3
PRIME MINISTER'S INTERVIEW WITH N. B. C.' S " MEET THE PRESS",
WASHINGTON, 6 OCTOBER, 1974
ANEL
Mr Lawrence E. Spivak Moderator
Mr Bernard Gwertzman Chief Diplomatic Correspondent
of the New York Times
Mr Carl T. S. Rowan Chicago Daily News, Syndicated
Columnist and Television Radio
Commentator
Mr Henry Brandon Washington Correspondent of
the London Sunday Times
Mr Robert Goralski N. B. C. News
SPIVAK: Our guest today. on " Meet the Press" is the Prime Minister
of Australia, E. Gough Whitlam, who is in this country on a. visit.
Elected in 1972, he is Australia's first Labor Party Prime Minister
since 1949. We will have the first question-now from
Mr Robert Goralski of N. B. C. News.
GORALSKI: Mr Prime Minister, no nation has been spared the agony
of runaway inflation. Is there any kind of collective international
action that can be taken to alleviate the situation?
PRIME MINISTER: None of us have thought one up ~ yt. But it is. clear
that it affects all of us and we have to try to work out solutions
together. GORALSKI: The other day at the United Nations you talked to nations
of the world, and talked about " sheer folly" in terms of possible
military action. Is that a real possibility in your mind?
PRIME MINISTER: I don't think so. I don't believe any head of
government would resort to it. There have of course been comments
that it was in contemplation.
GORALSKI: Are you basically hopeful that some solution can be
devised before the world does fall apart financially?
PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
GORALSKI: What kinds of steps, sir?
PRIME MINISTER: I believe that we will come to a better balance
between the needs of the developing countries and of the developed
countries. We won't see the system disrupted so suddenly as it
has been in recent months; but we accept the fact that there will
have to be changes that the great disparities between nations will
have to be reduced. / 2
-2-
SPIVAK: You ha ' l just met Robert Goraiski of N. B. C. Ne * ws. The
other questioncrs on our Panel today are Bernard Gwertzman of the
-New York Times; Carl T. Rowan of the Chicago Daily News and
Henry Brandon of the London Sunday Times. We will continue the
questions now with Mr Gwetzman.
GWERTZMAN: Mr Prime Minister, in your speech to the United Nations
you talked about world events beginning to sour and a sense of
drift setting in. In your opinion is it more necessary now to
strengthen security in your part of the world, or have tensions
been reduced as you said when you took office a-couple of years ago?
PRIME MINISTER: I don't think the big problem so far as we in
Australia are concerned is security in our region. What does worry
us is the proliferation of armaments and particularly nuclear
armaments. We are worried that the high hopes which attended the
inauguration of the non-proliferation treaty should be now so
oftendisappointed. We have done all we can. We hope and this
is largely why I was at the United Nations to get more joint
action; to realise the objectives of that treaty.
GWERTZMAN: Dr Kissinger spoke about this danger in his speech also.
Do you think there will be a concerted effort to strengthen the
safeguards on the spread of nuclear weapons?
PRIME MINISTER: I can only hope so.
GERTZMAN: One more security matter. In this country the United States
has been concerned about perhaps a break up of SEATO. Do you
think SEATO is still necessary?
PRIME MINISTER: I think it is still useful. There was a useful
meeting of all the participants last week. And they 11 seemed
to be happy with it. It has changed its character. Is is no longer
designed to contain China. It is quite useful as a group to
discuss problems regularly.
ROWAN: Mr Prime Minister. Shortly after taking office you opened
diplomatic relations with Peking, you pulled Australian troops out
of Viet N. im, opened relations with Hanoi, gave money to the Viet Cong,
opened relations with North Korea. Are you trying to make Australia
neutral or a sort of Sweden of the Pacific?
PRIME MINISTER: No, but we did want to dissociate ourselves
promptly with the activities in which we had participated in
Viet Nam and in Cambodia. I don't agree that we have given money
to the Viet Long. We haven't. And we have only just established
di. plomatic relations with North Korea. The other matters that you
mentioned, Mr Rowan were done promptly. It was time to do them.
F-TNN: Now recently in debates in your country your Foreign Minister
Willesee said this: " The policies of the former Government were
geared to a colonial era in which Australia dared take no action
unless either Britain or the United States moved first". Do you
share Senator Willesee' s view, that the previo2s Government made
Australia " the laughing stock of the world"?
-3-
PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I agree with all that you have quoted my
. Foreign Minister as saying. But, I don't necessarily want to
pursue any factional or partisan attitudes while I am in your country.
I think it's enough to say there will be no going back to the
attitudes that our predecessors pursued. I believe that they accept
the inevitability and propriety of those things which we have
initiated. ROWAN: Mr Prime Minister is it simply a matter of your having
concluded that some of the interests of the United States and Great
Britain in the Pacific area are now inimical to the interests of
Australia? PRIME MINISTER: No, I don't believe that. But we have helped
the change in attitudes of the United States. The United States
doesn't take the same attitude towards matters in the Pacific that
it was taking in the 1960' s. America has changed.
BRANDON: Mr Prime Minister. Australia, earlier-' this year I think,
joined the International Bauxite Association which will control*
about two-thirds of the world supplies. We have heard a lot about
oil cartels. I was just wondering whether the Bauxite Assocation
will create similar financial difficulties to the industrial world.
PRIME MINISTER: I would think not. We certainly have joined the
International Bauxite Association. The Association very largely
stems from suggestions I made in North America fourteen months ago.
But we have spelt out in the guidelines for the Association the
fact that we want to see that the consumers of bauxite are assured
of regular supplies, on fair conditions.
BRANDON: Biut there was some talk about fair prices for the producers
and that raises the question whether there won't be some price
gouging. PRIME MINISTER: I know that there has been some talk of this as
there has been in respect of any commodity agreement whateve~ r,
agricultural or mineral. But Australia, I believe under previous
governments as well as under my Government has a good record
for wanting to have commodity agreements. And we naturally
understand the attitude that the other bauxite producing countries
have in that their prices for their sole export, in most cases
bauxite, hasn't kept pace with the prices they have to pay for
their necessary imports. There ought to be some relation between it.
We share that view.
BRANDON: Let me come back to the earlier debate about Australia's
security. I think there are three theories. One is based on the
forward strategy from which Australia seems to have withdrawn;
then there is the fortress Australia strategy; and then there are
those politicians in Australia who say that Australia really doesn't
need much of a defence. I was just wondering where you stand. 4
-4-
PRIME MINISTER: Well 1. wouldn't be in any of the three categories
You chose. There is the other one that the best arrangements are
regional or collective ones. Some necessarily have to be global.
We must be worried for instance if India, or further afield Israel
and Egypt, acquire a nuclear weapons capacity. That concerns us.
It concerns everyone in the world. But also in our own particular
neighbourhood it is necessary that there should be a lack of
tensions. We ought to play our part in reducing them and eliminating
them. And we are doing that. We aren't waiting for initiatives by
Britain or the United States. We are establishing good relations
with our neighbours, ourselves, directly.
SPIVAK: Mr Prime Minister, there are some people in this country
who are puzzled by your sixteen day visit to the United States
and Canada at this time when Australia has so many domestic
problems of its own. Is this just a pleasure trip or is there some
special reason for your trip?
PRIME MINISTER: The trip is a pleasure. I make no bones about that,
in America,-Canada, or at home. But the matters we have mentioned
such as non proliferation, or commodities, or resources are*
important to Australia always will be not least now; and they
can be dealt with in many cases only on a visit like this. On top
of my visit to the United Nations, there was the fact that I thought
it appropriate to become acquainted with the new President in the
United States and to be in touch, as I always am when in North
America, with the Prime Minister of Canada who has just been re-elected,
as I have.
SPIVAK: Mr Prime Minister, we have had reports in this country*
that over the past few months at least that your position towards
the United States is not as friendly as Australia's position has
been in the past. Can you tell us in your own words how you now
view our present relationship?
PRIME MINISTER: My attitude towards the United States has always
been friendly. That of my party has been friendly, but as I said
in answer to one of the panel earlier, nations do change their
policies. America has changed her policy since the 1960' s, and if
we recognise Peking instead of Taipei, that is not to be wondered at.
It is not resented by America. If we get out Qf Viet Nam or Cambodia
we are doing what America is doing. May I add that there are some
countries, such as Japan and Indonesia noteably, with which our
policies tally very effectively with America's interests too.
SPIVAK: Are you saying this then, that although for a great many
years Australian security depended on its firm ties with the United
States, that's no longer true?
PRIME MINISTER: No, I think that in the ultimate circumstances
Australia's security is tied with America. In the case of a world
war there is no question where Australia's interest would lie.
GORALSKI: Mr Prime Minister, how has Australia benefited from its
relations with mainland China, with East Germany, North Korea,
North Viet Nam.
PRIME MINISTER: If one is to have relations with other-countries
then one has to !. ave relations with them on the diplomatic level.
' Now I don't know how much further you want me to go on this. The
fact is that the relations which my Government has established
with these other countries which you have mentioned will be continued
by any Australian Government; and to take East Germany, the United
States has now established diplomatic relations with East Germany.
I don't think that if there is a change of administration in the
United States those relations will be severed, as you will ultimately,
obviously, also establish diplomatic relations with the Peoples'
Republic of China. You have very meaningful liaison already with
the Republic and you will also establish diplomatic relations with
North Korea as well as with South Korea. That is taking sides
in the case of these divided countries no longer serves any national
or world purpose.
GORALSKI: I think the point I am getting to, Mr Prime Minister,
that charting a new foreign policy, a more independent foreign
policy as you have, where do American and Australian foreign
interests not coincide.
PRIME MINISTER: Well one could give instances in the past. I
would believe that America over-reacted between Korea and the Paris
agreements to events in East Asia. Now I am very happy to see
America's attitude has changed there. We have collaborated in
that change. In many ways we have made it easier for the change
to be made..
GWERTZMAN: Mr Prime Minister, I would like to ask you about a
problem which has bothered some Americans. It was your decision
to recognise Soviet de jure sovereignty over the Baltic States.'
As you know-it caused some concern among Americans of-. those
nationalities as well as in your country. Could you tell us how
you decided to do this? What was the motivation for it?
PRIME MINISTER: We just wanted to faceup to the facts. We believed
it is a delusion worse it is a deception to suggest that Estonia,
Latvia and Lithuania will again be independent sovereign political.
entities as they were only between the two world wars.-
GWERTZMAN: Do you find an-inconsistency with this position with
your othe;. well know position of urging humnan rights and ending of
exploitations of other people?
PRIME MINISTER: ' There are some cases ' where you can do something
about human rights in a country with which you have diplomatic
relations, where you can't with a country which you don't have them
w . ith. For instance with Chile we have been able to do some things
with Chile by recognising the new regime, that we couldn't have
dor-if we had not recognised it.
ROWAN: Mr Prime Minister, I think it is known that in the past
Australia was thought of as European all her ties to Europe. Are
you consciously trying to make Australia look more Asian? / 6
-6-
PRIME MINISTTi No, we are obviously a European nation and we,
. as far ahead a. ne can see, will be a European nation. Nevertheless
it is clear that geographically and economically we must recognise
the fact that we are right on the opposite side of the world from
Europe. ROWAN: Well with regard to the racial implications there, you got
a lot of publicity as the man who set out to right the wrongs that
had been committed against Australia's aborigineds. Reports now come
out that you may be caving into a white backlash. Is there any
validity to this.?
PRIME MINISTER: I'm not, nor I believe are any of my colleagues.
It is very difficult to get overall satisfaction with new policies
particularly where they are policies which are reversing policies
which have been pursued for some generations. But the hopeful thing
is that the aboriginal people in Australia, under my Government,
now have sufficient confidence to express their dissatisfaction.
If they are dissatisfied with my Government they will let us know,
and that is a necessary aspect of any self respect or emancipationthat
people will speak up and act where they think that their
interests are being harmed.
ROWAN: Might I ask what your polJicies ewith regard to who
can migrate to Australia. Will the door now be open to colouredsto
blacks?
PRIME MINISTER: If coloured have blacks have close dependent
relatives in Australi-a they ca. i c~ ome i n pretty well automatically.
If they have skills but have no relatives they can also come in,
but there i s some waiting list. But there is no discrimination now,
whatever, in those who can come in to stay, or to vigit, on the
grounds of race or colour.
BRANDON: There is a strong group on the left of you, Mr Prime
Minister, in the Cabinet and I gather in the Party Caucus
that sometimes is very difficult for you to control, and. I was
wondering whether there is a danger that they might oust you.
PRIME MINISTER: They would be cutting their own throats.
BRANDON: Why would they be cutting their own-throats?
PRIME MINISTER:. Well I you come from England don't you?
BRANDON: Yes.
PRIME MINISTER: Well you know perfectly well that this is the
stock-in-trade of any criticism of any Labor Government that it is
faction ridden, that the right and the left are at arms length and
the Leader is about to topple; well it doesn't apply.
BRANDON: You have been quoted I think off and on that you have
certain policies that you would like to pursue but have difficulty
in getting through your Cabinet or the party machine. ./ 7
-7-
PRIME MINISTER: I get through whatever I set my heart on, and all
, the matters that have been mentioned to me in your questions today
have produced no resistance or resentment whatever.
SPIVAK: Mr Prime Minister, . you have-been critical -of United States.
-plans to strengthen naval facilities in the Indian Ocean island
of Diego Garcia. Do you think it is unnecessary for the United
States to do that in order to meet increased naval pressure in that
area? PRIME MINISTER: As I said when I was asked at a press conference
at the United Nations only three days ago, there is no nation around
the Indian Ocean which welcomes the build-up on this uninhabited
British group of islands.
SPIVAK: Would you like to see the United States withdraw entirely
from the Indian Ocean regardless of what the Russians do?
PRIME MINISTER: No, certainly not'. Russia and-Almerica-are the.-
world's great naval powers they can sail wherever they choosethat's
clear. But we don't want a proliferation of armaments in
the Indian Ocean which up till now has been-freest of all the world's
oceans, of this American-Soviet confrontation.
GORALSKI: Mr Prime Minister. The United States and Australia have
a similar petroleum problem. I believe we have both produced
about 70 per cent of our petroleum requirements and import about
per cent. Do you feel that you can go along with an
independent foreign policy, without being pro-Arab, to ensure the
percent flow of oil from the Arab States?
PRIME MINISTER: I don't stress independent foreign pc~ licy so much
as inter-dependent foreign policy. Now as far as we are concerned,
we aren't strong in oil but we are strong in other energy sources,
such as coal and uranium and natural gas, and we are very anxious to
see that energy sources in the world are not disrupted. But at
the same time we want to see that other countries which have energy
sources, like Australia, get a fair price for them.
GWERTZMAN: Mr Prime Minister, you said your Government depends on
the United States in case of a big war. Do you intend to permit the United
States to retain its intelligence gathering and comrmunications facilities in
Australia?
PRIME MINISTER: My Government knows wiat the United States is doing
in Australia,. and we know that nothing the United States does in
Australia will be done except with our full knowledge and our
full concurrence.
ROWAN: Do you share the view of some of your countrymen that
Australia's economic future depends more on Japan than any other
single country?
PRIME MINISTER: More than any single country,' yes. That would be
true. ./ 8
-8-
ROWAN: In that case do you intend to give Japan long-term access
to Australia's minerals and other resources?
PRIME MINISTER: Oh, we are doing that. We don't want to see that
Japan is driven to desperation again as she was in 1940. We want
to see that she has dependable access to markets and resources.
We are playing our part in that.
BRANDON: You have imposed a ban on uranium exports. I wondered
what the reason for it is?
PRIME MINISTER: Well, there are two things that we want to achieve
and one is that we want to see that there is a proper return for
these exports. Secondly we want to see, if we can, that we have
some say in the processing of this mineral, of which we possess
about one-fifth of the known reserves. But there have been some
legislative difficulties in Australia which have delayed the solution
of this matter.
SPIVAK: Mr Prime Minister, it has been reported in this country
that you are steadily severing the cord between Australia and Britain..
Is that true?
PRIME MINISTER: No, not at all. Australia would have closer
sentimental or personal ties with Britain than with any country
including the United States.
SPIVAK: Why does Australia remain in the British Commonwealth
at all? Why don't you become an independent republic?
PRIME MINISTER: Being in the Commonwealth is not inconsistent
with independence. We are completely independent, but like the
three dozen members of the Commonwealth, we see advantage in
belonging to a body which is very diverse racially, economically,
politically, but wheie there is such complete freedom in
exchanging views. There is no-one who wants to get out of the
Commonwealth. GORALSKI: I was going to ask you very briefly Mr Prime Ministeryou
were very critical of Mr Nixon when he was President, particularly
aspects of foreign policy. What is your view now of Mr Ford's
administration? PRIME MINISTER: I criticised privately some of the things that
Mr Nixon was doing at the time that we came into office Hanoi,
Haiphong and so on. But I met Mr Ford for the first time. He is
a good man. He will get on well.