I
Interview With Malcolm Fraser, Prime Minister of Australia
th uiseJal iaJ POLloj th=)
Runnc~ f~ irni) 9( ir^ i~ pf'^ f
Peking's new ties with Washington will
bring far-reaching changes to Asia. For the
according to Australia's leader: a
bigger role in the region-and a chance
to sell its technology to China.
Q Mr. Prime Minister, what impact has President Carter's
decision to normalize relations with Communist China had on
your part of the world?
A The move was inevitable-and the impact will be
great. As long as Washington and Peking did not recognize
each other fully, the development of U. S. policy in the
Western Pacific and in Asia was severely handicapped.
I can understand the feelings that people-some peoplehave
about Taiwan. But the fact remains: China is one of the
great nations of the world, and it is very important for the
U. S. to be in full, complete dialogue, communication and intercourse
with China.
There are many people in my part of the world who have
questioned the depth or fullness of America's commitment
in Asia and the Pacific. And in my book, one of the factors
that constrained full development of U. S. policy in the
region was the lack of normal relations with China. So,
Carter's move was important. But equally important in my
view is just how the President will now follow through.
I think it's a good thing the discussions with the Philippines
on the American bases there were concluded at the
same time that agreement was reached between the U. S.
and China. It would have been unfortunate to have the
viability of those bases in limbo at that particular time.
Some people in the Pacific region are very concerned
about the implications of the abrogation of the security
treaty with Taiwan and what that means to American credibility.
But the U. S.-Philippines agreement showed that
Washington is conscious of the need to maintain American
power in the Pacific. And if there still are reservations
about America, I have no doubt the Carter administration
has the capacity to overcome them.
Q Why do you say Carter's follow-through is important in the
China-U. S. relationship?
A Communications between China and the United States
must be greater and more open than at any time in the past
Many nations-Australia was one-kept their doors to China
closed too long. That was not a very good way to conduct relationships
v. ith an important nation. China must be a part of
the world-a full member of the international community,
fully participating in international organizations.
And now China is making her own moves, with technological
advances and modernization the current objectives.
She has the capacity to pursue these with enormous energy
and determination, and will probably achieve considerable
results in the foreseeable future. So it is important to draw
China into the international community, and the U. S. evidently
plans to advance this by comprehensive exchange
visits between the two countries this year.
Q As part of the follow-through, should the U. S. offer to sE,
weapons to Peking?
A China has taken a clear decision to modernize its economy
and producti e capacities. I have no doubt that decision
Copyright C 1979, U. S. News World Report, Inc. rI
r*
will embrace the moderniza-;
tion of its defense equipinent
and industry.. As in other
areas, such modernization
will require the purchase of
products and technology
from others, and I think it inevitable
that will happen.
Q Looking forward: Do you
expect the U. S. role in Asia to
be more-or less-important?
A America's role will be more significant than at any
time since Vietnam. Your experience in that war was traumatic,
and even though it may not have paralyzed American
policy in Asia, it certainly made things more difficult.
Now, with Vietnam far behind and normalization of relations
with China today's reality, I think the U. S. will inevitably
play an increasingly important role in the matters of
real concern that are developing.
The war between Vietnam and Kampuchea-formerly
Cambodia-is not just a border skirmish. It's war by any
standards. We know that China provides assistance to Kampuchea,
and Russia helps Vietnam. This raises a very serious
issue: Will Russia and China provide further support-say,
to the point where they become involved themselves?
There is no doubt that the Soviet Unidn is deeply involved
in Vietnam and is taking an increasing interest in
that area. China doesn't feel comfortable about that, with
tension developing on her border with Vietnam and along
her border with Russia.
And if Vietnam extends its dominance over a wider region,
how would China react? This is a very real, vastly
important question. And it's not an issue that will develop
five years hence; the issue is here now.
Q Could the Vietnam-Cambodia conflict spill over into other
countries nearby?
A There's no doubt that if Vietnam's invasion goes on and
Kampuchea [ Cambodia] is occupied, there'd be increasing
concern in Thailand and Malaysia-no doubt about that at
all-and worry in other areas. It would be unsettling.
Q You see the possibility, then, of Russia winning a warperhaps
by proxy-in Southeast Asia as the first development
following U. S. recognition of China?
. A That overstates it. But. if that occurred, it would be a
tragic development.
Q How does the U. S. fit into this situation in view of the
Carter administration's proposals to reduce the American military
presence in Asia?.
A It's difficult to say what can be done at the moment.
Solutions have to be worked for, strived for, over a long
period of time. However. I think the rate of American
troop withdrawals from Korea has been modified. and. the
administration keeps saying its decisions will be take on a
step-by-step basis as the situation develops.
It's important that American power be available, which is
why the Philippines-bases agreement was so important. It
was very much a reaffirmation of an American military
presence in Asia.
Q On the other side of the coin, is the Soviet military
buildup In the Pacific a threat to regional security?
c . rs
-7 : u r. r
~ ILCLCPrIr~ a* -3c--
E-1 7,
q
7 ' r4*
A People use the same terms, but interpret them in
different ways. When you say " threat," do you mean the
forces will move against a particular country? That's one
kind of threat. There's another kind of threat in which
ships of a particular nation sail over the horizon without
ever firing a shot. All they do is demonstrate the presence
of povper.
The point I've generally sought to make about the Soviet
Unidti is that its presence in the Indian Ocean-or, for that
matter, anywhere-is a manifestation of its global power, its
capacity to reach out into any part of the world and act in a
destabilizing manner.
The Soviet Union spends 11 to 13 percent of its gross national
product on defense year after year after year. Ironically,
this expenditure began increasing about the same time
the United States started to speak more seriously about disarmament
and the strategic-arms-limitation talks. Don't
draw ominous conclusions from this, but it shows the level of
military preparedness in the Soviet Union: The percentage
that Russia spends on defense is about the same as Hitler's in
1938, just before he went to war.
Against that background, I think all of us have to be concerned
about Soviet willingness to deploy military power. Of
course, countries like Australia must do what they can, but
there's a terrible logic in the obligations that all this places
on the world's greatest free nation-the United States.
Q Is Russia going to be a big winner in Africa?
A The outlook for Soviet influence in Africa over the.
long term will be significantly dependent on how racial
problems and injustices are dealt with inside Africa. The
longer you have a white minority regime in Zimbabwe
[ Rhodesia] seeking by one means or another to prolong
white supremacy, the longer the circumstances exist which
will help Communists to establish a firm, permanent foothold
in Africa.
Russia has had some successes in the past-failures, too.
2 I S
U. S. airmen in Philippines. " The Phlippines-bases agreement
was a reaffirmation of A'merican military presence in Asa."
56 She was in Egypt; now she's out of Egypt. She's lost out in
ether countries.
SThere's always a temptation to look at the gloomy side of
nternational problems. There is the situation in Iran at the
moment. The Camp David initiatives have faltered-hopefully
only temporarily. Africa's problems continue. But
these difficulties have been there for a very, very long time.
Despite the delays, the Middle East is more hopeful than
it has been in decades. Even in southern Africa, there is
growing recognition that racial equality must prevail. Isn't
that an advance, despite the fact that guerrilla war and
violence are spreading, compared with the time when people
thought that white supremacy would go on fore.. er?
Q So military force isn't the answer to the spreading Soviet
influence in Africa-
A The United States certainly needs to have force and
power readily available. But getting rid of the basic inequalities
of southern Africa would do more to diminish
Soviet influence there than any single act within British or
American capacity.
Q Mr. Prime Minister, why do refugees keep fleeing from
Vietnam? Is there any answer to that problem?
A The emigration is promoted by the Vietnamese government,
and it's the kind of government which is likely to
create dissident groups. So I see no end to the flo\ w. It can
go on for tens upon tens of thousands of people.
We've taken a very large number of the refugees-in
relation to our size, probably more than any other country.
a The United States has shown concern, as have a few others.
But if countries aren't geographically close to a problem,
they find it easy to keep it at arm's length.
I think the international community has a responsibility
toward political refugees, and the United States has shown
it is in accord with this-view. But it's a heavy load for the
U. S. and Australia and a few other countries to bear alone.
The burden needs to be spread as widely as possible.
Q Going back to the question of U. S. recognition of China: Is
the government in Peking stable, or is it likely to reverse policies
later on?
A Now that China has set its course, I think it will continue
in the same direction. The new course invol'. ed quite
substantial policy changes, and I don't think they could
have been taken without some kind of consensu, in the
leadership. One man may have promoted the changes, but
he would not be successful unless he persuaded others that
he had chosen the right track.
I had S or 9 hours of discussions with China's leaders
when I was there about two years ago, and judging by what
I saw and heard, there are reasonable prospects of stability
and a continuity of policy. But, as you know, nothing is
certain in the political world.
Q Australia has been doing business with China for years. On
the basis of your experience, do you think Americans are exaggerating
China's potential?
A There are some who say that China doesn't produce
the things the Australia and other richer nations want,
and therefore China will build up debts which will be
difficult to pay. I don't believe this will happen. I think the
Chinese will be absolutely scrupulous and take on only
those international commitments they will be able to meet
in the foreseeable future.
The Chinese are realists. If they need something. they'll
buy it: if they don't need it, they won't buy it. So. likewise,
the Chinese can't expect countries to buy things from them
that aren't needed.
Also, the Chinese are very concerned about their international
reputation. In trade with us, they've lways been
scrupulous in meeting contract terms. There's no reason to
believe this won't continue. U. S. NEWS WORLD REPORT. Jan. 15. 1979
Moemmo: , A us: ra
Twin J. Drechsel, the magazine's senior
West Coast correspondent, has just
completed a one-month swing through
Australia. Following are excerpts from
his memo to the editors. CANBERRA
" Australia is headed for ruin" is a
complaint I heard frequently during
my visit to the island continent.
Many Australians fear for their country's
future. They worry whether their
resource-rich nation, plagued by labor
unrest, low productivity and high costs,
can go on selling its goods on world
markets against increasingly stiff foreign
competition.
Australians, like Americans, are concerned
about inflation, unemployment
and pollution of the environment. But
many say they face an even bigger
problem: the capriciousness of their
trade unions. There is a widespread
feeling that union extremists are trying
to undermine the country.
Strikes are called for such petty reasons
as dust blowing on workers' autos.
Production stagnates. Train, bus and
airline services are halted time and
again because of labor disputes.
Longshoremen tie up ships vital to
Australia's export trade-mainly mineraTs
and farm products. Oil tankers
wait for weeks to unload. In the first
nine months of 1978, Australia accounted
for 85 percent of total world
claims for dock-strike losses.
" You only have to sneeze or turn
your head sideways, and they go on
strike" was one comment I heard.
In Broken Hill, a rich silver and leadmining
town in the New South Wales
outback, a retired workman echoed a
common gripe: " Australia is going
downhill. People want work, but they
are not willing to produce efficiently."
Spiraling wages, which are forced on
business by militant unions, have aggravated
an already tight situation for
Australian exporters. In the textile industry,
for instance, wages soared 170
percent in five years, forcing garment
makers unable to compete with lowcost
Asian products to merge or go
bankrupt. Unions demand and get higher pay
for weekends, forcing many plants and
services to close rather than pay up.
Says one retailer: " Weekend rates inflate
our costs and limit employment."
The United States is much like Australia-and is much liked by Australians.
During my mGnth-long travels,
which included five bays on a Murray
River side-wheeler, I heard not one
anti-American comment. But the Australians
I met asked many questions
about the United States.
Interest is understandable. Australia
has been a longtime friend and ally of
the United States, through two World
Wars and conflicts in Korea and Vietnam.
The two countries, with New
Zealand, are linked in the ANZUS defense
treaty. Australia, therefore, fully
supports the American military presence
in the Pacific.
Australia is similar to America in its
economy and society. But there is one
major difference: It has only 14 million
people in an area roughly the size of
the Lower 48 United States.
Australians realize that their political
voice in the world is limited because of
their small population. Yet, as a source
of raw materials, the country assumes
an importance that is out of proportion
to the number of its people.
Japan, Australia's leading trading
partner, imports nearly 50 percent of
its iron ore, 44 percent of its coking
coal, 100 percent of its alumina plus
other vital minerals from Australia.
But problems in Australia-Japan
trade could lie ahead. The Japanese
ambassador, commenting on widespread
labor unrest, has raised the possibility
that his nation is " fed up with
frequent industrial disputes and seeks
more-reliable supply sources."
Australia's trade with the U. S. is
deeply in the red. Officials fear that
this gap could widen if American cattlemen
succeed in efforts to limit imports
of Aussie beef, now totaling about
550 million dollars a year. Most imported
Australian beef is used for hamburger
or in processed meats.
Also, Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser's
conservative Liberal-National
Country Party coalition has failed in
attempts to gain entry into the European
Common Market for sales of Australian
butter, cheese, sugar, beef and
canned fruits.
Energy may be the key to the future
for Australia, which is rich in uranium
and coal-but not oil. Says Sir James
McNeill, chairman of Broken Hill Proprietary
Company, the country's lairgest
firm: " Australia has higher reserves
of coal and uranium per head than any
other country." He advocates that Australia
sell uranium and surplus coal to
buy the oil it needs.
The Fraser coalition has lifted uranium
export controls imposed by the
previous government of Labor Prime Minister Cough Whitlam, whose 1975
firing by Governor General Sir John
Kerr, Queen Elizabeth's representative,
still creates constitutical aftershocks.
The abrupt action rneriy tore
once-stable Australia apart. But it reversed
worsening U. S.-Australia relations
and ended demands fcr removal
of strategic U. S. military ba: zes.
American investors, wit. h -tr. iost a 6-
billion-dollar stake in Aust-alia, welcome
Fraser's efforts to ea-e labhi unrest
and his cutting of infiat-. on from
more than 20 percent in 1975 t under
10 percent now. The goveranment also
has taken steps to encourage greater
foreign investment to supply a muchneeded
boost to the economy
For Australians, fed up wit. the way
things are going, this cannot ccme too
soon Philippa Field, a teacher in South
Australia, spoke for many '. hen she
said: " I never read the news these days.
It's all bad." l
f ' P' 3^ l n'
i. . r ny ^ i nk.
1.3-: a 7-4
f-S: io o dj;: S in
,. o7 dor.. s in
a-n, . z-sr, ' r
r : k
S V
Is. W & z RD-Pr I4
U. S. EWS & WORLD REPORT. J. 5. 1979