VISIT TO THE U. S. 1968
WASHINGTON
ADDRESS TO THE NATIONAL PRESS CL( i i JU] 096B
BY THE PRIME MINISTER, MR. JOHN GORI& 18 R
28 MAO 1968
Mr. President, and Gentlemen:-
I suppose this is the most daunting audience to whom it
would be possible for a politician to speak, because quite clearly, every
word that is said, and particularly if it is said off the cuff--and in any
case it has to be said off the cuffi because I have not got anybody to write
my speeches for me, I haven't got time to do as many as I should--but
every word that is said off the cuff is listened to, and interpreted; I won't
go so far as to say misinterpreted, but at any rate, very, very closely
examined. The other thing about it is that all of you know so much more
about international and economic affairs than any speaker who came to
talk to you could possibly claim to know. So there are considerable
difficulties facing me.
Now, this has brought to my mind a delightful mental
picture, when you talked about the sequoia, and coupled with the words
" duchessing" and " arm-twisting". And I could not help but wonder what
the duchess was having her arm twisted for. But I do not think either of
those things in effect happened. I do not wish to talk to you for a long
time. Initially, when I first came and spoke at the reception I
was given at the White House, I sketched out in short compass the feelings
that we in Australia have about what the United States is doing in various
parts of the world, and, by implication, what we hoped the United States
would continue to do in various parts of the world. But there are one or
two things that I do want to say.
I do want to say that as a representative of a small nationit
is all right-later on I will tell you how big we are going to be in the
future--but just at the moment a comparatively small nation I
wonder if anybody has thought what the situation of comparatively small
nations in the world today would be if there were not in existence a United
States, with a heritage of democracy, and with a willingness to see that
small nations, who otherwise might not be able by themselves, were given
some shield and some guarantee that they would be able to run their own
affairs in their own way. just imagine what the situation in the world would
be if there were not a great and giant country which were prepared to make
those sacrifices for that end. And the end is not negligible.
For a long time, for as long as my study of history extends
into the past, and indeed for as long as my vista of the future extends,
there is likely to be, as there has also been, a deep division of opinion
among mankind as to whether it is better for a country, any country, to
have political freedom, to have Governments which are chosen by
majorities and dismissed by majorities, or whether it is better to have
some Government which is not so subject to dismissal, and which is a
state above the individual. This is the cleavage which for so long has
continued: Is the state designed to serve the individual or is the individual
designed to serve the state? / 2
Now we have seen in the past this struggle in the Second
World War, when those who believed that the individual was merely
something to serve the state--when those who believed that you could
not have political and economic freedom, but had to submit yourself to
some arbitrary authority in order to gain a loaf of bread, sought, under
black fascism to have it around the world. And that kind of division
of opinion still exists.
If it is true, as I believe that it is true, that in the future
mankind, as a whole, and in all the nations of the world, can only reach
a state of enduring peace and proper progress if it is realized that the
individual must dominate the state and not the other way around, then
what was done in the Second W-orld War was something which serves the
future of humanity. Now, I go further.
As we see it in Australia, this is the basic question in
Vietnam. It is claimed this is a civil war. We do not see it that way.
We see it as your President sees it, and as I believe your President's
predecessors saw it, as another test of whether small nations are to be
subdued by force, as another test of whether the state or the individual
is to be the unit by which humanity progresses. And because we see it
that way, we contribute. We do not contribute a great deal, but we do
have Navy, Air Force, Army there. We do what we can to help, because
we think that what you are doing to help the South Vietnamese is right.
I do not mean that all the people in my country feel this
way, because I do not. But I do mean that the vast majority of them, the
last time they had a chance to express their opinion, felt this way. And
I am confident that the next time they have a chance to express their
opinion, they will feel this way--though in the interregnums I have no
doubt that minorities will protest, will carry banners, will get television
coverage, will get press coverage, but will not represent the feelings of
my own nation. Now, let me tell you a little of my own nation-those of you
who have not been there. I know there were thirty or so who recently came
through--we were delighted to see them. We are a country of some 12
million people. We are a country of immense national resources which
have not yet been properly or fully exploited. We are a country, as I
believe, where frontiers lie for those who are willing to come and live
with us, for those who are willing to provide that capital we need to help
us develop into a significant power--a more significant power. Let me
tell you some of the things that have happened in the last ten years in this
comparatively new country.
In that time, our gross national product has risen from
5003 million to $ 18, 800 million--an eighty per cent increase. Despite
the growth, the average annual increase in our gross national product
has been five and a half per cent. Our fixed capital investment has
doubled, from 500 million a year to 000 million a year. And ninety
per cent of that capital investment comes from our own resources--ten
per cent from abroad. We have invested twenty-six per cent of our gross
national product in this kind of growth. VWe have increased our population
over a period--give or take a year or two--from nine million to twelve
million. Well, Mr. President, I do not think that is too bad a record.
And if I sound as if I am bragging, it is because I am. But it is only the
beginning.
They have already discovered most of the oil, sixty per
cent of the oil that we are going to require for our present needs, and
there will be discovered all that is going to be required for our future
needs. The mineral resources already uncovered are fabulous. And
yet I believe the surface has scarcely been scratched.
I am certain that given ten, twenty years, we will be able
to provide a nation of twenty million--twenty-five million people--and
we will be able to give to each individual in that nation that kind of social
justice which we believe must be a part of any successful country. We
must see that those who are subjected to the " slings and arrows of
outrageous fortune", to illness and old age, ( against which they have been
unable to provide) to invalidism, are properly looked after, and we will
do this. We will play our part, as we grow, along the lines I have
roughly sketched, in the region in which we live, because I think that not
only we, but all the wealthy countries of the world must, if they are in
the future to be understood-must, if they are, in the future, to see the
kind of Governments which will serve their people established in Asia,
be prepared to help contribute and establish those countries in Asia for
the benefit of the people there and for the benefit of ourselves and of our
children and of our grandchildren.
I think that in this task that lies before us, we have been
enormously helped by the United States. I believe the completion of this
task will be brought the more quickly to fruition by the continued help of
the United States in the area--not the United States alone but by the United
States, with us, and such others as will join in that area in the economic
development, the raising of the living standards of the Asian people, the
raising, therefore, of the requirements, the material requirements of
the Asian people, and the protection of what I began to talk about as
political requirements, but will finish talking about as spiritual
requirements. Because in fact, that is what political freedom meansit
means that economic freedom must be provided through political
freedom, but it also means that the innate desire of every individual to
deVelop to the top of his bent, to the best of his capacity, in h ichever
way he wants to go, must be encouraged and permitted, subject only to
his not exploiting those others among whom he lives.
Well, Sir, you have got a lot of questions set down there,
and perhaps I have talked long enough. But I did want to let you know
just the gratitude we feel to the United States, just the certainty of
development in the future we feel for ourselves. And I think there is
almost no Australian and no Australian leader who would not say to you,
even if he is in a different party--and different parties are not much
good--but if he is in a different party, he would at least join with me in
this, to say we are going to grow, we are going to try to provide an
example of a nation along the lines I have indicated to you. We are already
on the way. I do not know where the end of that way will be, but I do know
this--that a nation's reach must exceed its grasp, or what is a future for.
And our reach is pretty great, I think.
I thank you.
President romley: Mr. Frimne Minister, please tell us what you can
about the results of your talks with the President and his advisers. / 4
Prime Minister: I would be delighted to, Mr. Secretary. We had
some most interesting talks on a whole variety of subjects. But of course
since they were private talks, it is difficult to say any more than that, or
they would cease to be private talks.
Q. It has been reported, Mr. Prime Minister, that you envisage an Israeli
style defence posture for Australia in the future, relying on the ability to
launch punitive forays to discourage aggression. Is this so?
PM. This was never a statement made by me publicly. This was
a statement attributed to me by interpreters of what had been said at a
private meeting. And I cannot discuss or disclose what was said at a
private meeting--that is a Party meeting. But I would be prepared to say
this--that we, in Australia, when I talk of an Israeli-type capacity for
defence, mean a citizen army, properly armed, properly quipped, and
ready to be able to go at a moment's notice into action, just as the Israelis
were able to go at a moment's notice into action. This does not necessarily
mean that such an army is to be used only in Australia, because we have
treaty commitments with the United States, and we regard those as our
greatest shield. But it does mean that I would like to see allied with
mobility of forces, spearheads able to be used immediately, and a build-up
of that kind of citizen military force. which means that for a large part of
the year an individual carries out whatever his occupation may be, but is
available for call-up, is trained for part of the time each year) and is
properly armed and equipped should an emergency ever arise.
Q. Mr. Prime Minister, what will Australia do to bolster Malaysia -Singapore
defence after Britain leaves?
PM. Mr. President, that is a matter which is to be discussed on
June at the Five Power Meeting to be held in Kuala Lumpur, between
Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and Singapore. Until
that Five Power Meeting has been held, and indeed quite possibly this first
Five Power Meeting may only lead to future discussions amongst the
same powers--but until those matters have been hammered out, a precise
answer to what I take to be a question of defence rather than economic help
and other help just simply could not be given. It is on 10O June that talks
begin to see what all the various countries concerned in the region are
prepared or able or willing to do.
Q. Mr. Prime Minister, you proscribed defence, but indicate
you leave open economic. Would you care to discuss that.
Pm. Well, we already provide considerable economic assistance
to the area, and not only to Malaysia and Singapore, but to the area which
includes Indonesia, our nearest neighbour, and our most populous
neighbour. Through the Colombo Rlan, a considerable amount is provided.
A great deal of technical and scientific training and training in public
administration is given in our own universities. We have in Australia
some 130, 0,00 Asian students at the moment--not all from Colombo Plan.
But we have the equivalent of one complete Australian university devoted
to training Asian administrators, Asian doctors, whatever it might be. We
of course will continue to do that. I think the United Nations or somebody
in the United Nations has suggested that all countries ought to give one per
cent of their gross national product--not all countries--that a number of
countries ought to give one per cent of their gross national product to a lot
of other countries. We do not see any particular point in picking out a
specific figure like that. But we are, per head, I think, from memory,
something like the third ranking country in the world in the provision of
foreign aid of various kinds.
Q. Mr. Prime Minister, with : Emerson, Roche, and Newcombe,
all professionals now, is Australia prepared to surrender the Davis Cup
to the United States?
PM. Well Mr. President, can you tell me when a tennis player
is an amateur and when he is a professional, and when you can, I will
answer that question!
Q. With the United States having second thoughts about the
F-li! aircraft, is Australia considering cancelling its purchase rather
than to be saddled with an inferior machine?
PM. Now, Mr. President, I would hate to get into an intercompany
argument about the capacities of any particular aircraft, Whoever wrote
that question states that this is an inferior machine. On the other hand,
there does seem to be quite a body of opinion that it is an extremely good
machine indeed. I understand that at this stage of development, the F I11
has had rather fewer accidents than the Phantom had at the same stage
of development. This at least is what I am told. And the specific answer
to the first part of your question, Sir, is no--we have contracted to buy
F-111aircraft. We have a team over here now seeing whether there are,
as with most developing aircraft, some bugs that need to be ironed out.
When they are ironed out to the satisfaction of our own team, then we
would propose to continue with the purchases that we have already
undertaken to make.
Q. Mr. Prime Minister, do you think the peace talks in Paris
should include representatives from South Vietnam?
PM. I cannot answer for South Vietnam, and I would not propose
to. But as far as my own country is concerned, at this stage of the peace
talks in P-aris, which I imagine are really talks to see whether there is
a base for any peace tallks--we see at this stage no requirement for
Australian participation. ' We do have there an External Affairs
representative--that is a State Department representative using your
terms--and he is in close consultation with Mr. Harriman and Mr. Vance.
But this does not seem to me to be the sort of exercise where a lot of
people s it around a table-it ha s not reached anywhere nea r that pointto
work out an old-fashioned Versailles Peace Treaty. Rather it is a
circumstance where the United States' representatives, the North
Vietnamese representatives are having discussions. We have the
opportunity to express our views to the United States' representatives
as various aspects of those discussions arise. That is all we wish. And
I cannot speak for South Vietnam.
Q. Mr. Prime Minister, do you endorse Prime Minister Holt's
position of " All the way with LBJ". Are you all the way with LBJ, another
questioner asks?
PM. Two of them. Let me perhaps answer it in this way as in a
sense I answered it when I first came. We think that the United* States has
in its history so far done more than any other country to protect the rights
of small nations and the liberties of the individual. We have treaty
obligations under the ANZUS pact with the United States. We form our
own judgments and make our own policies on aspects of foreign affairs
as they may arise in the future. But I think it likely, on past example,
that the objects of the United States would be likely to be the same objects
as those of the Australian people. And that, I think, is what I will say on
that.
ti er Do you plan to visit Vietnam and other Asian countrieq
PM. Yes, Sir, I will be arriving back in Australia on 1 June,
and leaving--if my memory serves me right--on 5 June for Vietnam,
and from Vietnam to Malaya, Singapore and Indonesia. And I ought to
make it clear that the only reason that the other Asian countries are not
included is because there just are not enough hours in the day or days in
the month to make this possible when there are also local political
requirements. They will come later.
Q. Could Australia's prosperity survive a recession in Japanthat
is, is the Australian economy now too reliant on exports of ore?
PM. I think if there were a serious recession in Japan, that it
would have some effect on the purchases of our iron ore. But the
Australian prosperity I thinkc would still survive. It is now so much more
broadly based than it used to be. Certainly Japan in many ways is one of
our best customers. The United States is our third best customer. Vie
can even survive a recession in the United States. But I think neither
one of those possibilities is likely.
Q. In the interests of promoting tourism to Australia and the
South Pacific, do you contemplate modifying the ban against air charters
to Australia?
PM. Look, this frankly I do not know. I would have to talk to
my Minister for Civil Aviation about that, and get all the pros and cons
of it. I will write you a letter.
Q. How do you feel about reports that New Zealand wants to
become a state of Australia?
PM. Well, I feel they are inaccurate, and grossly exaggerated,
like Mark Twain said about the report of his death. I have just recently
been in New Zealand, and spoken to their Government, and they, I am
quite sure, Sir, do not want to become a state of Australia. I do not
know whether I should go any further and raise any queries as to whether
Australia wants them to be a state anyway, because there are difficulties
about federal governments which plague us as it is. But I do add to that
that what we are arranging with New Zealand, and what New Zealand is
arranging with us is closer and closer economic ties, and a kind of free
market, as it were, where a factory established in New Zealand can have
products in Australia entering either free of duty or with less duty than
many other countries. But they are quite properly a very independent
and proud nation.
Q. Is the American duty on Australian wool hurting that
industry badly, and have you askXed the United States to modify it?
PM. The answer to the first part of that question is, it is hurting
it, and the answer to the second part of that question is yes, frequently.
Q. Mr. Prime Minister, are you in any way disturbed by the
anti-Vietnam, anti-war sentiment being expressed in the United States?
PM. It is difficult for somebody at as great a distance as I
am to assess the real depth of the anti-Vietnam sentiment being expressed
in a country 3, 000 miles away, or however many thousand miles away it is.
/ 7
7.
But we do have the same kind of expression in our own country, and it is
an expression of a very small minority. My mind, Mr. President, goes
to a quotation from a speech by one of your former great Presidents,
Theodore Roosevelt, who said that the dangers to freedom in the sort of
society that the United States has or would have do not come so much.
from majorities as from organized and fanatical minorities who attempt
to impose their will or their wishes by other than constitutional means
or the ballot box. This I think is the situation in my own country as
regards those who express, violently express, anti-Vietnam sentiment.
What the situation is in the United States, I don't know. There are, of
course, others. I speak of people who make violent protests. There
are of course others who have doubts in my own country, and no doubt
in yours. There are people who see this as a civil war in my own
country, as no doubt in yours. I do not agree with them. And they are
not worrying in Australia because they are not in a majority in my view.
Q. Mr. Prime Minister, we have writers from all segments
of industry here. How is oil prospecting going in Australia? You mentioned
oil in your speech. Would you elaborate?
PM. Yes. Well, the two major finds, or the major find so far
has been under the sea, between the state of Victoria, where a combination
of companies--Esso, one of yours, Broken Hill Pty., one of ours-has
discovered really what looks like being, but not yet fully proved to be,
very, very great oil deposits indeed. It is estimated that they have found
oil on Barrow Island in Western Australia, thousands of miles away, and
some other smaller fields at Moonie. already provide sixty per cent of
our present oil requirements. Oil prospecting is continuing, and I
believe, though there is nothing but faith behind this belief-that more and
more will be found, and that we will be able to be completely independent
in this field.
Q. Mr. Prime Minister, is the fact that you have an American
wife a disadvantage to you in Australian politics?
PM. Mr. President, it would be quite impossible for any man in
this room ever to say that a wife he had of whatever nationality was a
disadvantage. But I can add to that, and say that not only is it not a
disadvantage-it is in my view a great advantage, particularly since we
discovered, much to her and my surprise, a year or so ago, that she is
not only an American citizen, but also an Australian citizen. So we get
the best of both worlds.
Q. Mr. P-rimie Minister, when would you say the next election
will take place in Australia?
PM. The time at which the next election should take place, if
the House of Representatives runs its full term, is towards the end of
1969. That is the time when it would take place, if the House of
Representatives ran its full term.
Q. Someone asks--when will the Sydney Opera House be
finished? Will you have that open house so we can all at least come and
visit?
PM. Well, I would hope that you would all come and visit before
the Sydney Opera House is completed, because the last party we had
through was thoroughly enjoyable from our point of view, and I think from
their point of view, and gave us extremely good publicity coverage. But
/ 8
8.
there -does seem to be some argument about the precise date at which the
Cpera House to which you refer will be f inished. Indeed, Sir, some of
the more disrespectful citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia are
referring to the F-ill1 as a flying opera hotse. I am not. But I think
within a year or two. It is really taking shape. It will be something when
it is done, and something worth coming to see. But don't wait for it--just
come.
Q. Mr. Prime Minister, before the last question, we want to
extend to you our certificate of appreciation awarded for meritorious
service to correspondents of press, radio and television in the capitol
and our traditional press club official silk necktie.
PM. Thank you very much Sir.
Q. Finally, Mr. Prime Minister--is it true that Matilda has
stopped waltzin-g, too, in Australia, and is now doing the. frug?
PM. No, Sir, that is completely untrue. Mind you--what did
you call that-
Q. It is a dance.
PM. I know it is a dance. I rather think that occasionally some
foreign ministers get photographed doing it. But we are quite versatile,
quite versatile, and the young people and the not-so-young people certainly
do whatever that last dance you mentioned was. But they have not stopped
Waltzing Matilda, because Waltzing Matilda is not our national anthemit
is our national song. There have, I think, been no occasions on which
Australian troops have marched to war except to the strains of Waltzing
Matilda. There have, 1 think, been no occasions when vanguards of
Australian' troops entered cities, such as Bardia, and with a certain
braggadocio, hauled a slouched hat to the top of a flagpole, when they did
not do it to the strains of Waltzing Matilda. There won't be everybody
in Australia who agrees with me on this. But my own mind goes back to a
time in London during the blitz, when a few of us waliked into a nightclubbecause
in those days we were young enough to walk into night-clubsin
Air Force uniform, Australian Air Force un-iform, and as we entered
the band, no doubt because it had run out of other tunes to play, suddenly
struck up Waltzing Matilda, and I think that all Australians, with me, were
stirred, and will continue to be stirred by this song--even though we do
this other dance you mentioned in the intervals.