R# CI IV D oc roa++,,
PiJ llm4 " ni : o V': dC abls ant
PE 14 FEB 1979
PRIME MINISTER
ADDRESSTOINDIANPARL I AMENT
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE MALCOLM FRASER, M. P.
PRIME MINISTER OF AUSTRALIA.
27 JANUARY 1979.
27 JANUARY 1979
STATEMENT ! f~ O INDIAN PARLIAMENT
As the leader of a parliamentary democracy, and as someone with
23 years personal experience as a parliamentarian I am delighted
to have this opportunity to address you, the representatives
of the largest democracy in the-world.
No invitation has been more welcome to me and I would like to
express at the outset, and in the clearest terms my admiration
for India's commitment to the democratic principle.
It has been sustained in circumstances which have never been easy
and have sometimes been dauntingly difficult.
Future historians will surely record as one of the most remarkable
facts of the second half of the twentieth century that as democracy
faltered and failed in dozens of countries, countries whose
problems, while serious enough, could not be mentioned in the same
breath as those of India, democracy remained alive and vital here.
It is a tribute to you as leaders, to your institutions, but most
of all the people of India. For as a truly great Indian,
Mahatma Gandhi, wrote over 50 years ago, " Parliaments have no power
or even existence independently of the people."
This visit gives me the opportunity to deepen my understanding
of this remarkable and fascinating ' country. But it does more than
that. I believe that over the last 30 years neither of our countries,
neither Australia nor India, has done enough to fulfil the potential
of our relationship.
Do not misunderstand me. That relationship has been amicable and
cordial. But for a variety of reasons, legitimate reasons in
the context of the time, our principal energies have been otherwise
engaged. You have been largely preoccupied with the affairs of the
sub-continent and with playing a leading role in creating and
developing the non-aligned movement. Our attention has been
centred mainly on South East Asia; we have not adequately turned
our attention towards strengthening and deepening the relationship,
towards exploring its possibilities.
-2-
When your Prime Minister, Mr. Desai, and I met at the Commonwealth
Heads of Government Meeting in London in 1977, we both came to
the conclusion that the time had come to strengthen the
relationship.
When we met again at the Commonwealth Regional Meeting in Sydney
a year ago, a meeting which gained much of its weight and
authority from Mr. Desai's presence, this conviction was greatly
strengthened and we took some preliminary steps to develop the
relationship between our two countries.
I trust that my visit will contribute further to the process.
Our relationship should be further developed not only because
it is in our direct bilateral interest to do so, but because
at this time in history there is a crucial role to be played
by countries like ours, countries which have learnt the art of
compromise through their own institutions, which are not at the
extreme end of any spectrum in international affairs and which
are committed to moderation and reconciliation.
It is now more important than ever that nations like ours should
do our utmost to inject this experience into the conduct of
international affairs. To the extent that we understand and
can lend support to each other that role will be performed
more effectively.
I trust that by the time I have finished speaking it will be
clear why I believe this and what I see that role as being. I
appreciate that there are many differences between Australia and
India. These differences are real enough and there is no need
to gloss over them. Yours is one of the great and ancient
civilisations of the world.
No country on earth has such a long cultural continuity as India.
By comparison Australia is a very young country, one which has
created a distinctive cultural identity for itself during the
course of this century.
The contrast between us in terms of population is striking. You
have a population which is more than twice that of the whole of
Africa and which constitutes nearly a third of all the people
living in the Third World.
The fact that every year your population increases by a number
about equivalent to Australia's total population indicates just
how striking that contrast is. The diversity and complexity of
your society is staggering. Australian society is also growing
in diversity. What began as purely Anglo-saxon has been enriched
by European and Asian influences, and by an increasing awareness
of what our continent's pre-European civilization has to contribute.
But we recognise that few if any of the world's societies can
compare with you in this respect.
Given these social and cultural differences, it naturally follows
that the domestic problems. which engross our two countries, our
Political priorities, must also be different.
-3-
One could easily extend the list of differences, but instead
let me simply concede it and go on to make two crucial qualifying
points. First, while the differences are real enough, their effect has
to some extent been compounded by lack of first-hand familiarity.
The widely held western view of India as the archetypal
" Iunder-developed" country has tended to obscure the fact
that you are one of the world's great industrial powers, that
you have one of the world's largest scientific and intellectual
communities, that, indeed, while still a developing country, in
many respects you are one of the world's most highly developed
and sophisticated countries, and that this is disguised only by
the fact you have to cop6 with an almost overwhelming population
burden. Similarly, in the past your policy of non-alignment has not always
been understood and there has been insufficient appreciation
of the needs from which it springs or the purposes it was meant
to serve.
Differences of means have sometimes been confused with differences
of ends, thus obscuring the fact of a common interest in peace and
stability. In Australia's case, we are sometimes thought of as a typically
western country which happens to be eccentrically located at the
bottom right-hand corner of Asia. I believe that this is a
quite inadequate concept of contemporary Australia.
It is true that many of our central values and institutions
are western, in the sense that they were first articulated and
shaped in the west; not that the west has patent rights over them,
We are fundamentally western in that sense.
But we are western with a difference. A country which originated
as a colony, whose own physical geography and environment are so
distinctive, whose outlook and perspectives are profoundly affected
by its location in the South East Asian region; whose export
earnings derive principally from commodities; which is a net
importer of capital, cannot be regarded as typically western.
Australia is Australia, not an appendage of Europe.
The second and even more important qualification I wish to make
is that'while the differences between Australia and India are
real, there are also very important similarities between us,
similarities which are of fundamental political relevance at
the present time.
As I began by acknowledging, we are two countries committed to
democracy, situated on the rim of the same ocean, and in a world
where functioning democracies are the exception rather than the
rule. Neither India nor Australia lays claims on any other country.
Both believe in moderation and conciliation rather than confronation,
as a means to resolve differences between countries.
-4-
Both have a stake in peace and stability, in a part of the
world where neither can be taken for granted. If one considers
the Indian Ocean, for example, it is apparent that different
as they are, both our approaches are concerned to prevent that
Ocean from becoming a region of instability and great power
rivalry. Your approach seeks to do this by creating a zone of peace, ours
by maintaining a balance at the lowest possible level.
Perhaps one could sum up the difference by saying that yrour
approach would be the one more certain to bring about the desired
result if it succeeeded, while ours is the one more likely to
be achievable in the short or medium term.
In any case, what I wish to stress is that we share the same
basic objective. We are both working towards reducing tension
and devising means for controlling conflict situations more
effectively. We both strive to achieve an effective means of
global arms control and disarmament.
We know that the arms race threatens the survival of humanity and
that it is a crippling handicap on economic development everywhere.
We both recognise that disarmament cannot be left to the
superpowers, that it requires a concerted effort by the nations
of the world. We both want the nuclear weapons states to stop testing
nuclear weapons in all environments, and Australia looks forward
to working with India on the Committee for Disarmament.
I submit that in the world in which we are living, the importance
of the similarities between us far outweighs that of our
differences. That world is one in which the possilility of a
deepening rift between developed and developing countries, and
of a serious political deterioration in regions of interest to
both India and Australia, is real.
In the early part of this decade, a sustained and unprecedented
period of growth in the world economy came to an end. Whether
this is temporary or permanent remains to be seen, and will depend
essentially on the quality of statesmanship available over the next
year or two.
In the developed western world, this has been followed by a period
of high inflation, high unemployment and low growth. In the
developing countries, there have been two significant developments.
First, a strong and co-ordinated demand for changes in the
international economic system. And secondly, rapid, against-the-trend
growth on the part of a small but significant group of developing
countries, many of them Asian.
The interaction of these developments is of profound importance
for the future of the international order in every sense economic,
political and strategic.
There is a real danger that, beset by their own economic problems,
under strong domestic political pressures and to some extent divided
among themselves, the developed countries will react negatively
and in a protectio nist spirit to the needs of the Third World.
Indeed, there are disturbing indications that this is already
happening.
There is evidence in some quarters in the west of a disinclination
to look with discrimination and sympathy at the claims of developing
countries to see which proposals may offer the prospect of ensuring
increased production and overall wealth for both groups of
countries. There is even clearer evidence of a resort to protectionist
measures some quite open, others more covert against those
developing countries which are successfully expanding their
manufacturing export sectors. If this approach were to prevail,
the result would be disastrous.
By demonstrating to the developing countries that there was little
sympathy for their problems and a negative response to their
efforts to work within the western system of trade it would
strengthen the hand of those who have an interest in confrontation
and inflexibility. Who could then say with strength that they
were wrong? The result would be increasing alienation,
instability and adventurism.
It is essential, therefore, that this approach should not
prevail. We must have policies based on a recognition of
interdependence, of the fact that in crucial respects the
future of the developed and developing worlds are inevitably linked,
and that co-operation between them is essential.
These economic issues do not stand apart from other aspects of
international relations. The days when they could be thought of
in a separate compartment are gone. They have to be considered
as part of the totality of relations, interacting closely with
political, social and strategic questions.
There is profound truth in Pandit Nehru's assertion that:
" There can be no security or real peace if vast numbers of
people in various parts of the world live in poverty and misery.
Nor can there be a balanced economy for the world as a whole if
the underdeveloped parts continue to upset that balance and drag
down even the more prosperous nations"
Just as economic development and prosperity are vital for peace,
so peace is vital to economic development. As recent events in
a number of regions of importance to India and Australia have
brought home, the conditions for peace still elude the world.
In South-East Asia, the end of the Vietnam War brought hopes
that this troubled region might at last enjoy some peace and
stability. The progress made by ASEAN and the quite remarkable
economic growth achieved by some of its members, strengthened these
hopes. There were signs of a possible rapprochement between the ASEAN
countries and Vietnam. Many believed that economic and development
issues, not power politics, would now dominate the affairs of the
region. Recent events have cast a dark shadow over such hopes.
A renewed intrusion of great power politics, the escalation of
violence, the apparent determination to press the advantage of
military superiority make it seem that the last few years
represented not a fundamental change, but a short breathing
space.
-6-
In the Middle East, a region of particular importance to India,
which has over a million of her people working there, the
situation has assumed a fluidity which, given the region's
geo-political sensitivity, is very dangerous.
The turmoil and uncertainty in many countries in the area,
combined with the interests which we all share mean that
any miscalculation by the superpowers could have grave
consequences.
We have recently had a graphic reminder in Iran that rapid growth
does not itself guarantee stability, that it can in fact result in
cultural and political dislocations which are seriously
destabilising. In Southern Africa blatant racialism, which constitutes a basic
affront to human-dignity, has created a situation which already
involves bloodshed and misery and which, unless speedily resolved,
is almost certain to result in a major political crisis.
This is the world in which we are living.
My central theme is that in such a world there is a vital
role for actors who are not dogmatic; who are not set on
confrontation; whose behaviour reflects more than short-term and
narrow self-interest. There is a need for such actors in the
developed world, in the developing world and in a variety of
regional settings. If they do not appear and assert themselves
vigorously, the prospects are bleak.
It seems to me that both India and Australia are eminently capable
of performing such a role as forces of co-operation, moderation
and toleration, and countering those of confrontation, dogmatism
and bigotry. Indeed, in a real sense India has been performing
that role since she achieved independence.
As I understand it, the notions of mediation, of opening rather than
closing of doors, of reconciliation and compromise, constitute
important elements in the wider concept of non-alignment.
Within the non-aligned movement itself you have provided much
of the statesmanship required to hold together and to find
constructive compromises between groups with different views.
India has acquired great moral authority, based on its readiness
to take a disinterested but principled view of a wide range of
issues. Closer to home, Australia has watched with appreciation the
constructive role India has taken in initiating a new era of hope
and co-operation in the sub-continent. Your good neighbour policy
has led to greater self-confidence and an easing of tension and
uncertainty.
-7-
The same spirit is evident in your efforts to begin a new phase
in your relations with China; moves which have an important
bearing on the future peace and stability of the Asia/ Pacific
region.
As far as Australia is concerned, during the last three years
my Government has consistently acted on the belief that both
an enlightened understanding of our own interests and the interest
of international peace and stability require that we make a
constructive and co-operative response to the needs of developing
countries.
We have played a leading part among the OECD countries in
supporting the common fund proposal and in contributing to make
it a practicable, workable arrangement. On this issue we took
an independent initiative at a time when rigidity on both sides
threatened a stalemate which would have had serious ramifications.
We have strongly resisted the retreat towards protectionism on
the part of some western countries. We recognise, of course, that
the immediate removal of all barriers would be impossibly disrupting
and we do not for a moment propose it.
What we firmly believe is that the trend must be away from, not
towards, protectionism.
We have taken every opportunity to extend the dialogue between
the developed and developing countries and to make it as genuine
a meeting of minds as possible.
Only a few weeks ago I was in Jamaica to attend a discussion of
current economic problems between seven heads of Government from
developing and developed countries. It proved to be an eminently
worthwhile meeting, informal and unstructured, free from dogma
and rhetoric.
We have condemned the racialist regimes in southern Africa in the
strongest terms and have used what influence we have to get those
Governments to change their repugnant, dangerous and self-destructiv.
policies. Nearer home, we have always supported ASEAN as a practical example
of regional co-operation, and we have established with ASEAN an
extensive system of consultation and co-operation.
We based our policy towards Vietnam on the need to encourage her
to integrate herself into the region and devote her formidable
energies towards internal reconstruction and development. Recent
events have forced us to reconsider, but for the longer term
we have not abandoned that hope. We have taken more refugees
from Vietnam per head of population than has any other country
in the world.
Thirty years ago, soon after the foundation of your Republic,
India and Australia acted together to provide their good offices
in the conflict which was then being waged in Indonesia.
-8-
It was one of the earliest diplomatic initiatives of the new
India and of an Australia emerging from its own dependence. The
fact that two significant countries within the region acted in this
way was not without effect.
Australia and India are countries which prefer to dissolve rather
than erect barriers in international relations. This approach lay
at the basis of the Commonwealth's successful emergence as a
diverse association of independent nations bringing together
like and unlike.
The Commonwealth's ability to adapt to new needs and to new
circumstances has ensured not just its survival but its continuing
relevance. The present Commonwealth is relevant to the needs of the world
today in a way the old Commonwealth could never have been.
The Heads of Government Regional Meeting at Sydney again demonstrated
that the Commonwealth was capable of developing important new
forms of co-operation. The approach of both our countries to
international affairs can fairly be described as one of principled
moderation. Moderation, that is, which derives not from
indifference or lack of conviction, but is a positive, active
force derived from the democratic experience of compromise and
from an awareness of the importance of interdependence.
There is not an over-abundance of such moderation in the world
today, yet it is badly needed; and it badly needs to speak out.
In too many situations it is the moderates who are in the majority
but it is the extremists who prevail. We are not far from that
situation which Yeats described where " The best lack all conviction
while the worst are full of passionate intensity."
It is in speaking out with the civilised voice of moderation that
I see a role for your country and mine. India speaks for
moderation with moral force as a founder and leader of nonalignment.
We seek to speak for moderation from different origins. We are
aligned. But the very fact that nations aligned and non-aligned
are concerned to find reasonable solutions will strengthen the
cause of moderation.
If the non-aligned alone spoke for moderation the cause of reason
would be seriously weakened. By speaking out for moderation from
our different positions it will be reinforced.
We cannot leave everything to the great powers, nor the sheer
weight of numbers either. We need to draw on our experience of
compromise and express our conviction of the reality of
interdependence.
-9-
Let our passion be for moderation; let our strength be in the
cause of reason. Let our determination be for the breaking
down of barriers between people. Let that be our role.
But more than that it is a duty, an obligation,
It can be fulfilled more effectively to the extent
that we strengthen our relationship.
I hope my visit to India can serve some part of that purpose.
0000