MR. HOLT: I have discovered that Parliament will be in session tomorrow,
and that's the proper place for a statement of this kind to be made, and
preferably first to my own colleagues in the Cabinet. I don't want to make
a statement here today which means that the statement I make in Parliament
-tomorrow has already been said. So I feel that what I should do here today
is give you my own impressions and conclusions of the conference, but not
try to go through it in too much detail. I have brought along the parchment
document of the " Goals of Freedom" and the " Declaration on Peace and
Progress". I have also got with me the official communique. I thought the
TV boys would like to take a shot of the page which deals with the " Goals of
Freedom" and the seven signatures with it.
I haven't had time to go through the Australian press, but I
gather that one or two of them are referring to wrangles that went on between
us that delayed the conference and held up the drafting and so forth. Well,
we have the distinguished Prime Minister of New Zealand here with me, so
anything I say can be used against me and challenged by but if he
has ever attended a better-natured conference or a more co-operative
conference, or one in which it wds, found easier to reach agreement on the
points of substance, then he has the advantage of me. I have not attended a
conference where there has been readier dispostion to find agreement
-together on the matters that counted, and when you come to think of it, at the
drafting stage, three different documents were produced. The short ones
are not always easier to write than the long ones. The " Goals of Freedom" s
expresses the essence of what we were trying to say In our ' Declaration of
Principles of Peace and Progress in Asia and the Pacific". I think the correct
official title I have the document with me is " Declaration on Peace and
Progress in Asia and the Pacific". The " Goals of Freedom" were drawn as
expressing the esaance of that larger document.
I have never attended a more successful conference myself
and I never expect to, nor a more important conference, because this reaches
right out in to the future.
Well, that is something that I am prepared to say here today.
There are highlights which I would otherwise have referred to but which
could perhaps more appropriately be dealt with in the Padi iament.
( At this stage, the television cameras were switched on)
As you will see, we have just returned from what I believe
is the most important conference I have ever attended or ever expect to
attend. I am quite sure that as the years go on this will be seen as an
historic landmark in man's long struggle for freedom and it will reveal how
closely identified are the policies of the Asian powers who have joined with
the great Western country of the United States of Am erica and with A1ustralia
and New Zealand from the South Pacific in order to resolve the principles
which will guide us not only in our policies in respect of the freedom for
Viet Nam from aggression the Republic of Viet Nam but will also guide
us in the positive and constructive tasks we see ahead of us in that / 2
-2
( MR. HOLT Contd. country and in the peaceful progress that we feel can be
made in the Asian area as a whole. It was most heartening to find
the sincerity and the complete dedication to the task ahead of us manifested
by all the Heads of Government present. I am sure we all took encourage
ment from the way in which we were able to agree so readily on all
matters of substance. I haven't had an opportunity of checking the
Australian press accounts in any detail, but I have seen one or two
reference-s which frankly astonished me references to wrangling at
the conference, delays because we couldn't agree on wording and matters
of that sort. Wkell, Mr. Holyoake was present; Mr. Hasluck was present
at much of the discussion and at the separate proceedings in which the
Foreign Ministers were doing their own drafting, and I would say in their
presence, and would confidently expect them to agree with me, that it
would be difficult to name a conference in which there was agreement more
fully reached in a more co-operative fashion than was the case at this
conference. As to the drafting, when you consider that the conference produced
three significant documents " The Goals of Freedom", the communique
itself which ran into many pages because there were important matters
relating particularly to Viet Nam which we thought should be spelt out
in some detail for public knowledge and then the " Declaration on Peace
and Progress in Asia and the Pacific". Now these things can't be drafted
in double-quick time. No-one would imagine that we came to them as
novel propositions. Indeed, in the " Goals of Freedom", there is no
novelty in the fact that these principles have been stated. Each of us
in our turn has stated them at some time or another, probably many times.
But what is significant is that seven countries so diversely composed
the grea test power in the Western world, th ese four Asian powers and
New Zealand and ourselves, were able to come to such a consensus and
express ourselves so forcibly regarding it.
You will have noted through the detail published of the communique
that certain important items have been put more clearly, I think, than ever
before The intentions of the Government of the Republic of Viet Nam.
They have made it clear that they are not looking to North Viet Nam to do
anything more than abandon its aggression, and that is the least that could
be asked of any country, and that is all that we have asked in our support
of the Republic of Viet Nam in the south. They have given firm assurances
of their intention to proceed speedily to the creation of democratic
institutions. They think the constituent assembly will have reached its
decisions within the scheduled time indeed in advance of it in March, 1967,
and that within six months of that constituent assembly producing a
constitution for the country, they will be able to hold elections for a
democratically-elected Parliament.
Now this, I think, is a great advance in a country which is
subjected to daily attack of one kind or another and is afflicted by the
ravages of war.
There was the agreement to help in the civic programmes of that
country. One thing that should be noted in Australia Is that there are limits
ase how effectively we can work on these civic action programmes
the tasks of reconstruction and rehabilitation while the Viet Gong are able
to come back and destroy the work which is being carried out. So whereas
emphasis in the past has been on what has been known as " search and
destroy" operations, in the future the emphasis will be on " clear and hold"
operations. In other words, you don't merely deal with the Viet Cong
militarily, but there is the political Viet Gong remaining behind which
have been able to destroy a good deal of the work done through the / 3
3-
( MR. HOLT Cont.) programmes of civic action, and on a " clear and hold"
basis, you donft merely deal effectively in a military sense with the enemy,
but you remnain on in that centre to ensure that whatever you are able to
do in a positive and constructive way is not subsequently sabotaged.
Now these are some of the things which have come out.
I would like to put to you the detail of the " Goals of Freedom"
Perhaps those of you with television cameras might like to get a shot of
this particular passage in our documentation. It reads as follows
" Vile the seven nations gathered in Manila, declare
our unity, our resolve and our purpose in seeking together
the ' goals of freedom' in Viet Nam and in the Asian and
Pacific area. They are
1. To be free from aggress ion.
2. To conquer hunger, illiteracy and disease.
3. To build a region of security, order and progress.
4. To seek reconciliation and peace througniout Asia
and the Pacific.
In support of these objectives, you will see that each of the~ Heads of the
seven Governments represented there have attached their signature as in
earnest of their determination to follow these princip~ les through.
Now that, if it is carried out, will represent the most remarkable
advance in the story of Asia ever to be recorded. I bel ieve that there are
these revoluti onary processes going on in Asia, revolutionary in the sense
that they represent a movement away from an unhappy past, but hope is
stirring in Asia, and that this conference will have lifted the hearts of the
people of the area of Asia and the South Pacific generally, will have revealed
to them a resolute determination because each of those seven Governments
has said quite firmly, " We are going to see this job through" and if there
are any doubts in the minds of the Government of North Viet Nam as to our
resolution, then I hope this clear and emphatic declaration will have resolved
thosa cbtbt; ( br them.
So, with the concentration on the task of securing a peace, if peace
cannot be negotiated and surely we have made it abundantly clear that the
terms of a peace require nothing more than an aband onment of aggressionnot
a surrender of national integrity or a destruction of an economy, or the
life of the North Vietnamese people; they are free to choose the form of
government they want, the way of life they want, but they must abandon
the aggression....... . well, if they won't negotiate on those terms, we
must see the thing through, and check the aggression as best we can by
our own combined military means. While this is going on, and after a
cessation of hostilities has been produced, then the tasks of reconstruction
and rehabilitation must. proceed.
I would conclude by saying just this a bmit the initiatives of the
Asian countries which brought us together that it was, I feel a happy augury
for the conference that it should have arisen in this way. We had a firm
statement from the President of the United States of the major part that the
United States was willing to continue to play, and the vast expenditure / 4
-4
( MR. HOLT Contd.) it was willing to incur in pursuit of our agreed objectives,
and no-one could have attended that conference and felt and seen the evidence
of the earnestness, the sincerity and the dedication and the courage of
the rq) resentatives of the Government of the Republic of Viet Nam. the
Chairman of the National Committee of Liberation, Mr. Thieu, and the
Prime Minister, Kao Ky without feeling that here were men of purpose
and dedication, men who could justly require of us support in the task they
have of restoring the freedom which their country should enjoy and In--mabling
it to go steadily forward in peaceful progress.
MR. EGGLETON Now, are there any questions?
Q. Sir, you are quoted in Manila as saying you wouldn't be reviewing
our commitment in Viet Nam until after the elections and that you wanted
to give the Australian public a chance to vote on the issue. Does this mean
if you win the elections you will regard yourself as having a mandate to
increase our commitment in Viet Nam?
MR. H-OLT: This is the situation, if I can state it quite simply. I don't
make a decision i n the absence of my Calb net. We have a system of Cabinet
Government in this country and I wouldn't accept firm commitments on behalf
of Australia in relation to matters of this sort without my Cabinet colleagues
being fully informed and having an opportunity to engage in any discussion.
Within perhaps twentyfour hours or so, the Parliament will have been
dissolved. I have already had letters prepared for my colleagues of the
Cabinet that f rom the dissolution of the Parliament, no major decision is
to be taken which would alter existing arrangements, because this is the
traditional practice as a government nears an election. ( To Mr. Holyoake)
I suppose you have the same practice, Mr. Prime Minister.
Mr. HOLYQAKE: That's the constitutional way.
MR. HOLT: That's the constitutional way, as you say, of dealing with
these matters. So, it is not a case of asking the Australian public to decide
whether or not we should have more troops or less, or more aid or less.
They know our policies and the purposes we have in mind. If they re-elect
us, they must expect of us that we will pursue those policies in the most
effective way we can. Whether or not this requires an increase in the
military commitment will be a matter which the Cabinet will then have to
decide in the light of thc circumstances which exist. Conceivably before the
new Parliament is elected, there could be moves from Hanoi which wculd
respond to our peace iniatives from this conference. I am not so optimistic as
to expect this as a probability, but it is certainly within the reakris of
possibility. It may be, on the other hand, that the fighting intensifies, that
our allies increase their commitments, and if they were to do so and the
situation worsened, then wie would have to review our contribution in the
light of those facts. I don't thin k that the Australian people would ever
expect that we take up a static position, neither moving up or down,
regardless of circumstances, but the evidence should be clear enough that
I have no desire to involve more Australian lives in issues which are of
tremendous consequence to the long-term future of this country than
circumstances make necessary, not ori y in the judgment of myself but of
men like Mr. Hasluck and my other Cabinet colleagues who wailbe joining
in a discussion on those matters with me.
Q. Mr. Prime Minister, will there be an opportunity before
Parliament dissolves for a statement by the Opposition or any kind of
debate?
MR. HOLT; Yes, what is now currently planned and I understand this
is in accordance with Mr. Caiwell's expressed wish is that I make a
statement to the Parliament tomorrow, proba~ bly in the night session, and
that the Opposition would debate that statement on the Friday. This would
then be among the concluding business of the Parliament. What I would
like to do is table the documents after Question Time tomorrow so that
there will be opportunity through the day for them to be carefully studied,
and no doubt the texts are already around, but the full and authorithtive
text would be available for their study and then I would make my statement
and the debate could proceed on it.
Thank you.