Transcription
Minister, thank you very much, uh, for for that speech and and for the perspective from, as you as you stressed, a nation that has a presence, uh, uh, and obligations across multiple regions.
Um, uh, all three of you have stressed the complexity and importance of the maritime domain, and the, and the wide range of vulnerabilities and threats, and the, and the collaboration and and cooperation, but also investment that might be required to to manage them. So that gives us a a very, uh, broad, uh, uh, set of issues to discuss now in the next 50 minutes or so.
Uh, my screen is already full of names that are seeking the floor. Um, so I, I might, uh, again, collect six or seven, uh, uh, interventions before I return to our speakers, um, to see that we got some answers, and then, uh, we might do, uh, another, uh, round.
Um, so let me start, uh, with a question from Japan. Uh, Tadashi Maida, your microphone's on.
>> Thank you. Actually, uh, but first of all, they really appreciation of addition of the of Sadian that Moami grass free and that we are more steady supporting that this shipbuilding capability of Henderson shipyard. This is, uh, Japanese commitment. And and my, uh, question is that to to Deputy Prime Minister Ma on Australia is that, uh, your views on vulnerability of Pacific Island nations, especially I, Australia already agreed with national security with Papaini and also we are now doing a lot about the, uh, support to Fizzy and then, uh, together with our Australian counterpart and US counterpart as well, that's like tangible, uh, case is that Palao, uh, the, uh, deal of the, uh, fabishing, uh, optical fiber caven under sea, and also that this pic, uh, deal. And my question is that, is that, uh, how do you see that vital Papini, Papini in particular, uh, on some separation movement of a Bugen Bill, and that's a very critical important strategic issue, not just only maritime issue, but but I, my question is, how do you see the situation of this separation movement of Bugu? Thank you.
>> Thank you. Thank you very much. And, uh, next, we'll take, uh, from India, Dashana Bu.
>> Thank you, Bastian. Um, I have two questions. Uh, one to Australia and one to France. Minister Miles, um, you mentioned, uh, you talked about the disruptions we see, subsea cables and critical underwater infrastructure. A lot of the responses from the Baltic states to disruption of, uh, CUI has been through NATO and in deployment of military assets. Um, in the absence of a NATO-like structure in the Indo-Pacific, what regional framework does Australia envision in addressing CUI disruptions when neighbors don't agree, whether it's accidental or whether it is, um, uh, intentional in disruptions of subsea cables? Uh, to, uh, to Minister Bodma, uh, thank you for your, um, uh, remarks, and you outlined how France is an Indo-Pacific power, um, and and the crisis around the Strait of Hormuz. Uh, France is probably one of the, um, only European players with, um, military power and presence in the Indo-Pacific, particularly in the Indian Ocean region. It has the capacity to ensure sea lanes of communications, um, security with bases in Mayotte, Reunion, UAE, and Djibouti. Can we expect France to see some of using some of this military power to reestablish SLOC security in the Indo-Pacific? And Bashian, sorry, if I could just add in one last question to both Australia and France. Uh, do you still see relevance for the India, Australia, France grouping, which lost its momentum after, thank you.
>> Thank you so much. We'll take, uh, next from the Young Leaders Group and from the Solomon Islands, Loretta Brigida Manila, and Loretta.
>> Good afternoon, Mr. the Deputy Prime Minister from Australia. China and Australia and China has has been and still is very influential in the South Pacific region in terms of infrastructure, education, health, and even climate change. My question is, how can Australia and China work together to ensure regional peace and prosperity in the region? Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. And from the United Kingdom, John Chipman. John.
>> Thank you very much, Bastion. And I have a question for Sheikh Saud. Do you rightly pay tribute to the hard work that Field Marshal Munir is doing in mediation in the current conflict in, uh, the Gulf? But I think we should also pay respect to the efforts made by your own Prime Minister, Muhammad Al Thani. Uh, at present, there has been a lot of discussion on Iran and Oman taking some sort of joint responsibility for this trade, and I understand that Oman understands that charging a toll is illegal under international law, but they appear to be, uh, looking at a kind of payment system, uh, to, uh, cover security and infrastructure costs. And could you enlighten us as to what you have learned about, uh, the, the, the ideas that Oman is putting forward in order to charge some form of legal revenue for secure passage through the straits? And to Richard and Kathine, now that we have much better capabilities to surveil gray area threats, could each of you say what you think is the deterrent value of attributing activity in the gray area? Will it actually make a difference if we attribute, even preemptively, our knowledge of gray area threats?
>> Thank you very much, John. And we'll take from the United States, Patrick Cronin. Patrick.
>> Thank you very much. Um, I wonder for all three of our excellent speakers, how they see AI-enabled technologies amplifying undersea and shipping threats, and what do they think are some of the best means of remedying these new technological challenges? Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. And I'll take a question from China. Chang.
>> Thank you, Dr. Chigarich. My question is for the French Minister of Armed Forces and Veterans. Uh, as to the US war against Iran this year, European countries, including France, refused to follow. Then Washington said that it will reassess the role of NATO. So my question is, what's your opinion about the future development of NATO and the French role in it? Thank you.
Thank you very much. And, uh, I might, uh, take, uh, maybe two more, uh, again from the, uh, Young Leaders Group, and from Cambodia, Esa Rayos Min.
>> Thank you, Sher, for the floor. I would like to ask the question to all the three panelists. First of all, Asia facing the growing maritime tension. How can stable, balanced sovereignty rights with the need to present trust, legal certainty, and long-term regional stability coexist? And with the recent precedence of the crisis of strategic trust that is happening in Southeast Asia, can a stable maritime order be sustained if negotiation on maritime agreement is no longer valued as doable and predictable? Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. And we take from Malaysia, Trisha Yo.
>> Thank you for, thank you for, um, having me. Uh, so Mr. Chair, uh, I'd like to ask this question to all the panelists. So this morning, uh, we heard from the US Secretary of Defense, Pet Hex, calling on its partners and allies to expand their defense spending, specifically increasing to 3.5% of GDP. Um, he also tied this to consequences should these allies engage in free-riding. Now, I don't think any of the three, uh, countries represented on stage are in danger of that, but I quote, they will face a clear shift in how we do business. So I'd like to have the positions of the three panelists on the principle of the administration's strategy of tying defense and sec, and security commitments directly with trade benefits, um, especially for smaller states, say in the Indo-Pacific, that may not be able to afford this, um, this principle of tying security and trade. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you very much. I'll take one more, and then advance warning to the panel that I shall ask you to, uh, pick up on these questions in reverse order, uh, uh, which you originally spoke, but we'll take one more from the, uh, Young Leader Group and from Myanmar, Suai Mon.
>> Thank you, Chair, for the opportunity. My question is to all the panelists. As maritime security challenges become increasingly complex, what should be the top priorities for regional cooperation? And where do you see the greatest potential for public-private partnership, as well as civil, uh, military cooperation to build resilience against physical as well as cyber threats against critical maritime and undersea infrastructure? Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. So, uh, we shall now, uh, return, uh, to responses, uh, from the panel. Uh, we will then have time for, uh, a second round of questions. Um, and if I may, uh, uh, invite, uh, Minister Wana to to start, uh, the response round. Uh, you have a few of the themes summarized, uh, for you in front of you. Uh, but please, uh, uh, select some of the questions that you would, uh, want to respond to.
Thank you very much. Well, I'm going to talk about this trade of Hormuz, and we talked about this earlier. Of course, France is one of the Indo-Pacific countries, and France is very clear on this. Our willingness has to do with our diplomatic actions. We want to make sure that the strait is once again open. Having it open once again is about respecting a key principle. It's about the freedom of navigation. What France offered during the multinational military mission is to have diplomatic talks. But of course, we need to make sure that we have discussions with ship owners and insurance representatives to make sure that we can support boats there to make sure that they're safely supported. Of course, this is a key mission, and this mission is being discussed and talked with more than 40 partners, and more than 20 of them are committed to providing resources. So this is an international initiative, and beyond our moves and its consequences, and and our Qatari colleague talked about this here, it comes down to more than this. It comes down to the freedom of navigation, and it circles back to all the international treaties.
Now, I would like to jump back to another question asked here today, namely the the role of NATO and the relationship between France and NATO. Very concretely, and we will talk about this during the NATO summit in July. What we want to concretely do is to come up with this European pillar of NATO. Of course, we will work hand in hand with the US. You know the history behind the US and and and France, more than 250 years of relationship. Of course, we are allies, but it doesn't mean that we always see eye to eye, but we remain allies. And our position when it comes to the Near and Middle East is the following: France has its own approach. It's a defensive approach, it's not an offensive approach. And this is a key element here today.
Now, about the questions when it comes to the military budget, and I would like also to talk about AI. We were able to learn lessons from wars in Ukraine in the Middle East. What we saw is that the world is rearming itself. But also what we see is that things are changing with regards to the military, the role of drones, the role of surface-to-air systems. We talked a lot about underwater cables, and what we see today is that we are going from down below, under sea, to all the way up to space in the military domain. So we need to go even further when it comes to R&D. We need to develop more AI solutions. We have to have, we need to have more answers and more solutions, and this is what we do with many countries, and it's a reason why we have coalitions. And I also would like to talk about what we do with our industrial partners. AI will allow to develop new concepts when it comes to maritime, naval, ground solutions. And we see here what is at stake for all countries all around the world.
>> Thank you very much. >> Deputy Prime Minister, may I invite you to pick up on some of these, of course, in particular on on John's question on on Oman's proposal. I'm sure you have a view. And then and then a few of the other themes. Uh, there were questions on, uh, how AI might change the the the picture and and provide some remedies, uh, and and the theme of, uh, maritime stability and the difficulty of coming to agreed, uh, negotiated solutions. Uh, maybe you can pick up on that as well.
>> Thank you. Uh, about charging legal revenue. I think, um, Qatar and also the partners in the Gulf stated very clearly that charging, uh, fees will always will impact the consumer. So we are against this. But for certain times that they say they will use it for mine clearing or some usage of the fees for a temporary time, this is something that is negotiable and it could be something that, uh, will will help the, uh, transit of the, you know, the, the Strait of Hormuz to be back to normal, normal stage. Um, but I reiterate here that this is should not be, you know, a legal, uh, fees that will impact even to other straits that will follow the same example, and this is will again bring us to, uh, a disorder of the maritime, you know, solution.
The second point regarding the AI. I think what we faced in Qatar in the last, and also in the region in the last two months since the end of February, what gave us now the experience that we can use the technology and AI in the defensive way to see how we can prevent using the AI from all the different layers of the air defense, because that will give us a very accurate response to whatever we are going to use from our assets. And you can imply, imply, imply this to the usage, how we can make the safeguard of the transit in the maritime and also in the, you know, cabling underwater, where will be the pipeline or where will be the fiber optics cables, we can use AI and the technology to prevent any kind of this, you know, ordering of these, um, connections.
Uh, regarding the cooperation and partnership, we thank France and the UK for the initiatives which we joined in Qatar among around 50 countries, and I think this will make sure that we will have a sustainable solution for the Strait of Hormuz and for any other examples in the future, uh, because we want to make sure that there is enough, uh, assets to protect the ship and also to give the confidence of the ship owner that Strait Hormuz are back to normal. And, uh, this is something that in Qatar also we support in different, in different, uh, uh, sectors to, uh, to make sure that these will be will be coming into action once the agreement, hopefully, will come soon.
>> Thank you very much. Thank you, Deputy Prime Minister Mars. You've got a few, uh, Australia-specific ones, and then, and then also a few of the wider panel questions, please.
Uh, well, I might start with the the question from Cambodia, which spoke about, you know, the importance of strategic trust in how we operate, and there is not a simple answer to the question about how to build strategic trust. But one would observe that strategic trust is really the single most precious commodity that all of us are trying to create in this room. And I think for a lot of us, our jobs are on the one hand about building the military capability which defends, uh, our own country's interests, but also, uh, building the strategic trust around that with our neighbors to ensure that what we are doing is actually contributing to a peaceful region and a peaceful world. And that ultimately is about being really clear in signaling why we do what we do in terms of the, uh, military capabilities that we seek to acquire and to build. But strategic trust fundamentally underpins all that we are trying to do here in terms of build better architectures in respect of, uh, the maritime domain.
Uh, there was a question from India in respect of, uh, whether or not there is an architecture that is required in a, in, in the Indo-Pacific to to match the architecture of NATO in the North Atlantic in respect of dealing with seabed cables. Um, I, I think actually the architecture in the Indo-Pacific and this part of the world is fit for purpose. Um, there is a lot of architecture here, and most essential to that from our, Australia's point of view, would be ASEAN. Um, but I don't think there is a need to to build on that. But I think what, what is right is that there does need to be a collective response to the challenge of seeking to, uh, protect undersea, uh, or seabed architecture, and with that more broadly, the, uh, the rules of the, the road at sea. There's a question from Myanmar about how public-private partnerships, or what's the best way for public-private partnerships to contribute to the protection of critical infrastructure at sea, and there was also a question from the US about AI, and my, uh, colleagues on the, uh, the stage have spoken about AI. I think to start there, AI clearly, uh, is going well. AI clearly depends on subsea cables, but AI has an important role to play, I think, in protecting subsea cables. But what that points to is that as we move forward, um, technology is emerging. Technology is going to be a critical component of how we go about, uh, building, um, a regime which does protect the, the architect, or the infrastructure which exists on our seabeds. And right there, um, is the most significant way to come back to the Myanmar question. We can see public-private partnerships contributing, uh, to the way forward here.
Um, there was, uh, then, uh, uh, we had a, a question around, um, uh, attribution and and the importance of, uh, attribution. I think what I would say there is, um, attribution has played a significant role in cyberspace, in terms of, uh, how we seek to combat, um, cyber threats. Um, attribution needs to be done carefully. You need to be actually able to attribute, and this is one of the issues which, um, exists, I think, in this emerging area of, of, of subsea infrastructure. Um, but I think just as we've seen attribution play an important part in how we are dealing with the, the, the, the threats in respect of cyberspace, I think it has a role to play here as well.
Um, from the Solomon Islands, there was a question about a really good question about how can Australia and China work together in terms of the Pacific. Um, and I, I like the question because it kind of flips the paradigm, which is that the Pacific is a place of increased strategic competition, which I actually think it is. But I have long said that I feel that, um, you know, the great challenge amongst Pacific Island countries, which are amongst the least developed countries in the world, where development is happening the slowest, is fundamentally human development. And I think we, we heard last night from Tlam, the importance of human development in the context of security and peace. Um, and that applies in the Pacific as well. And there is great work, uh, that can be done in terms from from from all countries wanting to assist in building human development, um, in the Pacific amongst Pacific Island countries. And I think right there is probably the answer to the question that was raised.
Uh, there was a question from Japan in respect to Bougainville, um, and and what its future is in in Papua New Guinea. Look, there, there's been a long-standing peace agreement, um, which has set out a pathway in respect of whatever is the future status in relation to Bougainville. From our point of view, we think that that is being, uh, followed, um, by both, well, by Bougainville and and Port Moresby. Um, we, we seek simply to see that the terms of that peace agreement, dating back to, someone will correct me, dating back to, I think 2000, um, is, is, is kept, uh, faith with, um, but, but our observation is that that is what's happening, and, and we, you know, work with Papua New Guinea, and obviously we also work with Bougainville, um, in respect of however Australia can support that process playing out.
Finally, there was the question from Malaysia. Um, in relation to defense spending and and its link to trade. I, I'd make two points. Um, burden sharing has been a point that has been made by successive administrations of the United States, really since the the Second World War. It's, yes, we, we are very much seeing it. We saw it today in the speech that was made by Secretary Hexit. Um, you can look at successive comments that have been made by, uh, successive US administrations over a long period of time, and obviously, you know, from an American perspective, um, it's completely understandable that that would be, um, the position that America would have, and we, we totally accept the legitimacy of the burden-sharing conversation on the part of the United States, and we seek to engage with it. In relation to trade, um, we've also made clear our view that global trade has brought great prosperity to the globe. Um, and that the more that we are reducing trade barriers, the better.
>> Thank you very much. Um, there are more than 20 people seeking the floor. So I will again try and and group, uh, maybe six, eight or so, uh, into, uh, uh, a range of questions. Here we have, uh, first in this round, please, from Vietnam, Haido Tom, your microphone's on.
>> Yeah, thank you so much, Mr. Chair. And, um, my question addressed to Australian, uh, Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marks. Um, I think that the questions in the South China Sea also, it's not about just gray zone, but the very much imbalance of power, hard power in the region, so make the other country in a very difficult position, whether they facing the escalatory rupture or maybe they have to compromise some very key interests. Also that the disproportionate cost of facing the coercion, because the country in the front lines who usually facing the coercion, and that kind of any cost that would happen. So I would invite your discussion and elaboration of the Australian views and policy, and how to make that balance right. How to support the, uh, uh, coastal states in East Asia to face up the coercion in the way that it is in more sustainable way in a long term. It's not just a short-term engagement. Thank you so much.
>> Thank you very much. And we have from France, Lucy Beor Sudor. Lucy.
>> Thank you. My question is for all three speakers. Each of you mentioned in your speeches the importance of rules to preserve maritime security. Secretary of War Petes said earlier this morning that the rules-based order was a utopian idea. How do you reconcile your vision with the one proposed by the United States? Thank you.
Thank you very much. From the Young Leaders Group and from Timor-Leste, Anna Paru.
>> Thank you very much. Uh, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia. Your Excellency, I'm very happy to see you here today. Uh, my question is on the illegal fishing in Timor-Leste's exclusive economic zone, which can pose a threat to Timor-Leste's national security and food security. Uh, given that we, well, Timor-Leste and Australia share its maritime border zone, and also given your dual role as Minister of Defense, how can Australia, my question is, how can Australia and Timor-Leste deepen its bilateral defense and maritime surveillance cooperation to robustly monitor and deter these transnational maritime infractions? Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. And we take from China, Chanu Cao.
>> Thank you, Chairman. I'm a senior captain from the PLA ND, PLA NDU, China. My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister of Qatar. And, uh, thank you, Deputy Prime Minister, for your excellent presentation. Your presentation, you mentioned that the conflict in the Middle East has caused severe disruption of maritime navigation and also global energy supplies, and also getting the shipping and also the energy supplies back to normal as soon as possible is a top priority for the international community. My question is, in your opinion, what is the right and feasible way to attack this, and how will things play out in the near future? Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. And we'll take from Indonesia, Frager Ferdinand Venas in Kiwan.
>> Thank you, Chair. I would like to address my question to all, uh, the three speakers. As we are aware that maritime security is very essential, and where collective response is also pivotal. Uh, I would like to ask, what is actually the most plausible way to synchronize both traditional and non-traditional security approach orientation? Because some part of the nation, they have different orientation, while at the same time they have to balance between the prosperity and security, and also in compliance with their domestic politics, the constitution, and also the gap in resources, technology, and capacity that they have. Thank you.
Thank you very much. And from the UK, Nick Childs. Nick.
>> Thank you, Bastion. Um, the threats we have seen recently in terms particularly of maritime trade and, uh, threats to shipping, particularly in the Red Sea, perhaps, and, uh, the Strait of Hormuz, have underlined the challenges in terms of defense and protection that can be delivered against, uh, asymmetric and complex threats. Um, is this leading to a need to reassess what naval and maritime forces can actually do to, uh, provide that protection, or at the very least, whether there needs to be a reassessment of, uh, the kinds of capabilities beyond AI, uh, that that need to be developed in order to provide that protection in the future? Question to all the panelists. Thanks.
>> Thank you very much, Nick. And from the Young Leaders Group and Australia, Sam Bashfield. Sam.
>> Thank you, Chair. My questions to all of the panelists. So, we've seen a considerable buildup of offensive sea mine capacities in this region. It's a hugely problematic weapon that many countries have abandoned many years ago, and has huge implications for surface fleets, for subsea movements, and for the digital infrastructure that's on our seabeds. So, I'd welcome the views of any of the panelists on the reemergence of this potent weapon and the implications for regional maritime security.
>> Thank you very much. And from the Philippines, Pedro Sora.
>> Thank you, Sir. I'd like to address my question to the distinguished speaker from Australia, the Deputy Prime Minister. Uh, with all the destabilizing activities in the maritime domain, which are illegal, coercive, aggressive, and deceptive, that are done with impunity by some interested actors, what new approaches can like-minded nations take to prevent the perversion of the rules-based rule or order?
>> Thank you very much. And from Germany, Ben Shrea. Ben.
>> Thank you, Bastian. A quick question to Deputy Prime Minister Miles. Uh, you, you talked about the existential risk, um, for Australia in regards to subsea cable sabotage. Um, is one of the conclusions that Australia might want to invest in state-owned subsea cable repair, um, assets, given this existential threat? Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. And from the Young Leaders Group and from, uh, Thailand, Saxan Anantasi Ka Sakan.
>> Thank you. My question is for DPM Chief of Qatar. In your view, what is the possible role of the GCC Cooperation Council, or GCC, in strengthening maritime security in the Middle East? Are there any possibilities of problems or obstacles? Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. And I'm going to take, uh, two more, uh, from the Republic of Korea, Kim.
>> Hi, thank you for the opportunity. My question goes to Qatar, uh, Vice Prime Minister. You mentioned Qatar's responses to the current regional challenges. So in this context, I'd like to ask, when balancing national interest and regional stability and international, uh, expectations, what would be Qatar's top priorities in, when you, when you shape, uh, your policies to preserve peace and guarantee the freedom of, uh, navigation in the Gulf region? Thank you.
Thank you very much. And I'll take one more from the Young Leaders Group and from Myanmar, Toit.
>> Thank you, Chair. And, uh, my question goes to the French Minister. So in your speech, uh, you mentioned about the importance of reliability in partnerships. So, given the recent developments in the relationship between the US and Europe, as well as with Canada, do you still see the US as a reliable partner? Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. So, um, let's, uh, take those, uh, questions, fairly wide range. Um, uh, I felt there's a, there's a slight focus on a few things, uh, uh, Middle Eastern and for for Qatar. So, uh, actually, uh, uh, I will, I will come to you last in this round because you have a, a large batch, uh, of of of issues. Uh, uh, uh, Deputy Prime Minister Mars, if I can ask you to perhaps kick us off, and then we'll come to Minister W, and then we'll, uh, finish this round with the Deputy Prime Minister from Qatar.
>> Um, well, firstly, there was, um, a question from, uh, well, a series of questions actually from, from France, specifically about the rules, and, and it was, um, I felt like that's underpinned the question in a way from the Philippines and, and, and Vietnam, but both of them were kind of, how can we provide assistance in respect to this? But let me just talk about, uh, the, the rules to to start with. Um, we, we are great believers, as I've said, um, in the speech that I made today, about the importance of the rules-based order, um, and we feel that, you know, we are in a point in time where, um, you know, sometimes that almost feels out of fashion, um, but I, I've often kind of referred to, um, the fact that if you fly low over the maritime, the waters between Australia and Indonesia, um, you can sometimes actually see the maritime boundary because it is marked out by how far south, um, the Indonesian fishing vessels come. Um, and the people on board those fishing vessels aren't public international lawyers. Um, they're, they're from fishing villages, but they actually understand the international rules-based order, and they are living by it. Um, the rules work. Um, we live by them. Uh, our neighbors live by them, and they are profoundly important. Um, and they do give, uh, smaller countries, as I said, agency.
Now, Secretary Hicks made a point this morning in in the Q&A, which I really do agree with, which is where he said that there is effectively a relationship between power and rules, which is completely true. Um, and he said, you know, rules that aren't backed up by power aren't worth the paper they're written on. I agree with that. And so I, I actually think we are, we are not speaking from different places. It is two sides of the same coin. Um, there does need to be an underpinning power which underwrites the rules. Um, and I understand America's fundamental point, which is that they can't be the, the underwriter of those rules alone. That, that, that the contribution to the power which underpins those rules must be made by all of us. Completely agree with that. Um, our only point would be, and I, and I actually think this is a point that was shared by Secretary Hexit this morning, um, is that I, in in underwriting, in in putting in place that power, um, it's, it really matters that that power comes in combination with rules, and, and actually, I think in his answer this morning, uh, Secretary Higgs acknowledged that the two are related, and this is, I think, where sometimes people, you know, get this wrong. This is not a, a dichotomy. Um, it's in fact a relationship. Uh, you do need power that underpins rules, and you need the rules in place as well.
And in a way, that then goes to the questions that have been asked by, um, Vietnam and, and Timor-Leste in their own ways, um, how can other countries help, uh, in the context of the application of rules in their varying spaces, be it, um, the freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, or the protection of, uh, the fisheries in the shared maritime space between Australia and Timor-Leste? I mean, we, we very much see that we have a role in respect of both. A large part of what the Royal Australian Navy does today is assert the rules-based order in places like the South China Sea, and we see that that's an important activity that, uh, a whole range of nations should undertake. And in respect of, um, uh, the, I mean, we, we really acknowledge that the exclusive economic zone of Timor-Leste, but for that matter, the exclusive economic zone of the Pacific Island nations, for example, is the key economic asset which so many of these countries have. Um, and we are very keen to play our part, um, in helping maintain that asset through greater maritime, uh, domain awareness and surveillance. And we very much talk with, um, the Timor-Leste government in, in respect of that.
Um, a few other, um, specifics which, which came up. Uh, there was a question from Germany about cables and, and whether or not, um, given the comments I made, we'd be interested in, uh, I guess a state-owned cable. For for us, it is less about that and more about how we can be developing systems which, and and and norms, I guess, and processes which protect the subsea cables that are there. An Australian state-owned sea cable, um, would just be, would be as vulnerable to the threats as, as the sea cables which connect us right now.
There's a question from Australia in respect of the application of sea mines. Um, I mean, we, we do see that as, uh, as a concern. Um, and I think that is something that, uh, all countries need to be looking at in terms of, um, uh, dealing with, well, preventing it from happening, calling for it not to happen, but also dealing with it once it is there. Um, and perhaps the final question that I go to was asked by the UK, which was around, um, asymmetry of, of, um, maritime assets. I, I, I think kind of a reference to perhaps cheaper, um, drones or autonomous systems that might operate in the maritime domain, and what that means for more complex, expensive, exquisite, um, capabilities. Look, it's a really good question. I, I think all of this is reshaping the way in which all of us are thinking about how we build our defense forces. We are both, we are definitely certainly from an Australian point of view, incorporating. It's really the big thing that we did in the National Defense Strategy that we announced a month ago was to put an emphasis on, uh, autonomous systems, drone and counter-drone technology, very much with that asymmetry question in mind. But I would also say that, um, there is still a place for the large, exquisite, um, technological platforms. I, I, I don't think it is a case of either or, but I think it is about building a kind of, uh, a doctrine which enables, um, uh, both to play the critical roles which we see they do, um, in the overall architecture of the defense forces that we're trying to build.
>> Thank you very much. If I can turn, uh, to the minister from, from France, to, uh, pick up on on the questions, please.
>> Thank you very much. Maybe I'd like to jump back to what was said when it comes to the importance of rules. And I'd like to list down those rules and go back in time because some of those rules were born after the Second World War. And we see that in Europe, they led to 50 years of peace. And we talked about the dividends of war. And maybe for the longest time, we didn't look at rules. We didn't look at rearmament. But with this new century, we have new conflicts, new wars, and this all started back in 2022 in Europe. So I would never say that, um, rules are obsolete. But what we see though is that the geostrategic situation is changing. New technologies are questioning the change and the evolution of some rules. We talked about seabeds. We talked about, uh, underwater cables, and my Australian colleague just said it. As of today, within this domain, we don't have that many rules. So there are domains where we will need to go further. So the rules are not outdated. We just need to update them.
Now, we talked about the place of the navy. The navy is still a key and it keeps on evolving. And there is a key example: drug trafficking. Drug trafficking is today a key issue, and the navy today, as of today, can support, accompany the territories, their surveillance capabilities. And France made this choice, and we decided to invest in the new aircraft carrier. It shows that we believe in our navy, but it also comes down to our understanding of the situation. One aircraft carrier, aircrafts, and submarines. It's the whole ensemble that helps us have a very important presence.
Now, about the question on what I said about the reliable, the, the reliable partners and our relationship with the US. I'm going to repeat myself. France has for the past 60 years the same strategy: comes down to sovereignty based on two pillars: nuclear deterrence and conventional armed forces. On top of that, we decided to keep on investing in our defense, and we doubled our defense budget in over 10 years. Next week, we will be commemorating the day. The US and France have more than 250 years of history. We have strong bonds, and it shows also that defense agreements don't always have to do with, uh, the US. We have, uh, defense agreements with the Emirates, with Qatar, with many other actors in the Middle East. Three months ago, they were attacked. They helped us. They called us to help them to be there to defend them in a defensive approach, and we answered the call. We signed an agreement. It's a reliable agreement. France answers the call, and France is present when needed.
>> Very much, minister. Deputy Prime Minister, over to you.
>> Thank you. Um, I will start with a question from China. What is the solution and what is the sustainable solution? Uh, we look always to, um, understanding first the problem, and then to look what will be the sustainable solution, especially for the Strait of Hormuz, because the st, you know, the Strait of Hormuz is like you are, you know, choking the neck of the world. When you hold the Strait of Hormuz closed, then you are having trouble everywhere. So what we did, we did a collective approach with all the GCC. We did also collective approach with our partners in the region. But the main thing also we need to sit and to discuss that in a very open discussion with Iran, because Iran is also a partner, and I mean, I mean, a neighbor that will always have a role in the Strait of Hormuz. So we need to understand what is, um, the vision or what is the, uh, understanding of all the problem that Iran thinks about for the Strait of Hormuz in order to find a sustainable solution, because we think that a military solution will not be always a solution. And from there, all these should be under the role of the United Nations. And then after that, I think we will find a, a sustainable solution that will will continue. In addition to building our capabilities in the region, building the capabilities for the maritime, I think there was also a question from the UK regarding what the naval or what the naval, uh, the navy should do in the future. I think it's very important, uh, to involve the unmanned boats, the unmanned drones, the anti-drones, and, um, not only having the capability of the or the assets, but also involving this within your training, you're training your personnel, which is very important to understand the new, uh, technology and the new threats that are coming, which is based on the, the, the, the drones, uh, and the capability to, to do the anti-drones. Um, about one year ago, in Qatar, we did a defensive review, and we based this into the three pillars. One of them was drone and anti-drone capability to build our, our military. The second was, uh, the air defense in terms of ballistic missiles and anti-ballistic missiles. And the third pillar in our defense review was the cybersecurity and how to counter also measure the cybersecurity. I think what we have seen in the last 10 years, this is the major threat, and this can apply if it is in the air defense, or will be in the land force, or will be in the navy. So this is some of the area that all the navy, what we think in our region, are, uh, investing in in the coming, in the coming, uh, months and and years.
Uh, there's a question from Thailand regarding the approach of the GCC. I just highlighted some of it, but for us in the GCC, we are also working together to have a very clear strategy, ex, of what we want to have the relationship with Iran. Still, if I speak, you know, openly, we don't have a one main strategy with how to deal with Iran. Very important. We want to set up, um, you know, a clear strategy and a clear approach with Iran in order to have a strategy, uh, for all the, uh, relationship that we have with Iran, including, uh, the trading strategy and also the, uh, political strategy with, with Iran.
Uh, there was a question from Korea about balancing the relationship. I think Qatar was known in the last decade about the mediation that we are doing also. Currently, we are supporting the mediation of Pakistan. I think balancing this, the relationship between our relationship with the United States, with also other allies, but also balancing the relationship with Iran is very important because Iran is our neighbor today, and they've been our neighbor yesterday, but they will be our neighbor in the future. So we need to make sure that there is, uh, a relationship based on trust, trust based on, uh, you know, a clear understanding of their, uh, threat that they think they have, but also they have to understand our, uh, relationship in our, uh, GCC countries, but also in the Arab countries, because that is, we always discuss it with Iran in the last 15 or 20 years. And, um, I think the confidence that we have built with the United States and also with other allies that give us this trust to take this, uh, mediation forward, which we hope it will come into a result that we will have a sustainable, uh, solution for our region. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. Marvelous. That that brings our session, uh, to a close. The ministers have a ministerial engagement, uh, roundtable and, and a lunch, and everybody else, uh, has also now a lunch break. So let me, uh, invite you to thank our fantastic speakers for for grappling with this complex theme. Thank you very much. And, uh, enjoy your lunch break. And if I can ask you to be back in here at 2:45 for the special address this afternoon, that'd be very helpful. Thank you very much. All right.