COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
SPEECH BY
The Rt Hon. J. G. GORTON, M. P.
ON
CAMBODIA
( Ministerial Statement)
lFrom the ' Parliamentary Debates', 5 May 1970]
Mr GORTON ( Higgins Prime
Minister)-by leave-For some years
North Vietnamese regular forces, and other
forces controlled by North Vietnam, have
been withdrawing across the Cambodian
border after battles in South Vietnam. The
North Vietnamese have built, in Cambodia,
base camps in which their forces could rest,
refit, regroup, and be prepared for further
military action against allied troops in
South Vietnam.
This military disadvantage was endured
with great forbearance by United States
and South Vietnamese forces-for even
though the neutrality of Cambodia was
being violated by the Communists, the
Allies continued to hope that the protests
of the Cambodian Government might lead
to a cessation of the North Vietnamese
invasion. This was a vain hope and since
the displacement of the Sihanouk Government
by the Lon Nol Government in
Cambodia, North Vietnamese and forces
controlled by them have extended and
expanded their invasion of Cambodia's
neutrality. There has been a gradually increasing
violation of this neutrality-a violation
which was grossly wrong in itself-which
was carried out by a nation which had
signed the Geneva Agreement to respect
Cambodia's neutrality-and which increasingly
gave a military advantage to the
enemy and posed growing military danger
to Allied forces in South Vietnamn.
15622170 The North Vietnamese have extended
westward from the bases they had been
occupying. They have attacked, in
Cambodia, administration centres, communications
and populated areas in Eastern
and South Eastern Cambodia. And along
with this increasingly cynical and increasingly
overt invasion, they have taken steps
desiganed to create a zone in Cambodia,
occupied by them, along virtually the entire
length of the South Vietnamese border with
Cambodia. As President Nixon pointed out,
they have embarked on a programme to
make Cambodia a vast enemy staging area,
and a springboard for attacks on South
Vietnam along 600 miles of frontier.
Thzy have in fact begun a wider invasion,
and embarked on a course which poses
greater military dangers to Allied forces
than before. This new military threat,
increased in gravity, has led to South Vietnamese
and United States forces taking
action to protect themselves by crossing the
bordcr into Cambodian Territory occupied
by thc North Vietnamese. The idecision,
reached by the President of the United
States, was taken on operational military
grounds and was designed to protect the
lives of Allied servicemen.
Those who condemn this decision, as the
Government does not, must either argue
that there has not been an increased threat
to Allied forces as a result of North Vietnamese
action-and this is scarcely arguable
or tenable-or they must hold that it
does not matter whether there has been an
increased threat or not-that regardless of
increased danger Allied forces should be left
in that danger from the flank and should
not try to prevent it. We do not accept this.
Our own Australian forces are not engaged
in this operation and I see no prospect
that they will be. But the effect of the operation
could well be to make all Allied forces
in South Vietnam, including our own, more
safe. Our own objective for Cambodia is
known. We wish to see a neutral Cambodia
-a country which is not used by anyone
as a base or a battleground; a country
which enjoys in truth that freedom from
interference, that real neutrality which it
was guaranteed under the Geneva Agreement
and which was breached by North
Vietnam. We will try by diplomatic means to bring
this about-and to bring about a method
of international inspection designed to
ensure that respect for the neutrality of
Cambodia is real and is continuing. For let
me make this clear. We do seek a Cambodia
whose neutrality is respected in fact and
in truth. We do not seek a Cambodia which
is called neutral but which is occupied in
greater or lesser part by North Vietnam.
For this would be a continuance of the
pretence which has prevailed. It would not
mean that the neutrality of Cambodia was
real. And it would mean that South Vietnam
was endangered.
In the Government's view this is the
situation. The neutrality of Cambodia has
been consistently and progressively violated
by North Vietnam. The increasing tempo
of the violation has posed an increasingly
grave military threat to the lives of Allied
servicemen. It has also, by widening and
escalating the war, threatened to prolong it,
and to delay vietnamisation and to delay
the time when Allied forces could be
withdrawn. The action taken by the United States
and South Vietnam was action to protect
the servicemen against attack by an enemy
which was increasingly occupying a neutral
nation. We understand the reason for their
action and we find it odd that the Leader
of the Opposition ( Mr Whitlam) should, on
behalf of his Party, viciously criticise that
action. It is worth noting, Mr Speaker, that so far as I know not one member of the
Opposition, at any time, has criticised the
violation of Cambodian neutrality during
the last 5 years by the North Vietnamese.
( Honourable members interjecting)--
Mr SPEAKER-Order! I ask honourable
members on both sides of the House
to come to order. This is an important
statement and I believe that the Prime
Minister should be given the courtesy of
being heard without interruption.
Mr GORTON-There have been no
claims that these Communist actions were
' fatefully widening the war' or that their
increasing invasion of Cambodia ought to
be condemned. There were no fulminations
from the Opposition against that violation
of neutrality. Those were Communist
actions and immune to criticism from the
Opposition. But now that counter action
has occurred, our Allies are criticised in
the Opposition-they, we are told, have
widened the war; they, we are told, have
engaged in escalation; they are in the wrong
now that this has happened.
Sir, such comments I believe are support
for the theory that Communist forces should
be allowed to operate as and when they
like; that they should be excused for
invading and occupying neutral countries;
and that it is wrong for action to be taken
to stop them and that such comments by
giving that support, to me, Sir, show a
willingness, even a desire, to accept defeat
or surrender of Allied forces in South
Vietnam. I can understand-though strongly disagree
with but I can understand-those who
wish to surrender in Vietnam, and abandon
the South Vietnamese, and let aggression
succeed. But I cannot understand those who,
while the struggle continues, are prepared
to subject Allied forces to military threat
and to endanger the lives of soldiers in
action. We entirely reject this attitude. We
will continue to work for a truly neutral
Cambodia by all means we can. But we will
not excuse our enemies and attack our
Allies in our joint endeavours to bring
peace and self-government to South Vietname
in the way the Opposition has done.
I present the following paper:
Cambodia-Ministerial Statement, 5 May 1970.
W. G. MURRAY. Government Printer, Canberra