PRESS GOñ IFERENCE GIVEN BY THE PRIME MINISTER,
M R J OHIN GORTON IN TOKYO, JAPAN., 7 MAY 1970
Q. Mr Prime Minister, did you have any substantive talks
yesterday with Mvr Sato about Cambodia? Could you tell us how
close are Australian and Japanese attitude s to the Cambodian
issue and America'is recent actions there?
PM: Yes, we did have some discussion on the Cambodian
situation which has of course been caused initially by the North
Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia's neutrality. I think we are
very close together in that both our countries, as I understand
it, have as their desire a really neutral Cambodia one which is
genuinely neutral, one which is not occupied by any other for-ces
and one, which, as a result of some kind of international
inspection, can be seen to remain neutral. On the question of
America's recent reaction, our own Australian attitude I think has
been made perfectly clear.
Q. I understand that very recently your Minister for
Development, Mr Swartz, has told your Parliament that Australia
is considering the possibility of offering weapons to Cambodia.
Has Australia indeed offered weapons or decided to provide
weapons assistance to Cambodia?
PM: This is a matter which is not dealt with by the Minister
for National Development in fact, but by the Minister for External
Affairs and the Government. There was a request as I understand
it for some kind of assistance from the Cambodian forces but the
Government has reached no decision on this as yet.
Q. What do you expect the Djakarta Conferenace to accomplish?
PM: L I think that the question is one which is rather a difficult
one to answer since I am asked what I expect an international
conference to accomplish. I can answer what I hope it would
accomplish and what I think it has a chance of acE-inplishing.
And that is I would hope for an expression of opinion by a number
of powers in the Asian area that a truly neutral Cam~ bodia would be
a step towards genuine peace, and that it would be in the interest
of the peoples of the world if the North Vietnamese, the Viet Cong
all those the South Vietnamese all those who are now in Cambodia,
all were to withdraw and to allow a truly neutral Cambodia. As
I said in our own House of Parliament, one means by that that
one hopes for a truly, genuinely neutral Cambodia, not one which
is called neutral, but occupied in whole or in part by North
Vietnamese forces. 2
Q. I would like to ask you a question in Connection with the
planned British troop withdrawal from east of Suez and the question
of security in Asia. After the British withdrawal, what kind of
role would you expect Japan to perform i~ n the interests of security
in this region of the world? Precisely, do you expect japan to make
any direct contribution to the defence and security of this area?
PM: t Well, it is not for me to come to Japan and state what one
thinks Japan should do, and I understand that was the question.
What is likely to happen, although it depends to some extent onl the
result of the next election in Great Britain, is that there will be
a withdrawal of British forces, as is known,. But this does not
mean that there will not be a capacity and a willingness to bring
British forces back should a crisis develop, This is not something
which, as far ar I know, has been worked out in the detail of the
number of forces, but there will be a withdrawal and a capacity and
a willingness in certain circumstances to bring British forces back.
For our own part, we are maintaining in the area elements of an
air force, some ground troops and some naval support which we
hope will contribute to the s tability of the area. It is not for me to
comment on Japan what Japan might wish to do and I don't propose
to do that.
Q. Sir, do you believe that Prince Sihanouk, in the present
circumstances, is able to achieve the genuine neutrality that you
spoke of, and if he isn't, do you think the Lon Nol Government itself
can do it?
PM: The present Lon Nol Government is the government which
is the-government of Cambvtdia, and I would hope that the discussions
in Djakarta might make it clear that a genuine neutrality i~ s desired
for Cambodia, and that as a result of that genuine neutrality, all
foreign forces would be removed from that country. If that genuine
neutrality were in fact achieved, then surely i~ t would be a matter for
the Cambodians to decide which government then ran that country
in that kind of neutrality. But I should make it clear that as far as
Australia is concerned, the Lon Nol Government is the government
with which Australia is dealing.
Q. When you said you would hope P. 2 foreign troops will be
withdrawn from Cambi-dia, do you mean, Sir, simultaneous withdrawal
of US troops, North Vietnamese troops, and Viet Cong troops, all
of them together, at the same time simultanleously? Do you
contemplate Australia will make this request at the Djakarta
conference? ,3
-3
PM: I wouldn't want to anticipatc the precise form that the
Djakarta Conference would follow, but I believe that the objective
that would be sought would be a Cambodia which was neutral and
in which there were not troops from other countries any other
countries. And therefore, a Cambodia which did in fact have that
neutrality which was guaranteed to it under thle Geneva Agreements
but which was violated by the North Vietnamese actions. The
only way in which that neutrality can be a reality is if there are
no foreign troops in Cambodia. This would be the objec-tive.
just exactly how that objective would be attained must obviously
be a matter for the conference. But I cannot myself see it being
attained if the suggestion is that all troops other than North
Vietnamese troops should be withirawn.
Q. Sir, you said that you might like to see some ind of
international inspection body checking the n eutrality of Cambodia.
What kind of international inspection body something from the UN
or some other kind of organisation?
PM: I understand that the Lon Nol Government itself has
suggested that the International Control Commission the ICC
might be re-established. There have been some comments on that
from the Canadian spokesman, I believe myself that as long as
there is an effective international method of inspection, and I
emphasise an effective international method of inspection, it is
not of terrific importance j ust how that international inspection
is arrived at or made up. Perhaps it might be something which was
put in by the United Nations. But the composition the actual
arrangements for such an international inspection are, I would
have thought, less important than the end result of having an
effective international inspection. Perhaps I might add perhaps
I should have said, effective and impartial.
Q. Sir, both India and Pakistan have declined to take part in
the Djakarta conference. Do you have any comments to make on
that?
PM: Only that I believe that taking part in conferences of this
kind is a matter to be decided by the Governments concerned.
If the Government of India and the Government of Pakistan have
decided that they don't wish to take part in it, that is their decision
to make and that is the comment that 1. would make upon it. ./ 4
4
Q. Sir, in your talks with Mr Sato yesterday, did you reach
an agreement with him that you would support the ICC as the
international inspection body, or did MVr Sato agree that he would
support an Australian proposition of this kind?
PM: The talks with Mr Sato didn't go into detail of that kind at
all. A large part of the talks that we had were engaged with relations
between our own two countries in fields of trade and in fields of
cultural relations. This indeed took up most of the time, quite
contrary to what has taken up most of the time of this press conference.
But on the question of Cambodia the question that you asked me
what we did agree on was that we would like to see a genuinely
neutral Cambodia. We didn't go into the sort of details of which
you have spoken.
Q. To get away from Carntbadia, could you elaborate on j ust
what you did discuss on the matter of trade was there a complaint
from Mr Sato?
PM. No there was no complaint by Mr Sato. We were glad,
both of us, that trade relations had grown in the way in which they
have. As you know, Japan is our best customer now, and we, I think,
are Japan's third best customer. There was the problem which I
raised of the very low price for wool which is bei n g paid at the
moment not paid by Japan as a result of negotiation this is not
a niatter of any complaint, but I pointed out that the auction system
had led to a price for wool which was disastrous as far as Australian
woolgrowers were concerned. I did notice in one of the newspapers
this morning that this was reported as me asking for Japan to buy
more wool. This was not strictly accurate. What I was suggesting
was that the price for the wool that was bought might, to the ultimate
advantage of both our countries, be made higher. I pointed this out
as a difficult that Australia suffered. There are many other countries
that buy our wool, but Japan buyy more than others.
Q. To cntrry this Cambodian thing out of the repetitive realm,
assuming that the North Vietnamese troops in Cambodia do not
withdraw, and assuming that the American troops somehow get
bogged down, does your Government have a policy with respect to the
indefinite continuation of hostilities inside Cambodia?
PM: Both my Government and myself have a policy of not
answering hypothetical questions based on assumptions which
have no basis.
Q. Prime Minister, when you were referring to wool a
moment ago, can you tell us if you put to the Japanese Prime
Minister any concrete way in which this disastrously low wool
price position could be overcome? Did you tell him that your
Government intends to suspend or do away with the auction system
which has created this?
, PM: No, Mr Barnes, I didn't do that. The object of what I
had to say was to make it clear to the Japanese Prime Minister that
this was a matter of very great concern to Australia and of
great concern to our economy. And that we believed that it would
be necessary to find some way to remedy that situation, and to
indicate to him that this should be the subject of continuing
discussicas between the two Governments and between businessmen
in Japan and the people concerned with the selling of wool in
Australia. I believe that this message that it was something which
really did need to be worked out and discussed between our
Governments was accepted by the Prime Minister and I am
hopeful that the discussions which I suggested will, as a resu lt,
take place. Perhaps they would have taken place anyway, but
I think they will now take place and I think that the Government
of Japan does know of our genuine concern. That was the object
of raising this matter not to try and work out at that level the
detailed remedy.