In a wide-ranging address to the National Press Club in Canberra, McCallum was asked about Article 4 of the treaty which states that "each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on any of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes."
Asked what the US constitutional process would be to invoke the ANZUS Treaty, particularly if there were a conflict between the President and the Congress, McCallum reminded his audience that he was a lawter with 30 years experience and said:
"The answer is I don't know. I have never read the Treaty. I have not done the Constitutional analysis and I would imagine that there would be a vast difference of opinions among academics and practising lawyers and politicians as to what might be required, so I'm not able to give you a good answer on that."
McCallum has been the US Ambassador since August 2006. The post was vacant for 18 months following the departure of Tom Scheiffer.
This is the transcript of the Address to the National Press Club by the US Ambassador, Robert McCallum Jr.
Ken Randall (Chair):
Ladies and Gentlemen welcome to the National
Press Club and today's National Australia Bank
Address. It's a great pleasure to welcome the
American Ambassador Robert McCallum and his
wife, Mimi.
As you've just heard, Ambassador McCallum was
the third ranking officer in the Department of
Justice before this appointment and was twentyeight
years in private sector legal practice and he's
also been - he attended Yale at the same time as
George Bush Jr and was a Rhodes Scholar with a
Degree from Oxford as well and at both Oxford and
Yale he was a very keen sportsman, although he
insists now that he's retired to spectator status.
This, this appearance today has been sometime in
the making but it could hardly be more topical I
suppose this week. Our relations with the United
States have been on the forefront of our news for
the last several days and it's a very appropriate time
to welcome Ambassador Robert McCallum.
McCallum:
Thank you Ken. I'd like to acknowledge
obviously the - Ken Randall for the warm
hospitality, Members of the Board, Members of the
Fourth Estate I will call it, Distinguished guests,
and Australians around the country.
It's my real pleasure to be here today and I very
much appreciate the opportunity to continue to
broaden my interaction with members of the
Australian media and to communicate directly to
Australians across the Commonwealth.
As the British writer Anthony Sampson once said:
"In America, journalism is apt to be regarded as an
extension of history and in Britain, as an extension
of a conversation." As a new arrival to Australia, it
was suggested to me to consider journalism in
Australia as an extension of Aussie Rules football.
It's a contact sport without pads, there's no offside
rule, you're likely to be poked in the nose during the
course of a match, and a good story or a good scoop
like a great mark is highly prized.
With that in mind, I'd like to set the right tone for
this discussion before we have the opening bounce
if you will and put the ball in play by wishing all of
the journalists here Happy Valentine's Day.
It's not my intention though to spread love among
the journalists and the media here. My real
intention is to remind all of those blokes like me
who have forgotten Valentine's Day. It's not too
late to pretend that you remembered. Rush out and
buy a present and never let it be said that the United
States Ambassador was not doing all that he could
to promote domestic tranquility in the
Commonwealth of Australia.
I also want to remind all of you that I'm doing my
utmost to support commercial and business
activities in Australia so florists, candy merchants
and jewellers, be aware. And that decent but
forgetful bloke who heeds this reminder should
remember one thing out of all of my comments, you
owe me.
In fact, who knows - as they say in America he
might just get lucky later today. And if so, you owe
me big time.
Now the President told me that I - when I came to
Australia, I needed to do my utmost to support
relations within the Commonwealth but I'm not sure
this is exactly what he had in mind.
In all seriousness though, I want to say that I do
have great respect for the media even though I may
not always like what is said or written about me or
my country. I am impressed in Australia by the
variety of the analysis and opinions expressed in the
media on significant issues of the day. It seems like
nobody agrees with anybody else. The media
clearly intends to be independent, provocative,
controversial which results in a robust and spirited
public debate on the issues of the day. And that's a
good and healthy thing in a democracy. It's a
concept that Americans embrace. The style may be
different here, but the function and substance is the
same.
I've heard it said that journalists are more attentive
to the minute hand of history than they are to the
hour hand. That journalists must be responsive to
those daily deadlines rather than to some broader
annual calendar. And this is understandable to me.
Given the focus on immediate events of the day,
now even immediate events of the hour because it's
not limited to journalists. It fact it's the focus that
we all share in this technological age of
instantaneous communications around the globe.
We, as societies, in your nation and mine, demand
immediate information and the availability of such
information no doubt influences the opinions of our
citizens and the actions of our governments in both
our nations in many different beneficial ways. In
the free market place of ideas which is democracy.
Accurate and timely information is critical to be
accountable and responsible for the decisions made.
However, I confess to you that I worry about an
excessive emphasis on the events of the day, that
they may sometimes obscure the longer term
perspective, a broader perspective. I worry that
journalists, government officials, and citizens in
general, in our two democratic societies, are
sometimes at risk of not seeing the forest for the
trees. Some might even say, not seeing the forest
because of our focus on individual leaves in
particular trees.
What I'd like to do today is to add to the public
debate within Australia on some important issues
affecting the national interests of our two countries
by suggesting a long term analysis and view of
policies and goals. These issues arise in the context
of extremely positive changes generated by
economic globalization and that has occurred over
the past decade or so. We are presented with great
opportunities but those opportunities are threatened
by the contrasting, disruptive impact of
international terrorism and transnational crime. We
exist in an international environment that has great
potential for peace, increased stability, increased
prosperity because of globalization. But it's also one
that is fraught with the risk of domestic turmoil,
economic dislocation, random, ruthless,
indiscriminate violence against innocence that is the
ultimate hallmark of terrorism. Our globally
interconnected economic, political, financial, and
energy systems have brought increased prosperity
to many and can do so for many more in the future.
But that interdependence also guarantees that no
country is immune from the consequences of
terrorism 'cause terrorist attacks can have
significant impact far beyond the geographic
location directly affected.
On the other hand, the development of responsive
governmental institutions in a free market economy
can provide the hope and opportunity which can
effectively eliminate one source of the
dissatisfaction manipulated by proponents of
extremism and thus provide an antidote to the
poisonous ideology of terrorism. Let me start from
an historical perspective since history affects the
way both our nations view the world and informs
our decision making processes. Our two countries
share an abiding faith in the democratic process
including importantly an independent press and
media and in the free enterprise system. And that
combination allows citizens to require
governmental institutions to be accountable and
responsive to the needs of people and allows
individuals to seize control of their own destiny, to
develop their talents and abilities to the fullest, and
to seek a better life for themselves and for their
children.
Looking back over our common histories with long
term perspective - that faith in democracy and free
enterprise is validated.
With the sixty-fifth anniversary of the bombing of
Darwin next week, I'm reminded that Australia and
the United States made great sacrifices in World
War II to defeat fascism, and, after winning the war,
made additional sacrifices to win the peace through
aid to Japan and Germany which supported - that
aid supported - new democratic governments and
free enterprise economies.
The United States, Australia, and other democracies
spear-headed the post-war creation of new
international organizations - the World Bank, the
IMF, the GATT, now the WTO, critical
organizations that became the intellectual and
institutional architecture for a more open
international market-based system which has lifted
hundreds of millions of people out of poverty
around the world and served as the foundation for
the global economy that benefits us all in reality
today.
I'm also reminded that our two nations faced dark
days in the 1950s as we dealt with the invasion of
South Korea by communist forces. Both our nations experienced domestic controversy about
sending troops into the Korean peninsula. However,
democracy and a free enterprise system was
preserved in South Korea at considerable sacrifice
by both our nations, and the result fifty years later is
a strong and prosperous ally and friend, whose
Foreign Minister has been selected to become the
next Secretary General of the United Nations. When
one compares the prosperity and freedom enjoyed
in South Korea against the deprivation and hardship
experienced by those to the north, one can easily
understand our shared faith in democratic
institutions and free enterprise.
I submit to you that it is in the national interest of
both Australia and the United States to promote the
creation of stable, democratic governments that
generate greater prosperity for their own citizens
through the development of more efficient and open
markets. Let me describe to you just a few ways in
which the United States and Australia are working
together to accomplish that.
In the bilateral context, the U.S. and Australia are
vigorously implementing the Free Trade
Agreement. The Free Trade Agreement prevents -
presents tremendous potential for both the United
States and Australia in terms of increased trade,
better and less expensive goods and services for
both of our nation's consumers. It also affords the
potential for increased economic activity in the
entire region, and there are direct and indirect
beneficial consequences of that for other nations in
East Asia and the Pacific Islands region.
In the multilateral context, the U.S. and Australia
work side-by-side in APEC and the WTO seeking
ambitious outcomes that further a common goal of
making the international market place a more open,
level playing field for commercial activity.
APEC is the critically important forum for regional
economic cooperation as APEC’s twenty-one
members span four continents and represent 60% of
the global GDP and roughly 50% of world trade.
President Bush and Secretary Condoleeza Rice have
made clear in the recent Leaders' Summit in Hanoi
that APEC remains the pre-eminent channel for
U.S. economic engagement in this region. In every
meeting, in public event, they stressed that the U.S.
vision for APEC transcends customary co-operation
and looks to the emergence of a true Asia-Pacific
Economic Community, spanning the public sphere,
the private sector, NGOs, academia, and civil
society. They also proposed that APEC should be in
the forefront of regional economic integration and
begin serious consideration of a Free Trade
Agreement - Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific as
a long term goal. Importantly, the Leaders formally
endorsed that proposal.
Australia has already kicked off its year of leading
APEC with a highly successful series of senior official meetings in Canberra last month, and, in the
coming year, the United States will work under
Australia’s leadership with other APEC members to
develop concrete initiatives to advance these goals.
On the WTO DOHA Development Round, the
APEC Leaders also issued a strong stand-alone
statement urging APEC members and others to
renew efforts to complete negotiations. One of the
strongest passages in a pointed, one-page document
was this: "We are ready to break the current
deadlock: each of us is committed to moving
beyond our current position in key areas of the
Round."
Make no mistake about it, the DOHA Development
Agenda remains the U.S. number one trade priority
and the United States Trade Representative Susan
Schwab and the Australian Trade Minister Warren
Truss have been working to keep the WTO talks
alive. They most recently held talks in Davos and in
Washington, and the United States still holds out
hope that their efforts and the efforts of others will
result in an ambitious outcome of increased market
access and reductions in subsidies.
Like Australia, the United States recognizes its
responsibility to assist emerging democracies and
developing countries. The United States has been
and remains the largest single country donor of
foreign aid. Our official development assistance
nearly tripled from 10 Billion dollars in 2000 to
27.5 Billion dollars in 2005. Of that, 10%, or 2.7
Billion dollars went to combat HIV/AIDS
pandemics that are decimating populations in
Africa, the Asia/Pacific region, and the Caribbean.
Around the world, the United States provides food,
medical care, education, and disaster relief to
millions of people. Our development assistance
program is an essential element of our policy to
support and promote effective government and free
enterprise. Economic development, responsible
governance, domestic stability, and individual
liberty are inter-related.
Moreover, we coordinate these efforts with
Australia and like-minded countries to ensure that
our mutual goals are achieved in an effective
manner. A perfect example of this was President
Bush’s rapid decision, following consultations with
Australia, to commit a Billion US Dollars for
reconstruction and development following the 2004
Boxing Day Tsunami, supplementing Australia’s
leadership contribution of 1 Billion Australian
dollars.
Terrorism though, presents a grave threat to the
positive development potential afforded by these
activities and the global economy. It presents
significant, ongoing national security risks not only
to Australia and the United States, but also to
emerging democracies and developing countries in
this region. The U.S. policy to combat and defeat
terrorism is well defined and it's well-known to all
of you journalists. Iraq is the central front of the
global war on terror, and the challenges and
difficulties encountered in Iraq have provoked
heated political debates on the policy, both in the
U.S. and here in Australia.
A vigorous debate on this Administration’s policies
is to be expected because the issues are critical to
both nations. There is no easy, immediate solution
to complex problems presented in Iraq, to complex
problems presented in the war on terror. All the
proposals addressing these issues involve
significant challenges, and the consequences of all
of them must be considered over the extended time
horizon that I mentioned at the outset of my speech.
All have potential adverse consequences because
the future is never clear. We don't have the
opportunity as we do with German, Japan and
Korea to look back fifty years.
However, there appears to be three factors on which
there is a general consensus about Iraq. First, the
vast majority of the Iraqi people desire peace,
security, individual rights and liberties, and an
opportunity to determine their own destiny. We all
remember the millions of Iraqis who gave witness
to these aspirations by voting in repeated elections
over the past several years, despite the very real
threat of terrorist violence. Risking their lives, both
at the polls and possibly later in retribution for
having voted at all, Iraqis turned out in astounding
numbers. There is no mandatory voting so familiar
in Australia, and yet the Iraqis proudly displayed
their blue thumbs and fingers showing their
courageous exercise of the right to vote in the
selection of leaders for their new government.
Second, it is an undeniable fact that the duly elected
government of Iraq has largely been unable to
achieve its goals of domestic stability and
tranquility. Although the government is trying to
deliver peace and freedom to its citizens, terrorists -
inspired and assisted by the forces of al-Qaeda - are
trying to destroy the elected government of Iraq
and, through the fomenting and manipulation of
sectarian conflict, to destroy the willingness of
Iraqis to work together in a democratic system.
Third, even those who propose the withdrawal of
U.S. troops concede that, if the United States and
other coalition partners were to leave Iraq before the
Iraqi government is capable of defending its people
and providing for its own domestic security, the
consequences to the Iraqi people would be dire.
The current sectarian violence would likely turn
into a bloodbath with increased retaliatory carnage
and loss of life on all sides. Additional adverse
consequences outside Iraq, including the
Asia/Pacific Island region, would also have to be
considered.
Given those facts, the U.S. and our coalition
partners remain committed to helping Iraq realize
the goal of freedom, peace and prosperity for its
citizens.
President Bush's new 'surge' strategy has three
elements to it and General Peter Pace, the Chairman
of the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff, was here
in Canberra this week to discuss this strategy with
Air Chief Marshall Angus Huston with the Defence
Minister Nelson and with Prime Minister Howard.
First, a temporary U.S. troop increase will assist the
Iraqi government in stabilizing the situation in
Baghdad which is the locus of the most violence.
The reduction in the sectarian violence between
Sunni and Shiites will require disarming violent
extremists in both communities and establishing a
presence to secure those neighborhoods.
Second, the Iraqi government has committed to
assume greater responsibility for its own security
and government services and has agreed to perform
certain defined benchmarks within a given time
frame. The Iraqi government is on schedule to meet
these benchmarks.
Third, the Iraqi government has committed to spend
10 Billion dollars in economic investment programs
to revitalize the Iraqi economy. These programs will
provide jobs and rebuild needed infrastructure.
All three elements are necessary for the long term
stability of the Iraqi nation. There is no cookiecutter
format for democratic government. The
development of democratic institutions is a dynamic
and continuing process, and it depends upon the
creation of confidence within the society in
individual rights, the rule of law, the integrity of
government officials, the freedom of speech, the
independence of the media, and domestic stability
and security. Democracy cannot be imposed. Citizens of conviction must choose it.
The global war on terror is not limited to Iraq.
Having denied terrorists a safe haven in
Afghanistan, the U.S. is determined to prevent al-
Qaeda and associated forces from re-establishing
safe havens elsewhere. As part of that effort, the
United States has detained numerous captured al-
Qaeda fighters at Guantanamo Bay, and the
designation and detention of those illegal enemy
combatants has provoked great controversy and
debate in the United States and in Australia.
In Australia, the debate has focused on the case of
David Hicks who's been designated as an enemy
combatant and detained at Guantanamo Bay for five
years awaiting trial before a military commission
for alleged war crimes.
There are numerous issues that have been raised in
the media with regard to Mr Hicks and given time
constraints, I would like to address in my remarks
the issue which appears from the media coverage to
be the one of greatest interest to Australians.
However, I look forward to discussing all other
issues that you might have on your mind during the
question period following these remarks and I will
stay there after as well if we run out of time there.
I've also brought with me copies of an opinion piece
which I submitted to both The Age and The
Australian last November on detainee issues in
general. In it, I provide a more detailed analysis of
various issues concerning the U.S. treatment of
detainees. Those present can take a hard copy with
them when they leave the premises. I believe that
The Age has also posted it on their website so those
who are not present here in Canberra who may be
listening to my remarks can access it if they are
interested in doing so.
The issue which appears to me to be of the greatest
interest to Australians is why has a trial on these
alleged war crimes been delayed for so long?
Australians are understandably angry at the delay.
Australians believe, as Americans believe, that an
accused should have a fair go through a trial under
the rule of law.
And the Australian government is also angry at the
delay. The Attorney General, the Foreign Minister,
and the Prime Minister have all been in regular
contact over the past several years with officials at
the United States Department of Justice, at the
Department of State, and at the White House
expressing in no uncertain terms Australia’s
demand that Mr Hicks be brought to trial as
expeditiously as possible.
The United States understands and shares this
dismay at the lengthy delay. But the U.S. has not
sought the delay. The reasons for the delay is the
opportunity afforded detainees under the United
States rule of law to challenge before an
independent civilian Federal Judiciary the very
process of their adjudication. Various enemy
combatants have exercised that important right. As
the appellate courts considered these issues, the
trials were stayed by court order pending outcome
of the appeal. The United States Congress then
responded to the court decision by enacting new
legislation to address the legal deficiencies found by
the Supreme Court. The resolution of novel and
important issues before U.S. appellate courts and
through Congressional action admittedly takes time.
But it is time well invested for the rule of law in
clarifying a specific body of law in controversial
areas such as war crimes.
We should all remember that the U.S. provided, at
government expense, for the counsel for the
detainees and private counsel can and did also
participate in the challenge process and the appeals.
There are, of course, numerous volunteer lawyers
from American Bar groups who also provide free
representation to detainees. Since John Adams’
represented the British soldiers who fired on
colonial protesters on the Boston Green before the
American Revolution, history has shown that
American lawyers take seriously their responsibility
to be zealous advocates for controversial clients.
And I believe that no one in Australia can claim that
Mr Hicks has not been represented by zealous
advocates. Given the different results reached in
closely divided opinions in the United States
Supreme Court and in the Circuit Courts of Appeal
terrorist cases, counsel for detainees have pursued
every possible defense, procedural or factual, that
imaginative and talented lawyers can devise. And
certainly they should have done so because that is
their responsibility and obligation to their client.
Issues relating to the designation, processing,
treatment and trial of detainees intersect at the very
crossroads of individual rights and national
security, and, in America, these issues have been,
are being, and will continue to be addressed by our
independent Federal Judiciary as they should be in a
free, democratic society that is committed to the
rule of law. It is that pedigree of process, if I can
call it that, with multiple judges passing upon the
complex issues of the day in our appellate courts in
the United States which results in the American
people accepting the ultimate decision as the law of
the land and complying with it. Some assert that
the United States has abandoned the rule of law in
this area. But rather than abandoning the rule of
law, I submit to you that America is embracing the
rule of law in the midst of war as no nation in
history has ever done.
We Americans certainly do not agree always among
ourselves on what is the 'right' decision, but we
always recognize the legitimacy of whatever the
decision may be at the end of the process. It's one of
the enduring strengths of our system of government,
checks and balances, and it's one of our enduring
strengths of our people, even if it results in
significant delay in the outcome of any particular
case.
We're living in challenging times. Australia and the
United States are presented with remarkable
opportunities to affect the entire region in a positive
way based upon the burgeoning global economy.
It's a potential which could hardly have been
imagined decades ago. At the same time, both our
nations face continuing, serious threats from
international terrorism which will not disappear
without action on our part. It's therefore distresses
me when I read surveys like the January BBC/Age
poll indicating a view that the United States has a
negative impact on world affairs. I suggest to you
that such a perception reflects a profound
misunderstanding of United States' goals and the
policies that are designed to reach them. The U.S. is
in fact attempting to use its influence and its
resources to promote global prosperity and stability
and to encourage other responsible nations to do the
same. No single country has the capability to
succeed in that effort on its own. The United States
must work together with other nations, particularly
with one of its closest allies - Australia.
The relationship between our nations is stronger,
broader, and deeper than ever. At times, we have
and we will in the future have disagreements and
conflicting opinions. Yet, our shared devotion to
democratic principles and ideals unites us and
together we can bring hope and opportunity not
only to Australians and Americans but also to so
many others in the world. For that reason, I am
honored and privileged to be the United States’
representative here in Australia.
Thanks for allowing me to share some thoughts
with you and I'll be happy to answer any questions
that you might have.
Chair:
Thank you very much Ambassador. As you
indicated, it is time for questions. The first one
today is from Cynthia Banham.
Question:
Ambassador, Cynthia Banham from The Sydney
Morning Herald. Do you think that the relationship
between Australia and America is so close today
that it is okay for an Australian leader to make an
intervention into domestic political issues in the
U.S., namely a Presidential election? Or do you
think there are limits on the interventions that
foreign politicians can make on domestic U.S.
issues? Thank you.
McCallum:
You will note that that issue was
conspicuously absent in my remarks, no doubt. The
- what you are requesting me to do is what you are
raising as an issue and that is for me to engage
myself in the domestic political issues that relate to
Australia and the internal debate within Australia.
So it would - I remember coming over here to
Australia and reading about criticisms of
Ambassador Schaeffer being engaged in what was
conceived to be interference in the Australian
internal political system. So I will politely,
although I'm a recovering lawyer, I have had now
four months of diplomatic training and I, I will
politely decline to make any comment related to it.
[Applause]
Chair:
Peter Harcher.
Question:
Well Mr Ambassador, I, I don't know what your
diplomatic training would have taught you on this
particular point, but just to follow up on my
colleague's question. As recently as the APEC
meeting in Hanoi, your Secretary of State
Condoleeza Rice said that the Australian Labor
Party policy in Iraq was irresponsible. Is that a
position that you would agree with or would you
disassociate yourself from that? And if I may also
ask you a question about what you have called the
hour hand of history, the ANZUS Treaty. The
ANZUS Treaty is being invoked by Australia after
the September 11 attack, never been invoked by the
U.S. Can I ask you a question about your
understanding of the operative clause, clause 4
which says that the countries, the parties to the
Treaty would meet the common danger in
accordance with their Constitutional processes.
What would the Constitutional processes be for the
U.S. to invoke the ANZUS Treaty? In particular, if
there were a conflict between the Executive Branch
and the Congress?
McCallum:
Right. Two questions, Peter. I don't know
whether the Chairman will allow you two questions
but I'll try and answer them both if I can. Number
one, with respect to Secretary Rice's comment. I
have not seen that comment. What I have seen was
Secretary Rice defining United States' policy.
Policy that's well known to you. The United States'
policy is that the coalition of the willing and the
United States being one of those, should do their
utmost to assist the democratically elected
government of Iraq in positioning itself and
building its capacity to provide for its own domestic
tranquility and stability. Now, in relation to that as
I have seen the quotation, she was asked well - you
know - how does the United States then view the
removal of troops from that? And her response was
well we obviously are grateful to those members of
the coalition of the willing who have troops there.
And then I found the headline the next day of
Ambassador blasts Labor policy. She was not
interfering in domestic politics. She was not
commenting on a policy of any party as I
understood it and as I have seen it, any party that
was engaged in their own political debate internally.
She was talking about what U.S. policy is. And I
think that that was entirely appropriate. The news
media tends to puts its interpretation into its own
internal political process and that was not, as I
understand it, the Secretary of State making any
comment on internal political debate in any country,
including Australia.
Second question is the ANZUS Treaty and the
Constitutional analysis that I, as a lawyer from
thirty years ought to be able to give you, the answer
is I don't know. I have never read the Treaty. I
have not done the Constitutional analysis and I
would imagine that there would be a vast difference
of opinions among academics and practising
lawyers and politicians as to what might be
required, so I'm not able to give you a good answer
on that.
Chair:
Roger Hausman.
Question:
Your Excellency, I'd like to congratulate you on
your succinct views on Australian football codes
and to bring the discussion...
McCallum:
But the terrible thing was that just as I
began to understand it, the season ended and I had
to start learning cricket.
Chair:
They'll both be going next week.
McCallum:
Yes, shall we talk about fifty overs and...?
Question cont'd:
Indeed, I was going to bring the debate probably to
a more Hollywood perspective and just to keep a
simple question. Could you elucidate to us the role
of a Deputy Sheriff within the context of APEC?
McCallum:
I have - I have heard people in the media
trying to focus on a, on a Deputy Sheriff comment
and I don't know exactly where that came from.
The context that it's been asked to me previously is
in the context of Australia taking the lead and
defining its national policies in Asia-Pacific region
and the United States following and supporting that.
So I don't use the term and I'm not familiar with the
context in which it came about, but I don't think it's
an accurate term in any way, shape or form.
Chair:
Next question's from Lincoln Wright.
Question:
Ambassador, Lincoln Wright from News Limited,
Sunday Publications. Welcome to the Club.
McCallum:
Thank you.
Question cont'd:
A very fine speech. I really wanted to ask you
today but I don't think you're going to answer.
Your membership with skull and bones with the
President's 1968 - the Class of 1968. I wanted to
ask you, is it the secret society that runs America?
But I've heard that it's more secretive than the
President's daily intelligence brief, so let's not go
there.
McCallum:
I'll be happy to answer that question.
Question cont'd:
Oh really?
McCallum:
That's the one question that you get.
Question cont'd:
Oh okay. Well.
McCallum:
You know a card laid is a card played.
Question cont'd:
This is not skull and bones. The serious question -
the serious question is Daniel Ellsberg when he was
working for Robert McNamara in the mid-sixties,
stumbled across a secret document which ultimately
got him fired for reading which sort of said that the
U.S. war plan is [indistinct] 'I knew the war was lost
in '67, the President was saying otherwise.' I
wanted to ask you, is the War - is the War lost in
Iraq? Does the leadership in the United States
really think you can win this war or are you playing
a clever political game until the Bush
Administration finishes?
McCallum:
This Administration really believes that it
can win the war in Iraq. It is not won without
challenges. It is not won without risks and it is a
strategy that will take time.
Chair:
Sandra O'Malley.
Question:
Ambassador, Sandra O'Malley from AAP. If at any
stage Australia decided to withdraw its troops from
Iraq.
McCallum:
I'm sorry, I couldn't hear.
Question cont'd:
If at any stage Australia decided to withdraw its
troops from Iraq and if this withdrawal occurred
prior to any American pull out, would the U.S. view
Australia as having let the side down at all?
McCallum:
Well I'm not going to get involved in
speculating about this or that, of what ifs. I don't
get paid for speculating, you all get paid for
speculating. So I'll let you speculate on all of that
and what, what we in government have to do is deal
with the reality of things. And so until that sort of
event occurs, no one's in a position to really say
what the consequences would be or what the
perceptions would be.
Chair:
A question from Mark Riley.
Question:
Mark Riley, The Seven Network, Mr Ambassador.
I'll have a go. Is al-Qaeda praying for Barack
Obama and the Democrats to win next year's U.S.
Presidential election?
McCallum:
I have absolutely no idea what, what al-
Qaeda's views on those subject are and - but I do
think that as was reflected in my remarks today, and
it is the view of this Administration, that a
withdrawal of troops from Iraq prematurely before
they are in a position to provide for their own
domestic security, would have remarkably dire
consequences and I have - I said in my speech that
I've seen no one who disputes that. That there
would be a blood bath far worse than the civil
disturbances and sectarian violence that exist now.
But I have just this day read something by
Representative [indistinct] in the United States
where he didn't think that would happen. So I
revise my comments to say there is a general
consensus and I only know one person in the whole
world who's basically said it would not be bad -
there would not be as much sectarian violence if the
United States prematurely withdrew.
Chair:
David Denham.
Question:
David Denham Ambassador, from Preview
Magazine. I'd like to tease out a little bit more
about the Military Commission.
McCallum:
Please.
Question cont'd:
Under which the Guantanamo detainees are being
processed.
McCallum:
Yes.
Question cont'd:
Because it seems to me, as you said earlier, that
Australia and the U.S. are very close on many
things. We fought the Second World War, South
Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. So we're pretty
closely related to this. But it seems to me unfair
and unjust that U.S. citizens who might be a
member of al-Qaeda don't have to go through that
Commission, where as any alien, even if they're
really closely related to the, to the U.S., any alien
citizen has to go through a different process. Where
you can use coercion, evidence from coercion,
evidence from hearsay evidence. You can't
necessarily appeal to the - cross-examine the
accused. So it seems to me very unfair that you've
got a different process for the same crime. So I
wonder if you could explain to the audience why
that Military Commission process was adopted
when it seems to me to be blatantly unfair and also,
finally, if we're going to win the hearts and minds of
the war on terror, do you really think it's good to
incarcerate people for five years with no charge,
when some of them all that they might have been is
a driver to one of the high ranking al-Qaeda people?
McCallum:
Okay. Two questions. I appreciate very
much your asking that question because, with all
due respect, I think it confuses the legal systems
that are applicable under established law. The legal
system that you are familiar with is the domestic
criminal law system. The domestic criminal law
system generally involves what we will call
recognised crimes, assault, fraud, you know
burglary, robbery, murder, within the geographic
boundaries of the nation state and under those
circumstances if the Police come out, they put
yellow ribbons around everything, they collect
evidence, they - they interview witnesses, they
provide information for the Prosecutor. The
Prosecutors go out. It's a process that we are all
familiar with and therefore when we think of illegal
enemy combatants we all tend to think of the
domestic criminal law system that relates to
punishment.
Now, there is a separate system that
relates to armed conflict and it has been in existence
for decades and it has to do with the difference
between domestic criminal law and international
armed conflict. Armed conflict, the rules of law
related to war generally occur outside the
geographic boundary. Often times by people, most
often by people who are not subject to your
jurisdiction ie they are not citizens. It occurs in a
context in which there is the fog of war, the chaos
of war. People are shooting at each other. It's not
possible to capture an enemy soldier on the
battlefield, put a yellow tape around where you
captured him and begin to interview people that
might happen to be passing by. If you happened to
be in a circumstance in which there were witnesses
to all of this, they're not subject to the jurisdiction
of your courts and you are going to have to bring
somebody over from Afghanistan or from Iraq or
from some other foreign jurisdiction to be present to
testify like you would have to do in the domestic
criminal law system. The exigencies of war are that
you eliminate the combatant immediately and for
the safety of your own troops and for the military
objectives of your armed conflict. Number two you
detain that individual and you detain them for what
purpose? Both to prevent them from returning to
the battle...killing other people, and number two for
intelligence purposes.
So, the United States
Supreme Court in the Hamdi decision H A M D I,
not H A M D A N which is the, the other decision,
in a decision written by Justice Sandra Day
O'Connor, now, now retired from the United States
Supreme Court, held that it was in fact within the
President's powers to designate enemy combatants,
number one, and number two, to detain them for the
entire course and duration of the hostilities.
For
instance, remember back to the Second World War,
there were irregular partisans fighting on behalf of
the Japanese who were not Japanese soldiers, they
weren't in uniform and they were doing damage and
killing Australian troops and if you captured one of
those people, you didn't then say, well we're just
going to let you go. You detain them for the
duration of the hostilities. And remember this, that
on September 11 2001, eighty-eight Australians
died in the attack in the United States. Imagine
what would have happened, imagine what the
reaction would have been if eighty-eight
Australians had been killed by al-Qaeda in the
geographic boundaries of the Commonwealth of
Australia. You would be interested in detaining
those dangerous people during the entire course and
duration of the hostilities.
The, the problem that
that raises for many people is when do the
hostilities stop? Can you detain someone for two
years but not two years and a day? Or five years?
That's too long, but four years is the right amount of
time to detain somebody and then you have to let
'em go. Whether they're going to join the conflict,
whether the conflict is going on or not, you let 'em
go and they go back and they shoot at you and try
and kill you. There are answers to that.
Number
one, when Australians detained the Japanese
irregulars or the partisans supporting the Japanese,
Australia didn't know how long the War was going
to last. Didn't know whether it was going to be five
years, ten years, fifteen years. Number two, with
respect to that, there are theories out there that the,
the duration of the hostilities can be declared over
by the United States Congress. Number three, the
United States does not wish to be the world's gaoler.
The President has in fact said we'd like to close
Guantanamo Bay but the detention of those
ideologically ruthless fanatics who would kill
Australians and Americans without blinking an eye,
the detention of those people is really an - of benefit
to the international community and the United
States is open and willing for the international
community to take responsibility for detaining those
people who may kill, not in Australia, not in the
United States, but in many other areas of the globe.
Lastly, the United States has not been detaining
people who were adjudicated as enemy combatants
any longer than is necessary in order to assure that
they will not return to armed conflict against the
United States. There've been more than three
hundred and fifty people released from Guantanamo
Bay and they do it under a - under an administrative
system that is beyond anything that has ever been
done by any nation before and is not required by
any international rule of law or any treaty.
The
United States sets up a combat status review
tribunal to determine whether or not someone is an
enemy combatant and that the detainee can say I'm
not an enemy combatant and can provide whatever
information they want and it's three people that do
that and they make a determination. Then the
enemy combatant decision made by the three person
panel sworn to be objective and independent,
military commissioned officers, goes through a
reviewing authority. Then after that, the individual
who is determined to be an enemy combatant can
contest that in a United States court of law, a
civilian court of law. If the determination is
appropriately made that the individual is an enemy
combatant, then, each year, there's an annual review
by an administrative review board, sort of like a
parole board. Is this individual still a danger. And
what sorts of things do you think they would
consider? They allow the countries to participate in
that and the countries can get information from the
families.
Number two, it's - it's a situation in which
you would look at things like what do we know
about what this individual said about their motives
before they ever were involved in the conflict?
Were they an extremist who was saying for
instance, they thought beheading infidels was a
good deal. Ought to be done.
Number two, what
action did they take to obtain the sort of training
that would be necessary in order to put into action
the professed extremist terrorist ideology that they
had previously been professing? Did they train in a
terrorist camp, perhaps in Pakistan and then train
some more in an al-Qaeda camp? Perhaps in
Afghanistan. And then after that, did they go back
for additional training in sophisticated, military
matters, such as improvised explosive devices,
rocket propelled grenades, mortars, things of that
nature?
Furthermore, did they take action after they
received training to enter the fray and to kill
people? For instance if someone was not in a
theatre of war on September 11 and announced that
they were pleased with the terrorist attacks and the
killing of Americans and Australians and many
other nationalities and then came into a theatre of a
war and reconnected with al-Qaeda which had
professed responsibility for the attack, that might be
an indication that one should reasonably consider
about the dangerousness of that individual and
therefore consider whether to detain them because
of the dangerousness.
Finally, one might consider
whether the individual was co-operative and
compliant during the detention. Telling you I'm an
innocent person and I - you know was just in the
wrong place at the wrong time. Or do they cooperate
in efforts to provide resistance and to
communicate about various ways to impede the
stability and good order of the prison facility? All
of those things might be considered. Now the
United States as I said has released over three
hundred and fifty of those people. But you have to
understand that there should be a degree of
skepticism because al-Qaeda in its manuals talks
about using - quote - or I call it this - they talk about
using the American legal system. I call it lawfare as
well as warfare - as part of warfare. And so, al-
Qaeda is trained or trains its people in deceit,
deception, and denial to obtain the ultimate ends,
ultimate terrorist goal. So it would not be
surprising that after the three hundred and fifty
people have been released, over twelve have been
either recaptured or killed and identified, returning
to the battlefield and trying to kill Americans.
Trying to kill Australians.
So when one talks about
the criminal justice domestic system, one is
ignoring the exigencies of war and the chaos of war.
One is ignoring a decades old system that
recognises exactly how one goes about dealing with
those issues, which like I said in my remarks, is a
delicate area of intersection between national
security and between individual liberty. And the
Bush Administration believes that it's got its right,
but you know we are certainly pleased to test those
things in the courts of the United States so that we
are assured that we've got it right. Okay. Five
years incarceration? I think that I previously
answered that in terms of the dismay that the United
States has about it having taken that long. But
would you - would you then say to me well you can
hold him four years, eleven months and thirty days?
But when five years occurs, bingo, the doors open
and people leave. There is no easy answer to that
and if - if the international community is willing to
take that responsibility then the United States would
gladly co-operate and participate in an international
detention regime that was effective to prevent
terrorists from killing people around the globe.
Chair:
Thank you for that. The next question's from
Robyn Fitzimmons.
Question:
Robyn Fitzimmons Freelance. If I could go to the
question of Korea and the six party talks which
have just concluded in Beijing. There appears to be
a difference of opinion between Secretary Rice and
until very recently, UN Ambassador Bolton as to
the significance of the outcome with I think Ambass
- Mr Bolton very much down playing it. Could you
explain why there is such a difference between two
such imminent learned diplomats? And I think Mr
Bolton said the outcome could have been achieved
six years ago and in that context what have been the
nuances of Sino-US diplomacy and for that matter
diplomacy in Vietnam at APEC which have enabled
this to come about?
McCallum:
Okay. Number one, I am not privy to the
nuances of the diplomacy relating to China and
others. China deserves a lot of credit for having
initiated the six party talks and I think the United
States and other members of the responsible
international community give them a lot of credit as
well. They should. Number two, how do I explain
the difference of opinion between two Australian
journalists? Once I figure that out then I may start
to try and figure out how I explain the difference of
opinion between Mr Bolton and Secretary Rice. I
don't know what those differences of opinion are. I
haven't seen the, the quotes from Mr Bolton but in
the United States, I mean one of the things that I
think is - allows me the opportunity to comment on,
there is a perception that the Bush Administration
does not take in diverse views. You tell me what I
want to hear or you're out of here is sort of the
attitude that most people say exists within the Bush
Administration. That is not so. The President is
one who solicits diverse views but the President is
not hesitant to make decisions. That's what he says
his job is, to make decisions. And on any complex
issue. On any complex issue, there are going to be
multiple decisions, I mean multiple views of what
the decision ought to be and they will be nuanced
and they will be stark. And so what one has to do is
to listen and the President does this. Listen to the
divergent views and come up with what he and his
National Security Advisor, his Secretary of State,
his Cabinet members, whoever he happens to be
relying upon, use them as a basis for the decision.
Chair:
Next question's from Gerard McManus.
Question:
Ambassador, also on North Korea. The ink has
barely been signed on this latest agreement with
North Korea which has weapons of mass destruct -
real weapons of mass destruction rather than
trumped up weapons of mass destruction, but
already having secured plenty of oil supplies over
the next few months, always the regime is talking
about a temporary suspension - their understanding
of the agreement is a temporary suspension of their
nuclear facilities. How many times is the United
States going to play sucker to this murderous -
murderous and despotic regime?
McCallum:
What I'm a little bit confused on is what
your view is of the situation? I have - have not
seen the agreement as I've indicated. I am not privy
to the negotiations. Assistant Secretary Chris Hill
led those negotiations on behalf of the Department
of State, on behalf of Secretary Rice and, and the
President, so I'm really not in a situation to debate
with you the specifics of the agreement, the
consequences of the agreement and where things go
from here, because I simply don't have that
information. I'm sorry.
Chair:
Malcolm Farr.
Question:
Ambassador, Malcolm Farr from The Daily
Telegraph. Senator Obama in response to the Prime
Minister said words to the effect that well if he
wants to have comments on this he ought to put in
another twenty thousand troops. Isn't that an
indication that there are senior people within the
American political system, including a potential
Presidential candidate, who have a low opinion of
Australia's contribution to Iraq and following on
from that, wouldn't it mean that it wouldn't hurt
Australia that much if we did pull out?
McCallum:
I can't tell you what Senator Obama's view
of Australia is. I do not know. I do know what the
view of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of
the United States is. General Peter Pace, the U.S.
Marine Corps. He was here this week and some of
you here in this room were at a news roundtable in
which he lauded and praised Australia for its
contribution and for the effectiveness in two
provinces in Iraq which have been turned over to
the Iraqis and, and which the Iraqis have assumed
responsibility for the stability and security in those
areas with Australian back up. And General Pace
was unequivocal in his statement of the importance
of the contribution that Australia had made and the
gratitude that the United States Military had for
being able to work with some of the finest men and
women in uniform in the world. Period.
Chair:
Mark Kenny.
Question:
Mark Kenny from The Adelaide Advertiser
Ambassador. Our Prime Minister John Howard has
spoken of the need to protect American prestige and
he says of course this would be seriously damaged
if America were to pull out of Iraq in circumstances
that could be seen as defeat. In your speech you
also spoke of faith in democracy. I'm wondering
whether, going back to Guantanamo Bay for a
moment, whether you would concede that the
apparent indefinite incarceration of people in
Guantanamo Bay has had any negative impact on
that faith around the world, and therefore on
American prestige?
McCallum:
Well I'm sure that there are people in
Australia, just as there people in the United States,
who are concerned about the risk of indefinite
detention. But as I indicated, there are remedies
that are made that relate to that which should, if
recognised, eliminate that concern. And I return to
the Combat Status Review Tribunals, in which there
is a process that is unlike one that has ever existed
before and which has ultimately an appeal to a
civilian Federal court in the Circuit Court for the
District of Columbia. And then has annual reviews
to determine the continuing risk to the United
States. Now every situation of every detainee is
obviously unique. But, I would - I would hope -
well let me put it this way. I suffer no illusions
from the fact that people are going to hear me say
that who have already made up their mind, slap
themselves in the forehead and say I now see the
light. I just wish I'd understood it earlier. What I
do think may happen is that people can say I
strongly disagree with this policy of the United
States, but I can understand how they reached it
because they suffered three thousand dead, eightyeight
of them who were Australian, in the United
States on one day and therefore they believe that
this individual still poses a risk not only to the
United States but also to innocents all over the
world. Terrorist attack don't just occur in the
United States, in Iraq and Afghanistan. Australia
well knows this from having experienced Australian
deaths in other areas outside the continent of
Australia and the island of Tasmania. So, you
know, it is a matter of not just significance for the
United States in Australia. It's a matter of
protecting innocents who may happen to just be in
the wrong place at the wrong time to create social
turmoil and stability problems.
Chair:
Question from Clinton Porteous.
Question:
Hello Ambassador, Clinton Porteous from The
Courier Mail. You were talking about deaths there.
On the issue of Iraq, Australia's been very lucky in
that it's suffered no direct deaths in Iraq whereas I
know in your country it's been three thousand. In
both countries the opinion polls are against the war.
In your opinion, how much role has that - those
deaths, the grieving family played in turning the
opinion polls in America against the Iraqi war
effort?
McCallum:
Gee, I - you know, one death of any
military service man or woman is too many. And I
have no way of gauging or even assessing the
impact of that on public opinion. I suppose there
are pollsters that could do that but I have no answer
to that.
Chair:
Mark Dodd.
Question:
Ambassador, Mark Dodd from The Australian
newspaper. How would you characterise the, the
value of the Australian military deployment in Iraq
given the number of boots on the ground, if you
take out the Warship and the Embassy guard which
are about a hundred and twenty, leaves about five
hundred troops, all of which are removed a safe
distance from high intensity combat operations?
Thank you.
McCallum:
Well I - I hope that I had previously
answered that with respect to the comments that
General Pace made when he was here to Air Chief
Marshall Angus Huston, to the media, to everyone
that would listen and that is that the Australian
troops have made an outstanding contribution and it
is, it is something for which the United States is
extraordinarily grateful and it's something that I
think the Australian people ought to be extremely
proud of, their military and how they have
performed. If you, if you talk with an American
service man and whatever the branch who has been
involved in operations with Australian counterparts,
they will tell you that their Australian mates are
among the best there are, period.
Chair:
Chris Johnson.
Question:
Chris Johnson from The West Australian,
Ambassador. What is your understanding of what
the reaction would be in Washington, if the
Australian government just simply asked for David
Hicks to be returned home?
McCallum:
Well I - I don't know what the reaction of
the United States government would be. I do know
that anything that is of importance to Australia will
be considered at the highest levels of the United
States government and if that means the President,
the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defence,
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, you name it. The - I
personally when I was at the Department of Justice,
sat in on telephone conversations that Attorney-
General Philip Ruddock had with Attorney-General
Alberto Gonzales, you know stressing the
significance of expediting any charges of war
crimes against Mr Hicks. When Australia speaks
on an issue that is important to them, they are
listened to at the highest levels of government.
What the ultimate decision would be, I can't
comment on.
Chair:
Graham Dobell.
Question:
Ambassador, Graham Dobell from Radio Australia.
First of all, thank you very much for your forceful
reminder on Valentine's Day - it reminds me that I
must use this platform...
McCallum:
Looks like he's a forgetful bloke.
Question cont'd:
No, no. I'm actually - I actually want to owe you
one. It reminds me that I have to use this platform
to wish a very happy birthday today to my little girl
Jacqueline Dobell.
McCallum:
Oh right.
Question cont'd:
And a diplomatic endorsement would...
McCallum:
Let's give her a round of applause.
[Applause]
Question cont'd:
So I definitely - I definitely owe you one on that.
On - on Korea, does the six party agreement though
suggest something of victory for what might be
called traditional diplomacy. The sort of argument
that the Chinese have been making about traditional
diplomacy. Does it in fact mark something of a
failure for the muscular pre-emptive rhetoric that
we heard in earlier times from the Bush
Administration and particularly, that - that phrase
which now rings quite hollow, the phrase about the
axis of evil?
McCallum:
Well I - I think what one has to, to
consider is that the United States makes an
assessment at whatever the issue is, whether it be
Korea or Iraq or otherwise, on what is the best way
for it to achieve its national interests and to protect
its national security and I would say that, that the
initiation, the re-initiation of the six party talks and
although I don't know the terms and haven't
reviewed the documents yet, regarding the
agreement that has just been, been reached. The
successful conclusion of at least a first step in the
six party talks validates the United States'
assessment as to how it ought to proceed in this
particular circumstance.
Chair:
Two more questions. The first from Brendan
Nicholson.
Question:
Brendan Nicholson from The Age, Ambassador.
General Pace who you mentioned just made the
observation slightly enigmatic that Iraq was not the
war we chose but it is the war that we're in, during
that briefing the other day. Do you believe that if
the United States had anticipated that Iraq would
turn out to be as complex and as bloody as it is, that
you would have proceeded with the invasion? And
partly, leading on from that, there's a concern in
countries like Australia, that even among people
who are close allies, or feel we're very close allies
to the United States, but have concerns about Iraq,
that the United States could emerge from this
experience badly bruised and unwilling to play a
role on the international stage. Do you think that's a
real danger?
McCallum:
Let me, let me answer the last question
first and that is - do I anticipate that the United
States under any circumstance will become
isolationist and disengage from the East Asia
Pacific Islands region? And I do not. I think it is
impossible for the United States not to be engaged
in this area of the world because of the globalization
that exists, because of the potential that exists for
raising standards of living for millions and millions
of people, and because it's in the United States' own
best interest to participate in that growth and to
address a number of the problems that are going to
exist and going to develop over time. On the first
question, that is, sort of a, a question of you know -
what if pigs had wings and could fly? It's not
possible to look back and say well gee, if this then
that. What one can say is as General Pace did, this
is where we are, and this is what our interests are
and how do we get to achieve our national interest.
And General Pace - I heard his comment and I
interpreted him to say this is - the debate about
whether the war should have been undertaken,
whether there were weapons of mass destruction,
where there was manipulation of this, intelligence
information? All that's irrelevant. We are where
we are and now what do we do? And that's what
General Pace was addressing and General Pace has
a very clear view as you well know from, from
sitting and interviewing him. As to what needs to
be done and that it can be done.
Chair:
Our final question's from Laura Tingle.
Question:
Laura Tingle from The Financial Review
Ambassador. You've emphasised repeatedly today
as has our Prime Minister, the risks of a premature
withdrawal from Iraq as being catastrophic for Iraq
and he's also made the point that it would be
catastrophic for the prestige of the United States
and of the West. I just draw your attention to an
analysis by Thomas Ricks in his book Fiasco where
he talks about one of the strategic errors being the
cost of being backed by a phony coalition that - that
in the - in a sense the US had run into troubles in
Iraq because it had the appearance of a coalition of
the west but it didn't have its resources and thus it's increased the risk of withdrawal for the prestige of
the west. And in that context I'd like to ask you
when would a withdrawal from Iraq not be
premature? And given the importance of the
coalition, should the actual question being - be
being asked in the Australian government now not
that it withdraw its troops, but that it actually
increase its number of troops committed to Iraq?
McCallum:
Let me, again, because I've got short term
memory, I'm going to answer the second question
first and that is, the question was about an increase
in troops by Australia in Iraq. That is an internal
matter for Iraq to determine based on what its
national interests are and what its resources are.
And so I make no comment on, on that whatsoever.
That's an internal matter which will be, will be
determined by Australians. The, the - you know -
question - what was the first question again? Short
term memory.
Question cont'd:
The first question was about when will it not be
premature?
McCallum:
I think Justice Potter Stewart had a, had a
great phrase in one of his opinions in the United
States Supreme Court when he was asked to define
obscenity. He says I know it when I see it.
Chair:
Ambassador, thank you very much.
[Applause]
Ambassador, congratulations on your performance
today. Thank you very much. We'd like to give
you a membership card to entice you to come back
here fairly soon and a pen to just sign yourself in
and out and I'm sure you didn't forget St Valentine's
Day, but we'd like your wife to have this,
irrespective of ...
McCallum:
Thank you so much Ken.
[Applause]
I appreciate it very much.
[Applause]
The United States Ambassador to Australia, Robert McCallum, has admitted he has not read the ANZUS Treaty.