已经向蛇头们发出了这样一个信号：向澳大利亚偷渡移民的作法是行不通的。
[b]安·博亚帕蒂：[/b]
霍华德先生，我们再谈谈有关拘留中心儿童的情况吧。茂四颐，他们一般被拘留多长时间？
[b]真中茂四颐：[/b]
最近，我听说，对了，菲利普·拉德曾说，移民拘留中心儿童的平均拘禁期是一年三个月零十七天。但是在黑德兰港，至少有一个儿童被拘禁了五年。
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
对不起，你最后说什么？有个儿童怎么啦？
[b]安·博亚帕蒂：[/b]
被拘禁了五年，在黑德兰港。
[b]真中茂四颐：[/b]
您认为，如果一个儿童在移民拘留中心被拘禁过五年时间，这对他的一生会有什么样的影响？
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
当然我不希望有这样的事情发生。但是除非完全废除了对那些非法移民予以拘禁的政策，而澳大利亚民众显然不会同意这么做，我们就不得不先拘禁这些人，然后尽快地评估他们的难民身份。
[b]斯蒂芬·卡廷：[/b]
霍华德总理，我们知道您今天上午还要赶时间，所以我们希望您能再回答一、两个澳方或美方提出的问题。大家还有什么问题吗？
[b]男学生：[/b]
霍华德总理，您曾说过澳大利亚派兵参加伊拉克战争是因为他们拥有大规模杀伤性武器，或者说您觉得他们拥有这样的武器。我能请问您，美国手中拥有多少核武器？美国可是世界上唯一在战场上使用过核武器的国家，那么为什么您不敦促美国解除核武装呢？
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
是的，美国的确拥有核武器，但是他们拥有核武器是得到国际法允许的。根据核不扩散条约，我们澳大利亚也是签约国，该条约承认国际上少数几个国家拥有核武器并可以保留核武器，美国就是其中的一个。所以说，美国拥有核武器是完全合法的。核不扩散条约的整个基础是承认世界上现有的五个核大国，他们是美国，前苏联，当然现在是俄罗斯，法国、中国和英国。现实一点说，这五个国家是不会解除核武装的。的确，在过去的四十年时间里，整个世界处于一个和平年代，主要是这五个核大国之间存在着摧毁对方的核威慑力量。换句话说，美国人绝不会用核武器去攻打苏联，因为苏联人也同样拥有核武器，可以对美国进行报复，反之亦然。有相当多的人持有这样的观点，认为从历史的角度来看，从第二次世界大战结束到苏联解体这段时间，正是这种核威慑成为了世界和平的一个重要保证。所以，国际社会所要做的就是阻止核武器扩散到这五个国家之外的其他国家。我对印度和巴基斯坦拥有核武器感到担忧，我还对其他国家的核能力予以关注，特别是朝鲜的核能力，这就是为什么我们对朝鲜如此的担忧，因为朝鲜违背了它所签署的核不扩散条约下的义务。我想说的是，作为一个理想主义者，我倒希望所有这些核武器都能奇迹般的消失，我觉得我们都希望看到包括美国在内的所有国家的核武器统统消失。但在现实中，这种事不会发生。所以，我们最大的期望就是遏制核武器的扩散，核不扩散条约就是实现这一目标的一个重大举措，这就是我们不遗余力地敦促所有国家都遵守核不扩散条约的原因。
[b]斯蒂芬·卡廷：[/b]
坐在后排的观众要提问题。
[b]男学生：[/b]
霍华德先生，从目前的国际形势来看，是什么因素促使您在保护澳大利亚民众时选择了进攻性的军事手段而不是和平协调的方式？
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
我不能苟同把我们采取的行动归入进攻性军事手段的范畴。我是说我相信在今后的较长或更长一段时间里，中东地区以及整个世界将会由于对伊战争而变得更加安全。
[b]斯蒂芬·卡廷：[/b]
这个同学也有一个问题。
[b]女学生：[/b]
通过刚才的交谈和您对问题的回答，您坚信伊拉克战争会改善伊拉克人民的生活，并认为这正是伊拉克战争的合理之处。虽然我的确赞同这是伊拉克战争所取得的积极成果，但是我们向一个国家发动战争，消耗了巨额财力，其实我们完全可以通过提供援助和资金的方式来提高第三世界国家人民的生活质量，就这一点来说，您觉得发动这场战争还合情合理的吗？
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
我想，你看我能把你的问题分两部分回答吗？那我就先说说伊拉克的这个问题。对于很多伊拉克人民来说，萨达姆·侯赛因的下台使他们的生活有很大的改善，这一点我坚信不疑，我想你心里也承认这一点。但是现在有迹象表明，伊拉克人民将会经历一段艰苦的时期。正如人们所看到的那样，在第二次世界大战结束后的一段时间里，整个欧洲也是历经磨难，但是这并不意味着不应该推翻纳粹统治。对于向第三世界国家提供援助的问题，这些国家目前面临的最大问题是他们国内的腐败政府。国际社会对第三世界国家已经给予了很大援助，但这些援助并没有解决所应该解决的问题。所以，对于整个国际社会来说，我们要花更大的气力来改善和提高第三世界国家的政府管理水平。
[b]斯蒂芬·卡廷：[/b]
鉴于霍华德先生的日程安排，今天上午我们提问的时间就到这里了。霍华德先生，非常感谢您今天早上能在百忙之中抽出时间回答我们的提问；感谢在澳大利亚现场和远在美国的座谈小组的同学们；感谢史密森学会和美国历史博物馆；谢谢观众朋友们。
（插入）鼓掌声
[b]苏·斯拉梅：[/b]
今天的节目是二零零三年七月录制的“对讲课堂”节目。澳大利亚总理约翰·霍华德、澳大利亚高中生在澳大利亚国家博物馆、美国高中生在华盛顿史密森学会的美国国家历史博物馆参加了节目的录制。
“对讲课堂”节目由澳大利亚广播公司斯蒂芬·卡廷制作。
澳洲广播电台总共十三期的系列节目“今日澳洲”到今天就全部接束了。我是苏·斯拉梅，感谢大家收听我们的节目。感谢赖安·厄甘提供的技术制作，感谢墨尔本莫纳什大学全国澳大利亚研究中心克里斯·贝克给予的学术指导。再见！
[/quote]
[quote]
[b]苏·斯拉梅：[/b]
嗨，大家好，我是澳洲广播电台的苏·斯拉梅。这里是“今日澳洲”系列节目的最后一辑，与澳大利亚总理相约在“对讲课堂”。
二〇〇三年六、七月份，约翰·霍华德总理参加了一次十分特殊的“提问时间”的活动，因为这次提问和回答并不是在国会中进行的。
学生提问的镜头剪辑：
“总理先生，我问您的第一个问题是……”
“这是否会引发您在道义上的担忧？”
“您是否感到应对此负一些责任呢……”
“您当时感想如何呢？”
“霍华德先生……”
“您为什么选择了……”
“当时您受到哪些道德问题的困扰呢？”
[b]苏·斯拉梅：[/b]
霍华德先生并不是第一位参加澳大利亚广播公司“对讲课堂”节目的政界人士，但此次活动却开辟了由国内外学生组成的座谈小组来探讨国际事务的先河。
澳大利亚总理约翰·霍华德同意回答由澳大利亚和美国中学生组成的座谈小组现场提出的问题，中心围绕“9.11事件后的世界”。
澳大利亚学生座谈小组及观众在位于堪培拉的澳大利亚国家博物馆里进行提问，而美国学生则在位于华盛顿史密森学会的美国国家历史博物馆内，节目通过国际链接系统来进行。
作为正在开展的公民教育计划的一部分，学生论坛节目由澳大利亚博物馆和联邦国会教育办公室联合资助。
节目吸引了众多媒体的目光，人们可以听到频频响起的相机快门声。对他们来说，听十五、六岁的“记者”们采访实在获益匪浅。
美国的座谈小组由华盛顿特区的十一年级学生组成，他们是戈登·苏、露西·黑格和伊莱·戈德法布等；澳方的座谈小组成员是来自墨尔本的十二年级学生真中茂四颐、丹尼尔·昆利范和安·博亚帕蒂。节目在安·博亚帕蒂的主持下开始了……
[b]安·博亚帕蒂：[/b]
欢迎收听“对讲课堂”节目，我是安·博亚帕蒂。今天的嘉宾是澳大利亚总理，尊敬的约翰·霍华德先生。欢迎您，总理先生。
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
谢谢你，安。
[b]安·博亚帕蒂：[/b]
媒体常常就您与美国总统乔治·布什的亲密关系大做文章，那么您怎样描述你们之间的关系呢？是伙伴吗，或是密友？
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
这个嘛，我们之间的关系可以说是国家领导人之间所能建立的最亲密的关系。直到二零零一年九月十日，我才第一次与乔治·布什见面，之前我们只是通过电话。我一直认为他是一位亲切随和、才智过人的领导人；由于性格相投，加上政见一致，我们相处得非常融洽，也许就个人关系而言，我与布什先生要比同前任美国总统关系密切些，当然并不是说我与前任总统的关系不融洽。我认为乔治·布什十分睿智，虽然历任澳大利亚总理与美国总统的政治观点不尽相同，但我们有着共同的责任和义务，那就是使两国间的关系和睦、健康地发展。有了乔治·布什，这就变得异常容易，因为我非常喜欢他。
[b]安·博亚帕蒂：[/b]
那么就个人而言，你们有那些共同的价值观念呢？
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
我想我们两个都深信家庭是最为重要而且是最具凝聚力的社会单位，我们都致力于以合理的方法在抑制走向极端的同时发展资本主义制度，我们都倡导自由企业的市场体制。当然，我们都坚决奉行民主进程，尽管美国与澳大利亚的民主进程有很大的不同，但两者之间在质量和程度上并不存在任何差别。这就是我们的一些相似的看法和观念。
[b]丹尼尔·昆利范：[/b]
布什总统曾说过您是个钢铁一般的人，从与布什总统的交情上以及从政治意义上您对这一评价有何感想？
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
噢，你也看得出，我体格并没有那么强壮。他能这么说，我很高兴，但我也没有因此而得意洋洋四处炫耀或是……
[b]安·博亚帕蒂：[/b]
在您看来，布什总统为什么会这样说？
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
是这样的，每个人都有自己的词汇。但显然布什总统对澳大利亚支持美国对伊战争的立场是大为称赞的。“9.11”之后，全世界进入了一个关键的历史时期，特别是美国，遭受了大量的无理批评与谴责，布什总统本人也因对伊战争的立场而遭到各种批判与抨击，而澳大利亚是为数不多、并且自始至终都支持美国的国家之一。这是正确之举，就像其他性格率直的人一样，他这样说是在表达赞赏与感激之情。
[b]安·博亚帕蒂：[/b]
那么霍华德先生，在您看来，您与乔治·布什的个人交情或者说个人关系在多大程度上影响了您派兵参加反恐战争的决定？
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
哦，不管谁是美国总统，我们都会参战的。但我认为正是因为我们有着良好的个人关系，布什总统才会随时告知我一切新情况新动向，同时诚恳地征求我们的意见，并十分珍视我们两国之间的亲密盟友关系。我的意思是说，尽管我们所看到的是领导人之间的往来，但这种亲密关系实际上超越了领导人的个性，而存在于美国与澳大利亚两国之间。澳美两国永远都会是亲密的朋友，因为我们有着许多共同的价值观念…… 是不是？
[b]戈登·苏：[/b]
我只是想知道您决定对伊派兵的主要原因是什么？是由于大规模杀伤性武器吗？
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
我们当然确信伊拉克有制造大规模杀伤性武器的能力和计划，现在我仍然对此坚信不移。当时和现在我都坚持这样的看法，如果我们允许像伊拉克这样的流氓国家保持制造大规模杀伤性武器的能力，就会有更多的流氓国家效仿。能制造杀伤性武器的国家越多，这些武器落入恐怖分子之手的可能性也就越大。这将会给许多国家，尤其是澳大利亚与美国，带来潜在的威胁。不过，我是说以上是最主要的原因，对此我没有回避过，现在也不回避。除此以外，我还要说的是在派兵介入美伊军事冲突之前，我们就已经指出了伊拉克骇人听闻的人权记录。那些指责我们和英美的国家是否真的认为如果萨达姆·侯赛因政权没被推翻，如果他重掌大权，或者他还活着随时可能重新掌权的话，伊拉克人民的日子会更好过些？我想所有那些尸体的发现，以及战争开始以来萨达姆种种骇人听闻之暴行的公诸于世正说明了这一点。
[b]安·博亚帕蒂：[/b]
那么，丹，咱们谈谈伊拉克战争吧？
[b]丹尼尔·昆利范：[/b]
就像乔治·布什一样，您参战的决心是不可动摇的。并且，您似乎对参战的必要性没有任何质疑。但这样的行动，这种先发制人的行动和所谓的反恐战争就没有让您在道义上产生什么顾虑吗？
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
我一直也在考虑对错的问题。我认为这样的军事介入是正义的，确实是这样，否则我就不会支持这一行动了。我想这场战争会产生极大的积极成果，我觉得其中一个成果已经显而易见，那就是我们取得了更多进步。过去几周里世界在中东和平解决方案的道路上所取得的进展比过去的几年中都要多。事实上，巴格达是实现中东和平解决方案的必经之路，这话并不是我自己杜撰的，而是出自英国作家威廉·肖克罗斯之口。事实证明在伊拉克发生的一切有着重大的历史意义——我们在伊拉克取得了胜利，消除了对以色列的潜在威胁，随之而来的还有更进一步的努力，特别是布什总统为实现中东和平解决方案所做的尝试和他决定为此倾其全力的坚定决心，他还敦促以色列和巴勒斯坦双方为实现和平方案作出必要的让步。那么谁又能否认这对于中东乃至全世界来说都是件好事呢？
[b]安·博亚帕蒂：[/b]
霍华德先生，谈到恐怖主义的根源，首先我们想知道盟军为参战已付出了多少代价？财政支出方面的情况如何呢？
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
这个，我只能回答澳大利亚的有关情况。
[b]安·博亚帕蒂：[/b]
您能估计一下吗，大概的数字？
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
我不能做任何超越澳大利亚总理职权范围的事情，至于盟军的财政支出，我无法回答。
[b]安·博亚帕蒂：[/b]
有几十亿吗？
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
根据我们的计算，澳大利亚提供了约五亿到十亿澳元。只有具体数据出来以后我们才能知道确切的数字，我现在无法告诉你们到底是多少。但这是预算分配中的数字。
[b]真中茂四颐：[/b]
和我国的对外援助相比如何呢？
[b]安·博亚帕蒂：[/b]
和人道主义援助比起来怎么样呢？
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
与所有的人道主义援助相比吗？
[b]真中茂四颐：[/b]
反恐战争中的人道主义援助。
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
稍等，你是问所有的人道主义援助吗？我们已经向伊拉克提供了一亿澳元的人道主义援助，迄今为止一亿澳元。伊拉克的人道主义救援任务远不及人们所预料的那样严峻。人们说会有数百万难民，油井会被点燃，还说底格里斯-幼发拉底河谷会洪水泛滥，但这些灾难并没有发生。我们会继续在人道主义援助中发挥重要作用。据最新统计，澳大利亚的人道主义援助在各国中排名第五或第六，我想是第六位。我得到的最新消息显示，我们的捐赠多于某些对澳大利亚颇有微词的国家，而这些国家都比澳大利亚大，因而更有实力提供援助。我为我们在人道主义援助方面发挥的作用倍感自豪。
[b]安·博亚帕蒂：[/b]
联合国建议发达国家将国内生产总值的百分之零点七用于对外援助。而澳大利亚仅用了百分之零点二五，美国仅用了百分之零点一。那么考虑到贫困是恐怖主义的重要根源，您对这些数字做何解释呢？
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
我想，我们的援助计划耗资十六亿澳元。
[b]真中茂四颐：[/b]
但我是说这个数字仍然低于联合国向发达国家提出的建议？
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
并不是每件事都……我非常尊重联合国在国际事务中所发挥的作用，尤其是联合国各职能部门。而且我认为现任联合国秘书长可以说是联合国有史以来最出色的秘书长，我在解决东帝汶的有关问题时就与他有过非常密切的工作联系。但这并不意味着联合国规定了数字我们就该惟命是从。
[b]露西·黑格：[/b]
霍华德先生，我想就您早些时候谈到的问题再说两句。您说如果我们不参加对伊战争，那么就会促使更多的流氓国家获得大规模杀伤性武器。我很想知道您指的是哪些国家呢？您认为他们将会为世界恐怖主义推波助澜吗？
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
我只是泛泛而谈。我确实是有所指，但现在这个阶段就指出这些国家，我认为于事无益，我也有责任在指出这些国家时要小心谨慎。但很明显的一点是，那些流氓国家十二年来一直对伊拉克公然蔑视联合国的行径冷眼旁观。如果我们所有的说服工作和警告到头来都不奏效，萨达姆·侯赛因还在执政，那么那些企图效仿伊拉克的国家和企图步萨达姆·侯赛因后尘的领导人就会说，好得很，我也可以这么干，而不会受到任何制裁，我只要对世界舆论嗤之以鼻，他们早晚会放弃，会垮下，我就能继续执政，就能像个暴君一样为所欲为。我们不采取行动的话，他们显然会这么干。
[b]安·博亚帕蒂：[/b]
伊莱，你有问题要问吗？
[b]伊莱·戈德法布：[/b]
是的，我也想说说刚才谈过的问题。您认为对伊战争及其影响有可能带来中东和平进程中的重大突破。而美国和澳大利亚在对伊战争问题上无视其它国家一直反战的立场和世界舆论，您认为这将对其他斡旋于和平进程中的国家造成何种影响？您不认为这可能造成世界各国之间的不和睦，并降低和平解决方案的合法性吗……
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
不，我不这样认为。伊莱。更多的国家对战争持默许的态度。比方说在我们这个地区，许多人，这里是亚太地区，许多人错误地认为澳大利亚的立场与亚太地区很多国家背道而驰。但事实是，我们和美国所坚持的立场，日本支持，韩国支持，菲律宾支持，新加坡也支持。当然，印度尼西亚和马来西亚立场有所不同；中国对此采取的是实用主义态度，没有公开表示支持，处理得比较低调。而现在，关于中东局势，重要的是欧盟、美国、俄罗斯和联合国都达成共识，来解决中东问题。毫无疑问，很多阿拉伯国家为萨达姆·侯赛因下台而欢欣鼓舞。澳大利亚外交部长刚从中东访问回国，他告诉我和国会，如果你去中东国家走走，你会发现所有的人，不管他们在战争之前有什么样的看法，他们对萨达姆下台还是很高兴的。我觉得把这些事情放在一起考虑，我们会感到现在和平解决中东问题的国际环境要比以前好多了。
[b]苏·斯拉梅：[/b]
您现在收听的是澳洲广播电台——“对讲课堂”，我们今天的嘉宾是澳大利亚总理约翰·霍华德先生，节目主题是“‘9.11’之后的世界”。
[b]真中茂四颐：[/b]
“9.11”事件之后，我们政府很快就把难民和恐怖主义联系起来。恐怖主义在多大程度上影响了我们的边境保护政策？
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
茂四颐, 我们并没有把寻求庇护的难民和恐怖主义联系起来，因此这种说法不恰当。不过，我想既然这个问题提出来了，我自然会给你们一个答复。如果有人非法进入一个国家，而我们不是很清楚他们的情况，或者说是一无所知，那么很可能他们当中就混入了恐怖分子……
[b]插入：[/b]
对，你刚问了这个问题，我现在回答你。我来谈谈，茂四颐，如果你觉得我们把寻求庇护的难民和恐怖主义联系起来的话，这种说法不对。我的意思是说，我们之所以对那些寻求庇护的难民采取这样的立场，是因为我们不允许那些违反国际法程序的难民来到这个国家。我们坚信必须有一个井然有序的难民入境政策。这就是我们的观点。
[b]真中茂四颐：[/b]
但是彼得·瑞斯却把这两件事情联系在了一起。下面是他说的话，难民潮会“为恐怖份子提供进入的通道，并把你们的国家作为从事恐怖活动的集结地”。
[b]安·博亚帕蒂：[/b]
这是引用彼得·瑞斯的原话，他多次发表过这样的言论。
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
我知道他发表过这样的言论，但我还是说，如果我们回顾一下当时政府对此所发表的意见，说我们建立这种联系的说法是不合适的，我们并没有把寻求庇护的难民和恐怖主义无端地联系起来。但是，这个问题依然存在：只要还有非法移民的存在，这就可能成为恐怖分子进入澳大利亚的渠道。当然，我不是说事实就是这样，但是有这种可能性。我是说从理论上来讲，这种可能性是存在的。
[b]伊莱·戈德法布：[/b]
既然难民和恐怖主义没有联系，那么为什么在澳大利亚我们要设立移民拘留中心呢？
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
这是因为我们有拒绝非法移民入境的政策，政策规定就是这样，你刚才所说的移民拘留中心就是根据这项政策建立的。而且，我可以说过去十年里朝野两党都奉行这一项政策。我们认为，在我国的移民计划中，接收难民的比例要比其他国家高得多。我们每年要接收大约一万二千名难民。所以，我们认为每个人都应当通过相同的程序，即依照国际通行的标准来甄别他们的难民身份；同时，对那些试图非法进入澳大利亚的人都要按照法律程序审理，这样对于每一个想移民澳大利亚的人来说才有公平、公正可言。
[b]安·博亚帕蒂：[/b]
霍华德先生，关于移民拘留中心的问题，露西有她特别关注的问题，那么，露西，你有什么想要特别了解的吗？
[b]露西·黑格：[/b]
是的，同一些澳大利亚听众一样，我很想了解一下在移民拘留中心里的儿童的情况。美国有线新闻网曾经报道，在伍默拉移民拘留中心，有好几个儿童达成了一个自杀的协议。另外，还不断有对这个中心过于拥挤以及不满情绪滋长的报道。这些都是真的吗？移民拘留中心在押儿童的生活条件到底怎么样呢？
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
我想大家首先得弄清楚的是，我们并不喜欢拘禁任何人，如果你说我们乐于开设这些移民拘留中心的话，那我要告诉你：我们不愿意这样做。但是，我们移民拘留中心还是提供了相当好的卫生保健服务。鉴于这些设施是拘留中心的事实，我们提供了合理的住宿条件和膳食标准。同其他国家相比，我们拘留中心的条件如果不说是更好一些，那至少也是一样的。至于中心里的儿童，我们也尝试过，我们试图为他们安排其他的居住地点，可是这种努力的进展不大。其中一个原因是人们不愿意一家人分开，比如说让父亲呆在移民拘留中心，母亲和孩子却住在为他们特别安排的居民住宅区，人们不愿意这么做。目前，我想在移民拘留中心大概拘禁了一百个儿童，可能这个数字不是很确切，但是差不多也就是这个上下吧。这个数字正在逐年下降，这是因为我们一直奉行的政策已经向蛇头们发出了这样一个信号：向澳大利亚偷渡移民的作法是行不通的。
[b]安·博亚帕蒂：[/b]
霍华德先生，我们再谈谈有关拘留中心儿童的情况吧。茂四颐，他们一般被拘留多长时间？
[b]真中茂四颐：[/b]
最近，我听说，对了，菲利普·拉德曾说，移民拘留中心儿童的平均拘禁期是一年三个月零十七天。但是在黑德兰港，至少有一个儿童被拘禁了五年。
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
对不起，你最后说什么？有个儿童怎么啦？
[b]安·博亚帕蒂：[/b]
被拘禁了五年，在黑德兰港。
[b]真中茂四颐：[/b]
您认为，如果一个儿童在移民拘留中心被拘禁过五年时间，这对他的一生会有什么样的影响？
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
当然我不希望有这样的事情发生。但是除非完全废除了对那些非法移民予以拘禁的政策，而澳大利亚民众显然不会同意这么做，我们就不得不先拘禁这些人，然后尽快地评估他们的难民身份。
[b]斯蒂芬·卡廷：[/b]
霍华德总理，我们知道您今天上午还要赶时间，所以我们希望您能再回答一、两个澳方或美方提出的问题。大家还有什么问题吗？
[b]男学生：[/b]
霍华德总理，您曾说过澳大利亚派兵参加伊拉克战争是因为他们拥有大规模杀伤性武器，或者说您觉得他们拥有这样的武器。我能请问您，美国手中拥有多少核武器？美国可是世界上唯一在战场上使用过核武器的国家，那么为什么您不敦促美国解除核武装呢？
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
是的，美国的确拥有核武器，但是他们拥有核武器是得到国际法允许的。根据核不扩散条约，我们澳大利亚也是签约国，该条约承认国际上少数几个国家拥有核武器并可以保留核武器，美国就是其中的一个。所以说，美国拥有核武器是完全合法的。核不扩散条约的整个基础是承认世界上现有的五个核大国，他们是美国，前苏联，当然现在是俄罗斯，法国、中国和英国。现实一点说，这五个国家是不会解除核武装的。的确，在过去的四十年时间里，整个世界处于一个和平年代，主要是这五个核大国之间存在着摧毁对方的核威慑力量。换句话说，美国人绝不会用核武器去攻打苏联，因为苏联人也同样拥有核武器，可以对美国进行报复，反之亦然。有相当多的人持有这样的观点，认为从历史的角度来看，从第二次世界大战结束到苏联解体这段时间，正是这种核威慑成为了世界和平的一个重要保证。所以，国际社会所要做的就是阻止核武器扩散到这五个国家之外的其他国家。我对印度和巴基斯坦拥有核武器感到担忧，我还对其他国家的核能力予以关注，特别是朝鲜的核能力，这就是为什么我们对朝鲜如此的担忧，因为朝鲜违背了它所签署的核不扩散条约下的义务。我想说的是，作为一个理想主义者，我倒希望所有这些核武器都能奇迹般的消失，我觉得我们都希望看到包括美国在内的所有国家的核武器统统消失。但在现实中，这种事不会发生。所以，我们最大的期望就是遏制核武器的扩散，核不扩散条约就是实现这一目标的一个重大举措，这就是我们不遗余力地敦促所有国家都遵守核不扩散条约的原因。
[b]斯蒂芬·卡廷：[/b]
坐在后排的观众要提问题。
[b]男学生：[/b]
霍华德先生，从目前的国际形势来看，是什么因素促使您在保护澳大利亚民众时选择了进攻性的军事手段而不是和平协调的方式？
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
我不能苟同把我们采取的行动归入进攻性军事手段的范畴。我是说我相信在今后的较长或更长一段时间里，中东地区以及整个世界将会由于对伊战争而变得更加安全。
[b]斯蒂芬·卡廷：[/b]
这个同学也有一个问题。
[b]女学生：[/b]
通过刚才的交谈和您对问题的回答，您坚信伊拉克战争会改善伊拉克人民的生活，并认为这正是伊拉克战争的合理之处。虽然我的确赞同这是伊拉克战争所取得的积极成果，但是我们向一个国家发动战争，消耗了巨额财力，其实我们完全可以通过提供援助和资金的方式来提高第三世界国家人民的生活质量，就这一点来说，您觉得发动这场战争还合情合理的吗？
[b]约翰·霍华德：[/b]
我想，你看我能把你的问题分两部分回答吗？那我就先说说伊拉克的这个问题。对于很多伊拉克人民来说，萨达姆·侯赛因的下台使他们的生活有很大的改善，这一点我坚信不疑，我想你心里也承认这一点。但是现在有迹象表明，伊拉克人民将会经历一段艰苦的时期。正如人们所看到的那样，在第二次世界大战结束后的一段时间里，整个欧洲也是历经磨难，但是这并不意味着不应该推翻纳粹统治。对于向第三世界国家提供援助的问题，这些国家目前面临的最大问题是他们国内的腐败政府。国际社会对第三世界国家已经给予了很大援助，但这些援助并没有解决所应该解决的问题。所以，对于整个国际社会来说，我们要花更大的气力来改善和提高第三世界国家的政府管理水平。
[b]斯蒂芬·卡廷：[/b]
鉴于霍华德先生的日程安排，今天上午我们提问的时间就到这里了。霍华德先生，非常感谢您今天早上能在百忙之中抽出时间回答我们的提问；感谢在澳大利亚现场和远在美国的座谈小组的同学们；感谢史密森学会和美国历史博物馆；谢谢观众朋友们。
（插入）鼓掌声
[b]苏·斯拉梅：[/b]
今天的节目是二零零三年七月录制的“对讲课堂”节目。澳大利亚总理约翰·霍华德、澳大利亚高中生在澳大利亚国家博物馆、美国高中生在华盛顿史密森学会的美国国家历史博物馆参加了节目的录制。
“对讲课堂”节目由澳大利亚广播公司斯蒂芬·卡廷制作。
澳洲广播电台总共十三期的系列节目“今日澳洲”到今天就全部接束了。我是苏·斯拉梅，感谢大家收听我们的节目。感谢赖安·厄甘提供的技术制作，感谢墨尔本莫纳什大学全国澳大利亚研究中心克里斯·贝克给予的学术指导。再见！
[/quote]
2006-8-7 04:32
城市童话
英文详细内容
[quote]
[b]SUE SLAMEN:[/b] Hello Sue Slamen from Radio Australia, with the concluding program in our series, Australia Now. TALKBACK CLASSROOM with the Australian Prime Minister.
In mid-2003 Prime Minister John Howard took part in a very different sort of 'QUESTION TIME ' outside of the National Parliament.
[b]MONTAGE OF STUDENT QUESTIONS:[/b]
"Now to my first question to you Prime Minister…"
"Did this raise any moral concerns in your mind?"
"Did you in any way feel responsible?"
"How did that make you feel?"
" Mr Howard..
"What made you choose…"
"What moral issues did you personally struggle with?"
[b]SUE SLAMEN:[/b] Mr Howard is not the first Australian politician to take part in what's become known on the ABC as TALKBACK CLASSROOM, but it is the first time that a panel of both local and overseas students focussed their questions on international issues.
The Australian Prime Minister John Howard agreed to field questions from a panel of Australian and American high school students around the subject: "The World after September 11th ".
The international link-up brought together a student panel and audience at the National Museum of Australia in Canberra with American students at the National Museum of American History at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington.
The student forum was jointly funded by the Australian museum and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Education Office as part of its ongoing program of civics education.
And listening to the 15 and 16 year old interviewers was quite an education for the assembled media whose camera shutters you'll hear going off in the background.
The American panel consists of 11th Grade students from Washington DC, Gordon Su, Lucy Hague and Eli Goldfarb, and their Australian counterparts are Year 12 students from Melbourne, Moshidi Manaka, Daniel Quinlivan and Ann Boyapati who as Student Chair, opens proceedings...
[b]ANN BOYAPATI:[/b] Welcome to Talkback Classroom, my name's Ann Boyapati. Our guest for today is the Prime Minister of Australia, the Honourable John Howard. Welcome Prime Minister.
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] Thank you Anne.
[b]ANN BOYAPATI:[/b] The media has made much of your close relationship with the US President George Bush, so how would you describe this relationship? Are you mates, are you buddies?
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] Well we're close as leaders can ever get. I've only known George Bush personally since the 10th of September 2001, that was the first time we had a face-to-face meeting, although we'd spoken on the phone before that. I have always found him a likeable intelligent affable person; I get on with him very well because of our personalities and our common political philosophy I'm probably a little closer on the personal basis to him than I was to his predecessor, but you shouldn't assume from that that I didn't get on well with his predecessor. I found him an intelligent man and although we came from slightly different political viewpoints Australian prime ministers and American presidents have a duty to their respective nations to get on well. With George Bush it's particularly easy because I like him.
[b]ANN BOYAPATI:[/b] So what sort of shared values would you have at a personal level?
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] Well I think we all, we both have a very strong belief that the most cohesive and important unit in society is the family, we both share a very strong commitment to the capitalist system in a sensible way that restrains its excesses, but we are nonetheless people who believe in the free enterprise market system. We're both of course very strongly committed to the democratic process, the American democratic process is very different from Australia's, it's no less democratic, it's no more democratic I might say as well. They're some of the values that we would share in common.
[b]DANIEL QUINLIVAN:[/b] So President Bush made the comment that you're the man of steel. How did that make you feel both in terms of your friendship with George Bush and in the political sense?
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] Oh look I'm not big on sort of personal stuff like that. I mean that was nice of him to say that and I'm not sort of running around saying isn't that sort of terrific or anything…
[b]ANN BOYAPATI:[/b] Why do you think he called you that?
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] Look everybody uses different language to describe, but clearly the President of the United States greatly appreciated Australia's involvement in and support for the American position on Iraq. It was approaching a seminal moment in the history of the world following the 11th of September, and America in particular was subjected to a lot of unreasonable attack and criticism, as was President Bush over the stance he took, and Australia was one of a very small number of countries that stuck to the Americans all the way through on that. And it was the right thing to do and he like the fairly spontaneous person that he is was expressing his appreciation.
[b]ANN BOYAPATI:[/b] So Mr Howard how much do you think this personal friendship or relationship with George Bush influenced your decision to commit troops to a war on terrorism?
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] Oh we would have committed irrespective of who had been the President. I think nonetheless it's because we had a good personal relationship that he was able at all times to keep me fully informed of what was happening, and he did engage in a genuine process of soliciting Australian views and does greatly value the close alliance we have with the United States. But I mean it's a relationship such as exists between Australia and America transcends the personalities of the leaders who may be there at the time. We will always be close because we have a lot of values in common…. Yep?
[b]GORDON SU:[/b] I was just wondering what was your main reason for committing troops to Iraq? Was it the weapons of mass destruction?
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] We certainly believe that Iraq had a weapons of mass destruction capacity and program, and I still believe that to be the case. I held the view then and I still hold the view that if rogue states like the then Iraq were allowed to retain that weapons capacity then more rogue states would seek to acquire it and the more that acquired it the more likely those weapons were to fall into the hands of terrorists, and that would represent a potential threat to many countries, not least Australia and the United States. But nonetheless, I mean that was the principle reason, I didn't run away from that, I don't run away from it now, but I might also make the further observation that prior to our entering the military conflict we did point out the appalling human rights record. And those who are now being critical of what we and the Americans and the British did, are they really suggesting it would be better for the Iraqi people if Saddam Hussein were restored if he's alive and capable of doing that, if his regime had not been overthrown? I think the discovery of all the bodies, the unraveling, the unveiling of the appalling litany of atrocities, which has occurred since the war, I think, drives home that point.
[b]ANN BOYAPATI:[/b] Well let's talk about the war, Dan?
[b]DANIEL QUINLIVAN:[/b] Well like George Bush you appear very unshakeable in terms of your resolve to go to war, but, and you didn't seem to have any doubts about the necessity of going to war. But did this raise any moral concerns in your mind this issue of acting, preemptive action and also in terms of the war on terror?
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] Well I always try and think of it in terms of right and wrong. I thought it was a just military involvement, very much so, otherwise I wouldn't have supported it. I think the dividends are going to be very large, I mean one of them is already very evident and that is we have made more progress, the world has made more progress down the path towards a Middle East peace settlement over the past few weeks than we've made for a couple of years. It could well be the case that the path to the Middle East peace settlement runs through Baghdad, and that's not my expression, it's the expression of the British author, William Shawcross. I think the victory over Iraq, the removal of Iraq as a potential threat to Israel, the concomitant commitment, particularly of President Bush towards achieving a Middle East peace settlement, and his absolute determination to do everything he can to do that, and his placing of a requirement on both Israel and the Palestinians to make the necessary concessions to achieve a peace settlement, that could well turn out to be the great legacy of what happened in Iraq. Now who would dispute that that would be a wonderful thing, not only for the Middle East but also for the world.
[b]ANN BOYAPATI:[/b] Mr Howard when we're talking about causes of terrorism, how much would it have cost the coalition to go to war firstly? How much would it have cost in terms of financial costs?
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] Well I can only answer for Australia.
[b]ANN BOYAPATI:[/b] But if you can approximate, just approximately?
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] I won't try and play anything other than Prime Minister of Australia, I can't answer for the cost.
[b]ANN BOYAPATI:[/b] Are we talking billions?
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] The amount we provided for is in our calculations was somewhere between 500 and a million and a billion dollars, it may turn out to be just precisely how it turns out I can't tell you at the moment, but that was the budget allocation that we made.
[b]MOSHIDI MANAKA:[/b] How does that compare with our foreign aid,
[b]ANN BOYAPATI:[/b] With spending on humanitarian aid, how does that compare?
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] Well in spending on what, all humanitarian aid?
[b]MOSHIDI MANAKA:[/b] On humanitarian aid in terms of the wars on terrorism?
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] Well hang on, are you asking what all humanitarian aid? We've committed 100-million dollars so far of humanitarian assistance for Iraq, 100-million dollars so far. The humanitarian task in Iraq is nowhere as great, nowhere near as great as everybody predicted. People said there would be several million refugees, people said the oil wells would be set on fire, people said the Tigris Euphrates valley was going to be flooded, none of those disasters occurred. We'll continue to play a big role in humanitarian aid, and on latest calculations and Australia is fifth or sixth, I think sixth in the generosity of donations towards humanitarian assistance, and on the latest information I have ahead of a number of countries who were highly critical of Australia and who are bigger and therefore in a better position than Australia to contribute. I'm quite proud of the humanitarian part that we've played.
[b]ANN BOYAPATI:[/b] The UN recommends that developed countries commit point-seven-per cent of GDP to foreign aid. Australia only commits point-two-five-per cent, the US only point-one per cent. So how can you explain these figures considering that poverty is a cause of terrorism?
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] We have an aid program of I think one-point-six billion dollars.
[b]MOSHIDI MANAKA:[/b] But I mean it's lower than what the UN recommends for developed countries?
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] Not everything the, I'm a great admirer of the role of the UN, particularly in its agencies, and I think the current Secretary General of the United Nations is probably the best Secretary General the body has had, and I worked very closely with him in relation to East Timor. But just because the UN sets a figure doesn't mean that it's automatically holy writ.
[b]LUCI HAGUE:[/b] Mr Howard, if I may go back to something you said earlier, you mentioned in the war on Iraq that had we not gone to war with Iraq that more rogue states would have had the incentive to acquire weapons of mass destruction. I was just wondering which nations are you referring to, and do you believe that in the future they will contribute to world terrorism?
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] Well I was making a general observation. I have certain countries in mind but I don't think it necessarily profits things if I start going into that at this stage as I have certain responsibilities to be careful about countries I nominate. But the principle is obvious that if other rogue states looked at Iraq and looked at Iraq for 12 years defying the United Nations, and then right at the end despite all of the speeches made and all of the threats delivered nothing happens and Saddam Hussein stays in power, countries that have pretensions to be like Iraq and leaders who have pretensions to be like Saddam Hussein would say well, I can get away with it too, and all I have to do is thumb my nose at world opinion, and in the end they'll give in, they'll buckle, they'll let me stay in power, they'll let me behave like a tyrant and a despot. It's pretty obvious that they would have done so.
[b]ANN BOYAPATI:[/b] Eli did you have a question?
[b]ELI GOLDFARB:[/b] Oh yes if I could go back. you were talking about the war in Iraq and its effects on you think it might be the breakthrough for the peace process in the Middle East. How do you think the role that the United States and Australia played in sort of ignoring the general consensus and world opinion in pursuing a war in Iraq will affect the countries standing to media peace process? Don't you think you might alienate the world community there and does that somehow devalue the legitimacy of a peace settlement…
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] Well I don't, Eli there are a lot more countries supporting the position we took silently than I think credit was given for. You take our own region, a lot of people, this is the Asia Pacific region, a lot of people wrongly said that Australia was alienating opinion in the Asia Pacific region. The reality is that our position and the American position was supported by Japan, it was supported by Korea, it was supported by the Philippines and it was supported by Singapore. Sure Indonesia and Malaysia were different, China took a very pragmatic view, China formally did not support it, but they did not make a big issue out of it. Now as far as the Middle East is concerned, the key thing is that you now have a united commitment of the European Union, the Americans, the Russians and the United Nations towards getting a settlement. There's no doubt that many Arab states are delighted that Saddam Hussein has gone. Our Foreign Minister has just come back from the Middle East and he's told me and told our parliament if you go around countries and everybody, whatever they may have said before the war, they are delighted that he's gone. And I think you take all of things together, you've now got a more propitious climate and atmosphere for a Middle East peace settlement than you've ever had before.
[b]SUE SLAMEN:[/b] 'You're listening to Radio Australia - TALKBACK CLASSROOM with the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard on the subject of 'The World after September 11th.'
[b]MOSHIDI MANAKA:[/b] Shortly after September 11th your government made the link between asylum seekers and terrorism. How much has terrorism influenced our border protection?
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] Well Moshidi it's not right to say that we made a very strong link. We didn't. I think I was asked a question and I replied that quite naturally that if people illegally enter a country and you know little of the background of those people or nothing, then it's possible that there could be a terrorist there…..,
INTERJECTION:
please, you know you asked me a question and I'm giving you an answer, please, Moshidi, to suggest that we made a big link is not right. I mean the reason we put the position on asylum seekers was that we don't think that refugees should come to this country except through the international process. And we believe in an orderly refugee policy, and that's the argument.
[b]MOSHIDI MANAKA:[/b] Peter Reith though made the connection, this is a quote, the flow of refugees could be "a pipeline for terrorists to come in and use your country as a staging post for terrorist activities".
[b]ANN BOYAPATI:[/b] That's a quote from Peter Reith and he made that statement a number of times.
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] I know that statement was made but I repeat that if you go back over the bulk of the arguments that we used at the time, it's not right to say that it was, we didn't make a big connection. But it still remained the case that there could be if you have illegal immigration, that could be a conduit for terrorism, I'm not saying it is, but it could be. I mean by definition there must be a possibility of it.
[b]ELI GOLDFARB:[/b] Without the connection between refugees and terrorism, why are there detention centres inside Australia?
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] Because we have a policy of denying entry to illegal immigrants, that's the policy, and detention centres have been part of that policy, and I might say a bipartisan part of that policy for more than a decade. And we take the view that as a nation that takes a bigger proportion of refugees as part of our immigration programme than many other countries, we take about 12-thousand a year, we take the view that it's fairer that everybody come through the same process and be assessed according to internationally accepted criteria, and that if people who seek to come to this country illegally shall be subject to the processes of the law.
[b]ANN BOYAPATI:[/b] Mr Howard just on the issue of detention centres, Lucy had some particular concerns, so Lucy would you like to ask a question?
[b]LUCI HAGUE:[/b] Yes. I have a particular concern as well as several members of the Australian audience have this concern with children in detention centres. There was a report on CNN that several children in the Woomera detention centre had formed a suicide pact and there were also consistent reports of overcrowding and rising discontent. Is this true and what does this say about the conditions the children are being detained under?
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] Look we don't like having to detain anybody, if you think that we enjoy having detention centres, the answer is no we don't. But we do provide decent standards of health care, we do consistent with the fact that they are detention centres provide reasonable standards of accommodation, and we provide decent food. And they certainly compared with similar arrangements in other parts of the world compare very well if not favourably. We have tried in relation to young children, we have tried to provide alternative community housing arrangements, that has not been taken up a great deal. One of the reasons it's not been taken up a great deal is that people are reluctant to see their own families divided with the father remaining in detention and the mother and children going into some kind of community housing arrangement. At present I think there are in the order of about a hundred children, don't hold me to the exact figure, but it's in that range, in detention. The number is declining, because the policies that we have followed have sent a message to people smugglers that the process of people smuggling doesn't work.
[b]ANN BOYAPATI:[/b] Back on the issue of children Mr Howard, what about the length of detention, Moshidi?
[b]MOSHIDI MANAKA:[/b] I know recently yes Phillip Rudd stated that the average period of children being kept in detention is one year three months and 17 days, with at least one child staying for five years in Port Hedland.
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] Sorry what was the last bit, one child what?
[b]ANN BOYAPATI:[/b] For five years, being detained in Port Hedland.
[b]MOSHIDI MANAKA:[/b] How do you think this would affect a child living in a detention centre for five years?
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] Look I would wish it were otherwise but unless you completely abandon policy of detaining people who've come here illegally, which the Australian community plainly does not support, well you have to have some kind of detention and you try and make the process of assessment as quick as possible.
[b]STEPHEN CUTTING:[/b] Prime Minister I know you're in a bit of a rush this morning, so we'll just take a couple of questions from either end of the forum hopefully. Do we have a question here to begin with?
[b]MALE STUDENT:[/b] Prime Minister Howard you said you went to war in Iraq because of the weapons of mass destruction that they held or that you felt that they held. Can I ask you what about the amount of nuclear weapons that the United States hold, and the fact that the United States is the only country to ever use nuclear weapons in wartime, and why aren't you pushing for the United States to disarm their nuclear weapons?
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] Well the Americans do have nuclear weapons and they're authorised to do so by international law. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty, to which Australia is a party, recognise that there were certain countries that had nuclear weapons and could retain them, and America is one. So it's perfectly lawful. And the whole basis of the non-proliferation treaty was built upon an acceptance that you had five nuclear powers, you had the United States, you had the then Soviet Union, now Russia, you had France, China and Great Britain, and that realistically those countries were not going to rid themselves of their nuclear weapons. And indeed the world remained at peace for 40 years through a doctrine of mutually assured destruction, in other words the Americans would never use nuclear weapons against the Soviets because they would use them in retaliation against the Americans and vice versa. And a lot of people argue historically that that was one of the great guarantors of peace in the years that followed World War Two until the collapse of the Soviet Union. What we have to do as a world community is to stop the spread of those nuclear weapons beyond those five countries. I'm concerned that India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, I'm concerned about the capacity of other countries, especially North Korea in the nuclear area, and that is why we are so exercised about North Korea, because North Korea is in breach of her obligations under the non-proliferation treaty. I mean being an idealist I would like to see them all sort of miraculously disappear, I think we all would like to see that, including the ones the Americans have. But realistically that is not going to occur, realistically the best we can hope for is to stop the spread and the non-proliferation treaty was a big step down that path, and that's why we're very keen to make it work.
[b]STEPHEN CUTTING:[/b] We've got a question up the back.
[b]MALE STUDENT:[/b] Mr Howard, considering the recent state of the world what made you choose an aggressive military stance rather than a peaceful conciliatory stance to prevent attacks on Australians?
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] Well I don't accept the categorisation of an aggressive military stance. I mean I hold the view that in the medium to longer term the Middle East and the world is a safer place because of what was done in Iraq.
[b]STEPHEN CUTTING:[/b] One up here.
[b]FE[b]MALE STUDENT:[/b][/b] Throughout the interview and in answer to that question you maintained that you've improved the lives of the Iraqi people and that this justified the war on Iraq. Although I do agree that it's an added positive, is it really a fair justification for waging a war when we could improve the quality of life for thousands of people in third world countries through aid and funds, rather than spending this money in a war?
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] Well I think, could I deal with that in two parts, can I deal with the question of Iraq. I have no doubt that the lot of the Iraqi people has been greatly improved by the removal of Saddam Hussein, no doubt about that and I think you implicitly acknowledged that. And the evidence is already emerging, it's going to be difficult, but as somebody rightly observed conditions in post-World War Two Europe were difficult but it didn't mean that the routing of Nazism was unjustified. The question of assistance to third world countries, the greatest problem that third world countries have at the moment is corrupt governance within many of their own borders. There is an enormous amount of aid from different countries that does not reach the targets it should, and we have to try harder as a world community to improve standards of governance.
[b]STEPHEN CUTTING:[/b] Mindful of Mr Howard's schedule, that's all the time we do have for questions this morning. I'd like to thank you very much for giving us your time this morning Mr Howard. I'd like to thank also our panel both here and in the United States, and I'd like to thank the Smithsonian Institution and the Museum of American History. Thank you very much audience.
FX (Clapping)
[b]SUE SLAMEN:[/b] Today's Talkback Classroom with the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard took place in June 2003 between high school students at the National Museum of Australia and their student counterparts at the National Museum of American History at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington.
'Talkback Classroom' is produced for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation by Stephen Cutting.
And that brings to a close Radio Australia's 13-part series, Australia Now, so from me, Sue Slamen thank you for your company and a big thank you to Ryan Egan for Technical Production and Chris Baker and the National Centre for Australian Studies at Monash University for academic support.
[/quote]
[quote]
[b]SUE SLAMEN:[/b] Hello Sue Slamen from Radio Australia, with the concluding program in our series, Australia Now. TALKBACK CLASSROOM with the Australian Prime Minister.
In mid-2003 Prime Minister John Howard took part in a very different sort of 'QUESTION TIME ' outside of the National Parliament.
[b]MONTAGE OF STUDENT QUESTIONS:[/b]
"Now to my first question to you Prime Minister…"
"Did this raise any moral concerns in your mind?"
"Did you in any way feel responsible?"
"How did that make you feel?"
" Mr Howard..
"What made you choose…"
"What moral issues did you personally struggle with?"
[b]SUE SLAMEN:[/b] Mr Howard is not the first Australian politician to take part in what's become known on the ABC as TALKBACK CLASSROOM, but it is the first time that a panel of both local and overseas students focussed their questions on international issues.
The Australian Prime Minister John Howard agreed to field questions from a panel of Australian and American high school students around the subject: "The World after September 11th ".
The international link-up brought together a student panel and audience at the National Museum of Australia in Canberra with American students at the National Museum of American History at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington.
The student forum was jointly funded by the Australian museum and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Education Office as part of its ongoing program of civics education.
And listening to the 15 and 16 year old interviewers was quite an education for the assembled media whose camera shutters you'll hear going off in the background.
The American panel consists of 11th Grade students from Washington DC, Gordon Su, Lucy Hague and Eli Goldfarb, and their Australian counterparts are Year 12 students from Melbourne, Moshidi Manaka, Daniel Quinlivan and Ann Boyapati who as Student Chair, opens proceedings...
[b]ANN BOYAPATI:[/b] Welcome to Talkback Classroom, my name's Ann Boyapati. Our guest for today is the Prime Minister of Australia, the Honourable John Howard. Welcome Prime Minister.
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] Thank you Anne.
[b]ANN BOYAPATI:[/b] The media has made much of your close relationship with the US President George Bush, so how would you describe this relationship? Are you mates, are you buddies?
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] Well we're close as leaders can ever get. I've only known George Bush personally since the 10th of September 2001, that was the first time we had a face-to-face meeting, although we'd spoken on the phone before that. I have always found him a likeable intelligent affable person; I get on with him very well because of our personalities and our common political philosophy I'm probably a little closer on the personal basis to him than I was to his predecessor, but you shouldn't assume from that that I didn't get on well with his predecessor. I found him an intelligent man and although we came from slightly different political viewpoints Australian prime ministers and American presidents have a duty to their respective nations to get on well. With George Bush it's particularly easy because I like him.
[b]ANN BOYAPATI:[/b] So what sort of shared values would you have at a personal level?
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] Well I think we all, we both have a very strong belief that the most cohesive and important unit in society is the family, we both share a very strong commitment to the capitalist system in a sensible way that restrains its excesses, but we are nonetheless people who believe in the free enterprise market system. We're both of course very strongly committed to the democratic process, the American democratic process is very different from Australia's, it's no less democratic, it's no more democratic I might say as well. They're some of the values that we would share in common.
[b]DANIEL QUINLIVAN:[/b] So President Bush made the comment that you're the man of steel. How did that make you feel both in terms of your friendship with George Bush and in the political sense?
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] Oh look I'm not big on sort of personal stuff like that. I mean that was nice of him to say that and I'm not sort of running around saying isn't that sort of terrific or anything…
[b]ANN BOYAPATI:[/b] Why do you think he called you that?
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] Look everybody uses different language to describe, but clearly the President of the United States greatly appreciated Australia's involvement in and support for the American position on Iraq. It was approaching a seminal moment in the history of the world following the 11th of September, and America in particular was subjected to a lot of unreasonable attack and criticism, as was President Bush over the stance he took, and Australia was one of a very small number of countries that stuck to the Americans all the way through on that. And it was the right thing to do and he like the fairly spontaneous person that he is was expressing his appreciation.
[b]ANN BOYAPATI:[/b] So Mr Howard how much do you think this personal friendship or relationship with George Bush influenced your decision to commit troops to a war on terrorism?
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] Oh we would have committed irrespective of who had been the President. I think nonetheless it's because we had a good personal relationship that he was able at all times to keep me fully informed of what was happening, and he did engage in a genuine process of soliciting Australian views and does greatly value the close alliance we have with the United States. But I mean it's a relationship such as exists between Australia and America transcends the personalities of the leaders who may be there at the time. We will always be close because we have a lot of values in common…. Yep?
[b]GORDON SU:[/b] I was just wondering what was your main reason for committing troops to Iraq? Was it the weapons of mass destruction?
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] We certainly believe that Iraq had a weapons of mass destruction capacity and program, and I still believe that to be the case. I held the view then and I still hold the view that if rogue states like the then Iraq were allowed to retain that weapons capacity then more rogue states would seek to acquire it and the more that acquired it the more likely those weapons were to fall into the hands of terrorists, and that would represent a potential threat to many countries, not least Australia and the United States. But nonetheless, I mean that was the principle reason, I didn't run away from that, I don't run away from it now, but I might also make the further observation that prior to our entering the military conflict we did point out the appalling human rights record. And those who are now being critical of what we and the Americans and the British did, are they really suggesting it would be better for the Iraqi people if Saddam Hussein were restored if he's alive and capable of doing that, if his regime had not been overthrown? I think the discovery of all the bodies, the unraveling, the unveiling of the appalling litany of atrocities, which has occurred since the war, I think, drives home that point.
[b]ANN BOYAPATI:[/b] Well let's talk about the war, Dan?
[b]DANIEL QUINLIVAN:[/b] Well like George Bush you appear very unshakeable in terms of your resolve to go to war, but, and you didn't seem to have any doubts about the necessity of going to war. But did this raise any moral concerns in your mind this issue of acting, preemptive action and also in terms of the war on terror?
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] Well I always try and think of it in terms of right and wrong. I thought it was a just military involvement, very much so, otherwise I wouldn't have supported it. I think the dividends are going to be very large, I mean one of them is already very evident and that is we have made more progress, the world has made more progress down the path towards a Middle East peace settlement over the past few weeks than we've made for a couple of years. It could well be the case that the path to the Middle East peace settlement runs through Baghdad, and that's not my expression, it's the expression of the British author, William Shawcross. I think the victory over Iraq, the removal of Iraq as a potential threat to Israel, the concomitant commitment, particularly of President Bush towards achieving a Middle East peace settlement, and his absolute determination to do everything he can to do that, and his placing of a requirement on both Israel and the Palestinians to make the necessary concessions to achieve a peace settlement, that could well turn out to be the great legacy of what happened in Iraq. Now who would dispute that that would be a wonderful thing, not only for the Middle East but also for the world.
[b]ANN BOYAPATI:[/b] Mr Howard when we're talking about causes of terrorism, how much would it have cost the coalition to go to war firstly? How much would it have cost in terms of financial costs?
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] Well I can only answer for Australia.
[b]ANN BOYAPATI:[/b] But if you can approximate, just approximately?
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] I won't try and play anything other than Prime Minister of Australia, I can't answer for the cost.
[b]ANN BOYAPATI:[/b] Are we talking billions?
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] The amount we provided for is in our calculations was somewhere between 500 and a million and a billion dollars, it may turn out to be just precisely how it turns out I can't tell you at the moment, but that was the budget allocation that we made.
[b]MOSHIDI MANAKA:[/b] How does that compare with our foreign aid,
[b]ANN BOYAPATI:[/b] With spending on humanitarian aid, how does that compare?
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] Well in spending on what, all humanitarian aid?
[b]MOSHIDI MANAKA:[/b] On humanitarian aid in terms of the wars on terrorism?
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] Well hang on, are you asking what all humanitarian aid? We've committed 100-million dollars so far of humanitarian assistance for Iraq, 100-million dollars so far. The humanitarian task in Iraq is nowhere as great, nowhere near as great as everybody predicted. People said there would be several million refugees, people said the oil wells would be set on fire, people said the Tigris Euphrates valley was going to be flooded, none of those disasters occurred. We'll continue to play a big role in humanitarian aid, and on latest calculations and Australia is fifth or sixth, I think sixth in the generosity of donations towards humanitarian assistance, and on the latest information I have ahead of a number of countries who were highly critical of Australia and who are bigger and therefore in a better position than Australia to contribute. I'm quite proud of the humanitarian part that we've played.
[b]ANN BOYAPATI:[/b] The UN recommends that developed countries commit point-seven-per cent of GDP to foreign aid. Australia only commits point-two-five-per cent, the US only point-one per cent. So how can you explain these figures considering that poverty is a cause of terrorism?
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] We have an aid program of I think one-point-six billion dollars.
[b]MOSHIDI MANAKA:[/b] But I mean it's lower than what the UN recommends for developed countries?
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] Not everything the, I'm a great admirer of the role of the UN, particularly in its agencies, and I think the current Secretary General of the United Nations is probably the best Secretary General the body has had, and I worked very closely with him in relation to East Timor. But just because the UN sets a figure doesn't mean that it's automatically holy writ.
[b]LUCI HAGUE:[/b] Mr Howard, if I may go back to something you said earlier, you mentioned in the war on Iraq that had we not gone to war with Iraq that more rogue states would have had the incentive to acquire weapons of mass destruction. I was just wondering which nations are you referring to, and do you believe that in the future they will contribute to world terrorism?
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] Well I was making a general observation. I have certain countries in mind but I don't think it necessarily profits things if I start going into that at this stage as I have certain responsibilities to be careful about countries I nominate. But the principle is obvious that if other rogue states looked at Iraq and looked at Iraq for 12 years defying the United Nations, and then right at the end despite all of the speeches made and all of the threats delivered nothing happens and Saddam Hussein stays in power, countries that have pretensions to be like Iraq and leaders who have pretensions to be like Saddam Hussein would say well, I can get away with it too, and all I have to do is thumb my nose at world opinion, and in the end they'll give in, they'll buckle, they'll let me stay in power, they'll let me behave like a tyrant and a despot. It's pretty obvious that they would have done so.
[b]ANN BOYAPATI:[/b] Eli did you have a question?
[b]ELI GOLDFARB:[/b] Oh yes if I could go back. you were talking about the war in Iraq and its effects on you think it might be the breakthrough for the peace process in the Middle East. How do you think the role that the United States and Australia played in sort of ignoring the general consensus and world opinion in pursuing a war in Iraq will affect the countries standing to media peace process? Don't you think you might alienate the world community there and does that somehow devalue the legitimacy of a peace settlement…
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] Well I don't, Eli there are a lot more countries supporting the position we took silently than I think credit was given for. You take our own region, a lot of people, this is the Asia Pacific region, a lot of people wrongly said that Australia was alienating opinion in the Asia Pacific region. The reality is that our position and the American position was supported by Japan, it was supported by Korea, it was supported by the Philippines and it was supported by Singapore. Sure Indonesia and Malaysia were different, China took a very pragmatic view, China formally did not support it, but they did not make a big issue out of it. Now as far as the Middle East is concerned, the key thing is that you now have a united commitment of the European Union, the Americans, the Russians and the United Nations towards getting a settlement. There's no doubt that many Arab states are delighted that Saddam Hussein has gone. Our Foreign Minister has just come back from the Middle East and he's told me and told our parliament if you go around countries and everybody, whatever they may have said before the war, they are delighted that he's gone. And I think you take all of things together, you've now got a more propitious climate and atmosphere for a Middle East peace settlement than you've ever had before.
[b]SUE SLAMEN:[/b] 'You're listening to Radio Australia - TALKBACK CLASSROOM with the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard on the subject of 'The World after September 11th.'
[b]MOSHIDI MANAKA:[/b] Shortly after September 11th your government made the link between asylum seekers and terrorism. How much has terrorism influenced our border protection?
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] Well Moshidi it's not right to say that we made a very strong link. We didn't. I think I was asked a question and I replied that quite naturally that if people illegally enter a country and you know little of the background of those people or nothing, then it's possible that there could be a terrorist there…..,
INTERJECTION:
please, you know you asked me a question and I'm giving you an answer, please, Moshidi, to suggest that we made a big link is not right. I mean the reason we put the position on asylum seekers was that we don't think that refugees should come to this country except through the international process. And we believe in an orderly refugee policy, and that's the argument.
[b]MOSHIDI MANAKA:[/b] Peter Reith though made the connection, this is a quote, the flow of refugees could be "a pipeline for terrorists to come in and use your country as a staging post for terrorist activities".
[b]ANN BOYAPATI:[/b] That's a quote from Peter Reith and he made that statement a number of times.
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] I know that statement was made but I repeat that if you go back over the bulk of the arguments that we used at the time, it's not right to say that it was, we didn't make a big connection. But it still remained the case that there could be if you have illegal immigration, that could be a conduit for terrorism, I'm not saying it is, but it could be. I mean by definition there must be a possibility of it.
[b]ELI GOLDFARB:[/b] Without the connection between refugees and terrorism, why are there detention centres inside Australia?
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] Because we have a policy of denying entry to illegal immigrants, that's the policy, and detention centres have been part of that policy, and I might say a bipartisan part of that policy for more than a decade. And we take the view that as a nation that takes a bigger proportion of refugees as part of our immigration programme than many other countries, we take about 12-thousand a year, we take the view that it's fairer that everybody come through the same process and be assessed according to internationally accepted criteria, and that if people who seek to come to this country illegally shall be subject to the processes of the law.
[b]ANN BOYAPATI:[/b] Mr Howard just on the issue of detention centres, Lucy had some particular concerns, so Lucy would you like to ask a question?
[b]LUCI HAGUE:[/b] Yes. I have a particular concern as well as several members of the Australian audience have this concern with children in detention centres. There was a report on CNN that several children in the Woomera detention centre had formed a suicide pact and there were also consistent reports of overcrowding and rising discontent. Is this true and what does this say about the conditions the children are being detained under?
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] Look we don't like having to detain anybody, if you think that we enjoy having detention centres, the answer is no we don't. But we do provide decent standards of health care, we do consistent with the fact that they are detention centres provide reasonable standards of accommodation, and we provide decent food. And they certainly compared with similar arrangements in other parts of the world compare very well if not favourably. We have tried in relation to young children, we have tried to provide alternative community housing arrangements, that has not been taken up a great deal. One of the reasons it's not been taken up a great deal is that people are reluctant to see their own families divided with the father remaining in detention and the mother and children going into some kind of community housing arrangement. At present I think there are in the order of about a hundred children, don't hold me to the exact figure, but it's in that range, in detention. The number is declining, because the policies that we have followed have sent a message to people smugglers that the process of people smuggling doesn't work.
[b]ANN BOYAPATI:[/b] Back on the issue of children Mr Howard, what about the length of detention, Moshidi?
[b]MOSHIDI MANAKA:[/b] I know recently yes Phillip Rudd stated that the average period of children being kept in detention is one year three months and 17 days, with at least one child staying for five years in Port Hedland.
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] Sorry what was the last bit, one child what?
[b]ANN BOYAPATI:[/b] For five years, being detained in Port Hedland.
[b]MOSHIDI MANAKA:[/b] How do you think this would affect a child living in a detention centre for five years?
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] Look I would wish it were otherwise but unless you completely abandon policy of detaining people who've come here illegally, which the Australian community plainly does not support, well you have to have some kind of detention and you try and make the process of assessment as quick as possible.
[b]STEPHEN CUTTING:[/b] Prime Minister I know you're in a bit of a rush this morning, so we'll just take a couple of questions from either end of the forum hopefully. Do we have a question here to begin with?
[b]MALE STUDENT:[/b] Prime Minister Howard you said you went to war in Iraq because of the weapons of mass destruction that they held or that you felt that they held. Can I ask you what about the amount of nuclear weapons that the United States hold, and the fact that the United States is the only country to ever use nuclear weapons in wartime, and why aren't you pushing for the United States to disarm their nuclear weapons?
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] Well the Americans do have nuclear weapons and they're authorised to do so by international law. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty, to which Australia is a party, recognise that there were certain countries that had nuclear weapons and could retain them, and America is one. So it's perfectly lawful. And the whole basis of the non-proliferation treaty was built upon an acceptance that you had five nuclear powers, you had the United States, you had the then Soviet Union, now Russia, you had France, China and Great Britain, and that realistically those countries were not going to rid themselves of their nuclear weapons. And indeed the world remained at peace for 40 years through a doctrine of mutually assured destruction, in other words the Americans would never use nuclear weapons against the Soviets because they would use them in retaliation against the Americans and vice versa. And a lot of people argue historically that that was one of the great guarantors of peace in the years that followed World War Two until the collapse of the Soviet Union. What we have to do as a world community is to stop the spread of those nuclear weapons beyond those five countries. I'm concerned that India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, I'm concerned about the capacity of other countries, especially North Korea in the nuclear area, and that is why we are so exercised about North Korea, because North Korea is in breach of her obligations under the non-proliferation treaty. I mean being an idealist I would like to see them all sort of miraculously disappear, I think we all would like to see that, including the ones the Americans have. But realistically that is not going to occur, realistically the best we can hope for is to stop the spread and the non-proliferation treaty was a big step down that path, and that's why we're very keen to make it work.
[b]STEPHEN CUTTING:[/b] We've got a question up the back.
[b]MALE STUDENT:[/b] Mr Howard, considering the recent state of the world what made you choose an aggressive military stance rather than a peaceful conciliatory stance to prevent attacks on Australians?
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] Well I don't accept the categorisation of an aggressive military stance. I mean I hold the view that in the medium to longer term the Middle East and the world is a safer place because of what was done in Iraq.
[b]STEPHEN CUTTING:[/b] One up here.
[b]FE[b]MALE STUDENT:[/b][/b] Throughout the interview and in answer to that question you maintained that you've improved the lives of the Iraqi people and that this justified the war on Iraq. Although I do agree that it's an added positive, is it really a fair justification for waging a war when we could improve the quality of life for thousands of people in third world countries through aid and funds, rather than spending this money in a war?
[b]JOHN HOWARD:[/b] Well I think, could I deal with that in two parts, can I deal with the question of Iraq. I have no doubt that the lot of the Iraqi people has been greatly improved by the removal of Saddam Hussein, no doubt about that and I think you implicitly acknowledged that. And the evidence is already emerging, it's going to be difficult, but as somebody rightly observed conditions in post-World War Two Europe were difficult but it didn't mean that the routing of Nazism was unjustified. The question of assistance to third world countries, the greatest problem that third world countries have at the moment is corrupt governance within many of their own borders. There is an enormous amount of aid from different countries that does not reach the targets it should, and we have to try harder as a world community to improve standards of governance.
[b]STEPHEN CUTTING:[/b] Mindful of Mr Howard's schedule, that's all the time we do have for questions this morning. I'd like to thank you very much for giving us your time this morning Mr Howard. I'd like to thank also our panel both here and in the United States, and I'd like to thank the Smithsonian Institution and the Museum of American History. Thank you very much audience.
FX (Clapping)
[b]SUE SLAMEN:[/b] Today's Talkback Classroom with the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard took place in June 2003 between high school students at the National Museum of Australia and their student counterparts at the National Museum of American History at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington.
'Talkback Classroom' is produced for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation by Stephen Cutting.
And that brings to a close Radio Australia's 13-part series, Australia Now, so from me, Sue Slamen thank you for your company and a big thank you to Ryan Egan for Technical Production and Chris Baker and the National Centre for Australian Studies at Monash University for academic support.
[/quote]
2006-8-7 04:32
城市童话
**** Hidden Message *****
[color=Red]回复可下载广播[/color]
[color=Red]回复可下载广播[/color]
2006-8-7 21:51
gjsky
thanks
2006-9-14 02:53
tianxzh
xiexie
2006-9-14 18:48
yugn
顶，最后一集
[url]mms://media4.abc.net.au/ra/australia/media/an13.wma[/url]
[url]mms://media4.abc.net.au/ra/australia/media/an13.wma[/url]
2007-2-9 01:07
vivian1985
ding a !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
2007-2-16 20:06
moko
3Q
2007-3-16 17:37
patti0209
Thank you very much much~
2007-3-22 14:14
偶来了
good
2007-4-3 04:32
lovenet88
回复 #3 城市童话 的帖子
:)
:)
2007-4-9 15:05
刘痒痒
:') :')
2007-4-12 23:23
cccc_2001gao
hh
2007-4-12 23:39
紫青
回复 #4 城市童话 的帖子
:)
:)
2007-4-14 19:23
samliuflash
jiushixiexie
2007-4-14 22:33
allenwy
thank you
2007-4-15 00:24
yuki_lzy
thanks
2007-4-18 01:37
hustgdlele
thanks
2007-4-20 14:29
gaoxb25
:)
2007-4-29 15:02
myshun545
thank you al the same
2007-5-2 21:50
xiaomantong
merci beaucoup:(
2007-5-22 22:36
heroty
ding!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
2007-5-31 13:48
psleetr
1313
2007-6-7 19:35
xiaomantong
3q
2007-7-1 14:39
DIY蜕化
嘿嘿
2007-7-15 01:28
chrisfong
从事的工作、生活的家园和休闲方式；为您解读他们赖以生存的环境、管理国家的政治体制以及他们是如何待人处事以及在本地区发展睦邻友好关系的。
转载请注明出自澳洲中文网,本贴地址：[url]http://www.ozchinese.com/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=50404[/url]
转载请注明出自澳洲中文网,本贴地址：[url]http://www.ozchinese.com/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=50404[/url]
2007-7-19 18:01
ycfder
民
民
民
2007-8-21 21:15
thinkworm
fd
fd
fd
2007-9-8 16:13
babypigsxm
UP
2007-9-12 16:58
bonnie7211
FINAL ONE THANKS A LOT
2007-11-24 19:03
little_bee
:monkey7
2007-12-1 20:01
celinna
ta
ta
ta
2008-3-7 16:07
ID不换
恩 最后一个了,下完了, 谢谢楼主啊
2008-6-4 07:18
bettyyu
回复 #3 城市童话 的帖子
:monkey12
:monkey12
2008-6-11 14:07
jobsaus
fd
2008-7-17 10:11
trieuh
回复
2008-8-2 19:17
faya
thnx sooooooooooooooooooo much
2008-8-19 18:31
清补凉_Z
:monkey1 我下不了亚，我想下了直接用MP3听。但是只能弄到在线听得
2008-8-24 15:03
lena88
嘎 哪
页: [1]
查看完整版本: 澳洲广播电台第十三集：青年论坛
Powered by 澳大利亚中文网 5.5.0 © 2005-2007 澳大利亚论坛