VISIT TO US, , CANADA AND UK
DTTAX. A, CANADFA
PRESS CONFERENCE GIVE~ N BY THE PRIME MINISTER,
MR. HAROLD HOLT JUNE, 1967
PRIME3 MINISTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, ladies and
gentlemen of the Press and others whom I see here.
First, may I say what a pleasure it is to be back in Ottawa. You
mention my Parliamentary experience. It was in that capacity I was here
fifteen years agro as the Chairman of the Commonwealth Parliamentary
Conference and as I entered into the Parliament buiklingr this morning, I had
some nostalgic recollections of the very interesting, fruitful talks we had
there then. I have in my office in Canberra a nice big group picture of your
Parliament building, with the representatives of so many Commonwealth
Parliamentarians shown in it.
You have asked me if I would go over the ground that I had coveredi
in discussion with the Prime Minister and members of his Cabinet. You will
be aware, ofcourse, that the Prime Mlinister and I have had other opportun~ ties
of talking at very much greater length than was possible this morning, and:
it can be assumed that we covered just about all the topics that a Canadian and
Australian Prime Minister would wish to canvass together, most of them of
a rather serious and official sort, but other matters as well and I shall say
a word or two about points of detail before I conclude.
This morning I had an opportunity first of having a talk with him and
Mr. Martin before I saw the Cabinet in relation to the Middle East crisis, and
it was very useful to have the up-to-the-minute information which was reaching
them. Later there was some discussion on this inside the Cabinet. There are
two good reasons why I will not be going into detail on this: first of all, it is
not for me to discuss confidential Cabinet-room discussions I would not be
invited to many more if I did but the second reason is that the Prime
Minister has I understand already made some public comment and I do not
think that he would object to my saying that he intends to make a statement
to the House when it meets this afternoon.
V'd. hat I would add is that naturally we are all deeply concerned by these
dramatic developments. Those, who have been close to the discussions, from
the United States, the UK, this country, and other interested countries, had not
anticipated that events would move so rapidly, and before there had been
prospect for some definitive United Nations decision.
But there they are; they have moved. There are conflicting accounts
as to what has occurred. In these situations it is usual to find each side
saying that the other started the fighting first, and it may be some time before
the facts can be sufficiently sorted out for us to come toany judgment on that.
There was not time in all the circumstances for me to discuss in any
very great detail in the Cabinet the full range of matters which I would have
liked to cover, but there are three in particular which I can mention.
The British intentions East of Suez have, as you will be aware,
concerned my own Government, that of the United States, New Zealand, Malaysia,
Singapore and other governments in the area. What may not be so widely
known is that around the arc which runs from South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, 2/
South Vietnam itself, the Philippines, Thailand, and of course Australia and
New Zealand under the ANZUS Pact, there are security arrangements which
the United States has entered into in the countries I have mentioned.
The one area which has been regarded as a Commonwealth and
primarily British responsibility is the Malaysia-Singapore area and it is a
matter of obvious concern to the United States and ourselves if the British
were so to reduce their military presence in that area as to cease to have
effectiveness for our joint purposes. However, this is a matter on which
Mr. Wilson has assured me no final decisions will be taken at least until I
have had an opportunity of discussing the matter with him in London in a few
days' time. I am sure this will have featured in his discussions not only with
the President but with the representatives of other interested countries.
I say no more on that at this moment because the two matters which
I felt were more directly of interest and concern to Canada were these:
Canada and Australia have been leading members of the Commonwealth, the
old Commonwealth and the new Commonwealth. I have been a Commonwealth
man all my life, hoping to see this great concept of a multi-racial association
made to work effectively. I could never see how unless this could be accomplished,
we could have a United Nations working effectively. If those of us who have so
much in common interest are not able to co-operate in a constructive way, it
is hard to see how the United Nations, with all its divergencies of interests and
national cross-currents, could succeed in doing so.
But over recent years, we have been concerned to find that there has
been less emphasis on Commonwealth co-operation. Meetings are tending to
become less frequent: it is unlikely, I gather, that they are meeting this year,
and with the United Kingdom seeking entry into the European Economic Community
there may be a reluctance to meet too early at a time when problems arising
from that will be concerning so many countries of the Commonwealth. It was
through the meetings of the Commonwealth that Australia and Canada were able
to maintain a fairly close contact with each other.
What I have been putting to your Prime Minister and to his Cabinet
colleagues ( and I am very glad to say that they have responded in a very positive
way to this) is that Australia and Canada must try to meet together more often
at a governmental level and perhaps even in other ways, that we must get to
know each other better, get to know more about what goes on inside our
respective countries. One of your Ministers is coming out, I gather, to us
in July and I welcome that, but I have also urged the Prime Minister to make
a visit which will be only the second visit ever made, as I recall it, by a
Canadian Prime Minister to Australia. He has assured me that he would hope
to do this, and perhaps towards the end of the year this will be found possible
for him. We have two countries growing in economic strength, growing in
influence throu.-, hout the world. We have a special relationship, each of us,
with the United States and the United Kingdom. Canada, which has developed
a considerable influence through the United Nations and in particular areas of
the world such as the Caribbean and in the continent of Africa, and Australia,
which is developinr a growing influence in the Southeast Asian and Pacific area,
together I think can contribute very valuably to international policy-making of
the future and can contribute valuably, both of us being quite liberal aid-givers,
to the economic programmes of the countries where our assistance is given.
And so it makes good sense that we should not only get closer to each other,
but consult much more frequently with each other. 3/
I have a vision of a Canada and an Australia at the end of this century,
when your population will by then almost certainly have doubled and ours will
have doubled; and with the skills and the energies of our people, the enterprise
we demonstrate in our countries, I feel that together we would be a significant
factor in the consideration of international problems. So the more we can
understand why the other adopts a certain line of policy, the more we can
harmonize our policies on these international questions, the better it will be
for this process in the future.
There is the other good reason which I have also canvassed with the
Prime Minister and his colleagues. I believe that there is a substantial
Canadian self-interest in taking a much more active interest in what is going
on in Asia and the Pacific. By the end of the century certainly there will be
more than 60 per cent of the world's population in which we broadly term Asia.
I think that if you take East of Suez now, there is probably three-fifths of human
kind to be found in that area of the world, and most of the countries are countries
unlike those of Africa, even unlike to a degree the countries of South America,
and countries which have thousands of years of civilization behind them, and
skills which have accumulated, but they have never been able to exploit their,
skills or their rich resources because of the turbulence which has been a
feature of life on the mainland of Asia.
Now as different countries, and I speak of those particularly around the
arc that I have mentioned, are able to bring communism under check, and are
able to develop a greater degree of cooperation with other countries in the area
and countries such as my own, the economic progress has been quite striking.
In both Taiwan and Korea, they have developed two of the highest rates of
increase of gross national product to be found anywhere in the world.
It may interest you to know that Australia, which had a negligible trade
with Japan in the years after the second world war has now developed its
trade with Japan to a point where Japan has become the largest purchaser in
value of Australian exports, outstripping even the United Kingdom. The
growth of our trade East of Suez has moved from about 15 per cent in the
early 1950' s to 40 per cent of our total export trade, and this export trade is
a very much greater volume of course than it was in those earlier years.
Now, Japan has evidenced, as have the two countries I have just mentioned,
a very remarkable growth rate and there is a rising curve still in these
countries. There are other countries which have the potential but which have
not yet taken off in quite the same way. I can illustrate that for you by these
figures: India has a population about 42 times that of Australia. It has a value
of gross national product only double that of Australia. Indonesia has a
population 9 times that of Australia, but it has a value of gross national
production only one-third that of my country, and yet beyond argument it is
a country vastly rich in resources and now that it has a more stable administration
and is disposed to be more cooperative with the countries of the western world,
there is some reasonable prospect that growth can develop much more rapidly.
And so I say that Canada which has its own Pacific border and from British
Columbia looks out across the Pacific, should, in its own interest, I believe,
be taking an increasing activity and increasing interest in the affairs of the area.
This is not in any way directed to the short-term problems that we have,
for example, in Vietnam. Your position there is well understood, but I would
hope that, taking the longer view and with these favourable developments which
can be pointed to in so many countries, we would find a growing Canadian
interest and through that interest a growing Australi a-Canadian cooperation. .4/
Again I find your Prime Minister and his colleagues very receptive to this
point of view, and indicating that they themselves see the value in pursuing their
general courses along tiLA-se lines, while not of course neglecting their historic
and traditional contacts with the United States and with the countries of Europe.
Now the only other two matters I would like to mention and I will do
this as briefly as I can: Last night it was my pleasure to present to the people
of Canada as a centennial gesture two Australian pictures, one from our
pioneering past a picture of about 1850 by George Hamilton who was one of
the very early settlers. It is quite a historic picture in a sense, and the n-2rk
of a good gift is that it hurts you a little to give it away, and it is a picture that
we do not part with other than a degree of regret, but with a sense of pleasure
that it is going to a very great friend in the Canadian people.
The other one is right at the other end of the time spectrum, in that it is
the work of one of our most distinguished painters, Sir W illiam Dobell. It is
a painting which he was actually putting together for one of our Government
galleries, and the paint was still wet on it when I snatched it from him. But I
thought you had there a good Australian representation something out of the
past, something from one of our very successful and more modern painters.
The other thing is, as you know, we have a pavilion at EXPO. It has proved
very popular. The expectation of the percentage of visitors we would receive
given to us by the EXPO authorities has been greatly exceeded, perhaps in the
order of three times the percentage that was indicated to us. This has had one
consequence which some of us politicians and others might not welcome: the
talking chairs which record us and our views on certain Australian matters have
had to be adjusted, so that the time of speech has been severely truncated.
Well, perhaps you would wish that could happen here. But we have made it known
I did this last night to your Prime Minister and I felt it was appropriate that
this should be made known as from Government to Government that Australia
would wish this pavilion to remain with you, and I would look to the notable
diplomatic skill of the Prime Minister to sort out as between his Government and
others how it might best be employed in your country.
Wlell, thank you for hearing from me to that degree. Now, in the time that
is available, I will be glad to make myself available to you.
Q. Sir, have you any comment to make on the outbreak of war in the Middle
E~ ast and Australia's views on that war?
P. M. No. As I say, your Prime Minister has made some comment and will be
commenting agrain in the House. I certainly would not want to make public
comment on the matters we discussed together. I was given all the information, of
a factual kind and it is still a little confused, understandably that was in the
possession of your Government. I think I mentioned earlier that we were deeply
concerned, as were all peace-loving countries, in a development of this kind,: but
until we can see what comes out of the Security Council, I do not know that there
is a great deal that one can usefully add at this point of time.
Of course, we regret the outbreak of fighting; we would have-hoped that the
processes of conciliation, the good offices of the United Nations, could have been
emp'oyed to find some solution of this matter. The Security Council has gone
into recess, but the members are at call and I understand will be meeting again
later this afternoon. But there, both the representatives of Egypt and of Israel
have claimed that the fighting was initiated by the other and I am in no position
to offer a judgment on that. It seems clear that there have been serious
casualties already and much damage done to aircraft and military installations,
and one particularly unfortunate developmnent is that the thrce Indians in the
United Nations force there have been killed.
But other than that I do not think I could usefully make a comment I have
not had an opportunity of consulting my own Australian colleagues on these
latest developments. Vie had indicated earlier of course that if there were to
a be a declaration by maritime powers comparab . to the one into which Australia
entered some years ago, we would join in that declaration but that is the extent
of positive action that we have been asked to consider at this point of time.
Q. Mr. Prime Minister, you were quoted late last week to the effect that you
were in favour of continued bombing of North Vietnam, perhaps intensified
bombing, by the United Stat es. How much escalation, how much bombing, Sir,
and to what end?
P. M. . Well, I do not know that I talked about intensified bombing. I did talk
about the bombing continuing, and it has been intensive bombing, particularly
over the last several weeks when the weather has been good enough to enable it
to be carried out the more effectively. But it does not seem to make sense to
me that when you are resisting armed forces on the ground, and those armed
forces are being supplied from North Vietnam, that you would leave the sources
of supply immune from attack. We have supported the line which the Americfins,
I believe realistically, have adopted in this matter. I know there have been
suggestions that if the bombing were to cease, Hanoi, the Viet Gong, would be
disposed to enter into negotiations. I do not find any substantial evidence, any
convincing evidence, of this at all, and I get as much information on it as most
other heads of government, who are in the closest consultation with the United
States on these matters, and with the Government of South Vietnam. I would take
a lot of persuading that if Hanoi wished to negotiate had a will to negotiate
that it would not find some way, through the various diplomatic channels that
are readily available, and through all the well-intentioned efforts made by
representatives of other countries, to indicate a formula which without any loss
of face to them could get negotiations moving. But on the contrary, every time
there has been a lull either in the fighting or the bombing, full advantage has been
taken of that by the forces in North Vietnam and the authorities there to build up
their supplies, rush supplies which had clearly been inhibited from movement as
a consequence of the bombing earlier, and in that way endanger South Vietnamese
and American lives and the lives of our own people fighting there.
So I have been quite emphatic on this and this is the view of our Government,
and I believe it is the view of the United States. And while the fighting continues
and infiltration of men and material from the north persists, so I believe the
bombing should persist.
Q. Sir, what sort of form do you have specifically in mind when you speak of
Canada taking a greater interest in Asian affairs, and whether or not Canada
should do that? What was Australia's interest in Canada taking a greater
interest there?
P. M. V~ ell, I thought I had indicated that a growing strength economically and in
world influence of the two countries together was in the mutual interest of the
two countries and could make an increasingly positive contribution to policy
making in the world. In one sense, I might be arguing against the economic
competitive position of my own country. I would be prepared to take that risk in the inerest
of the larger considerions that I have mentioned. I am not implying that
Canada is not shoving some interest in the affairs of the reg.. ion; you were
contributors to the Asian Development Bank and you give more liberally than
most countries per head of population to aid programmes. But this is a matter
of degree and I think your own ministerial representatives and the Prime Mini ster
would acknowledge that traditionally and historically the emphasis has been on
Canadian activity in Europe and in its relations with the United States. I am no~ t
arguing that there should be some dramatic reversal of the process. 11hhat I arn
urging is that there be an increasing interest and participation in the affairs of
the region. just what form this would take and in what institutions is a matter for
discussion but it is important that there should be the will to do this and, as I have-
6/
6.
indicated, the reactions I have had from the Prime Minister and his colleagues
reveal that they appreciate the importance of doing this.
Q. Sir, do I take it that Australia is still satisfied with the conduct of the war
in Vietnam and that your Government still intends as you stated in Washington
last year to go " all the way with LBJ"?
P. M. XWell, if you do not mind applying that phrase to the Vietnam situation, I
stick by it. We have given support to the United States in Vietnam. May I remind
you that'Australia was the first country to declare itself alongside the United
States when communist aggression moved into North Korea, and I have just come
back from a visit to South Korea and have found the Australian contribution made
at that time greatly appreciated there. Vie were one of the first countries to
declare ourselves in support of the United States in South Vietnam for very much
the same reasons that brought us into the conflict in South Korea: the determination
to resist communist aggression which threatened the integrity of a particular
country but also threatened peace and stability throughout the area as a whole.
It is our conviction that unless communist aggression can be checked in South
Vietnam, then there is no country in the region which could regard itself as being
secure. I read an interesting article by Mr. Drew Middleton, published in the
New York Times a couple of days ago. He has been in all the countries of the
region and with the exception of Pakistan, Cambodia and Burma, he found a
ready acknowledgment and appreciation of the American presence and what it
meant to the security of those countries. And I have seen with my own eyes
what these countries have been able to do in building their economies, in
strengthening their social and political position once the communist threat
has been either resisted or brought under check.
Qf Mr. Prime Minister, you mention the need to bring communism under
check in your area. Do you think it can be done without an eventual clash with
Red China?
P. M. Yes, I think it can. First of all, I do not think that with the resources
available to those who would be resisting China that China could secure a military
victory, and at that point of time I think it would be difficult for it to secure a
political victory. The Chinese are pretty realist-minded people the fact that
they have limited their involvement in North Vietnam, despite the very obvious
interests they have in that matter, I think is some confirmation of this. They
are also a very patient people and they may think that they can secure their ends
over a period of time without getting involved in serious military loss. But I have
seen the strength that has developed in South Korea, in Taiwan, in both of which
countries there are very substantial and well-trai ned, well-equipped military
forces; and the growin ir strength of Thailand economically and Malaysia
economically Malaysia and Thailand also both building up their domestic
security forces. An d I have seen the progress being, made in my own country.
Indonesia I very much doubt whether we would have had the favourable turn
of events in Indonesia had it not been for the clear evidence that the communists
were not going to win in South Vietnam.