4~ AUSRAL~& EMBARGOED6
PRIME MIlNISTER Q) CANERR
S LIB~ RARY
FOR MEDIA 13 Febr
ADDRESS TO THE NATION
I speak to you at the earliest possible opportunity, following
Andrew Peacock's discussions in South and South East Asia, and my
own discussions in the United States, Europe and New Zealand.
The purpose of our visits was to seek a plain exchange of views
about the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union. These
consultations are essential to help us in the responsible
development of Australia's foreign policy. Beyond that, it would
be irresponsibl: 2 merely to sit back and fail to act on great issues
which are of ultimate importance to us merely because others
have not acted before us. That would be a poor way for Australia's
government to safeguard the interests of this nation.
We sought to consult with our regional partners and with world
leaders about this act of Soviet aggression and the nature of the
response that is needed. When Afghanistan was invaded over seven
weeks ago, I described the behaviour of the Soviet Union as an
act of ruthless opportunism; an act of expansion with potentially
grave consequences. These views have been reinforced by our
meetings with the leaders of major European and Asian countries
and most recently New Zealand.
It was known before we left that, broadly speaking the United
States' views would be similar to our own. But previous reports
indicated that the European response might be somewhat different.
Instead, what we found in Europe was an essential coincidence
of views about the Soviet's behaviour; a recognition-that it has
created new and serious tensions.
In fact, on the eve of my meeting with Chancellor Schmidt, he
and the President of France, in a joint statement, spoke of the'
Soviet intervention as unacceptable, creating grave dangers for
peace. The brutal takeover of the government of Afghanistan
and the assassination of its leader have been almost universally
condemned. They have created uncertainty and apprehension.
As Australians, we must realise the increasing importance to
Australia of what is going on in other parts of the world.
In both Europe and Asia, a principal point about the invasion
and occupation of Afghanistan was that it represented an attack
on a non-aligned country, a member of the Third World, and a
member of the Islamic Conference. ./ 2
Striving to be free from the effects of rivalry between super
powers, all non-aligned countries must now seriously ask how
they can protect themselves from Soviet aggression in the future.
On this occasion, the Soviet Union has shown scant respect for
non-alignment. Another point that has heightened international
concern is that, at a time when energy supplies are becoming
scarce, the Soviet Union is better placed to exert influence
or even control over Middle East oil. Such control could threaten
the very survival of industrialised countries.
As the new President of Iran has said, " the Soviets are at our
doors if they succeed in reaching the Persian Gulf, they will
control, not only Iran, but the whole of the Middle East and the
Indian sub-continent".
As to the nature of the response needed, it has been my view from
the outset, that the only course open to independently-minded
nations, is to make it plain to the Soviet Union that such behaviour
will not be tolerated. I find this view is widely shared.
104 members of the United Nation.& General Assembly and
subsequently, 25 Islamic foreign ministers, denounced the Soviet
Union' s behaviour.
Those who maintain that what we are witnessing is a return to the
Cold War should bear the strength of opposition in mind. The
essence of the Cold War was a tension between super powers. The
essence of the present situation is that condemnation is coming
independently and unorchestrated from a diversity of sources
from the Third World, from the non-aligned, from the Islamic
countries, as well as from the developed countries of the West.
I maintained during my discussions, that future dangers are most
likely to emerge in countries outside rather than inside Europe.
For many years, Europe was the theatre of tension and conflict
affecting the whole world. Since the War, there have been clear
divisions in Europe between Communist and non-Conununist powers.
These were tested during the blockade of Berlin. The West met
that challenge with firmness and unity. As a result, alliances
have been formed; commitments have been made, so that any future
Soviet challenge in Europe would reinforce the Western alliance.
However, in most of South East Asia, South West Asia and Africa,
lines are not clearly-drawn. Whatever detente meant to Europeans,
the Soviets have not regarded it as applying to their behaviour
outside Europe. As a result, the Soviet has probed, pushed
forward, and penetrated; destabilised governments and sought to
increase its influence in large parts of the Third World the
Middle East, Angola, Yemen, Ethiopia, Vietnam and Kampuchea.
Thus, Afghanistan is the latest, though most serious, in a long
history of Soviet intervention and expansion.
Now, a great responsibility rests on independently-minded countries,
wherever they are, to secure respect for the integrity and
* independence of nations. It is not enough to leave this task to
the United States alone. Recent events have heightened the need
for the United States to demonstrate determination in world
leadership. That leadership has been forthcoming.
The President, in his State of the Union address to the American
Congress, spelt out specifically that an attack on the Persian Gulf
region would be regarded as an attack on the vital interests of the
United States, and would be met accordingly. This is the kind of
leadership based on strength that only the United States can give;
a leadership, which is essential if the independence of nations is
to be secuired.
It is not enough to be convinced that what the Soviet Union has done
is wrong. We must act upon that conviction. Immediate steps have
already been taken in many countries, including Australia, to show
the Soviet Union that there is a cost to its behaviour. Over the
longer term, we will be increasing our patrolling and surveillance
in the Indian Ocean. We shall seek to enlarge our defence
cooperation with friendly countries in South East Asia.
We shall sustain programmes to raise our national defence preparedness
to a new level. But we need to understand that a military response
can never be more than part of the answer. Because this is so,
we will be increasing our civil aid to countries in the South Pacific.
Furthermore, nations must do what they can to strengthen the
fabric of their own societies socially and economically.
All this will require a constant and continuing effort. If we
are to be successful, we must apply ourselves with a collective
determination that will endure, a determination that recognises
that our own freedom and the independence of nations cannot be
taken for granted and cannot be secured without cost.
Finally, I want to say something about the Olympic Games. The
issue before us is not the boycotting of the Olympic Games. The
issue is the occupation and invasion of Afghanistan. We would have
preferred that an Australian team compete in the 1980 Olympics
without any need to take into account considerations other than
those of international sport. But we must view the world as it
is, not as we would like it to be.
It is the Soviet Union which has argued that the Olympic Games
is an event of great social and political significance. It is the
Soviet Union which has said that the awarding of the Olympics to
Moscow is convincing testimony to the general recognition of the
historic importance and correctness of its own-foreign policy.
These views were expressed in June last year,, and distributed
in printed form to Commuun. ist-Party activists.
Now we have the invasion of Afghanistan, demonstrating that the
host nation for this year's Olympics is abusing the rules of
the international community. It is also abusing the Olympic
charter in claiming credit and support for its foreign policy
on the basis of the fact that it has been awarded the 1980
Olympic Games.
If, in the face of this, athletes were to go to Moscow, it would
be seen by the government and the people of the Soviet Union as
an endorsement of Soviet foreign policy. It will not be what the
* visiting athletes say that is important; the importance will lie
in the Soviet Union's interpretation of their presence.
-4-
Soviet aggression must not be given that triumph. That is why
the Australian government will remain strongly opposed to our
athletes going to Moscow.
I wonder with the benefit of hindsight how many Olympic officials
and athletes would have gone to Berlin in 1936 had they known
beforehand the propaganda use to which their presence would be put.
As you know, Australia has taken a number of measures in scientific
and cultural fields, in trade, in grains and in fisheries a
number of which will have a significant cost for Australia.
On the question of sanctions it is important to take actions which
are supported by major trading nations. There is no point in
Australia making decisions about commodities which can easily
be obtained from other sources. We are in consultation on
these matters especially with the United Kingdom and the United
States. Of all the measures that are open to independent nations,
a boycott or the movement of the Olympic Games would have the
most effect in the Soviet Union. It cannot be hidden. It will
be visible to the Soviet people and that will expose the emptiness
of the Soviet Union's claim that the Olympic Games represents
world wide approval of their foreign policy.
our decisions in the face of international tension and difficulty
have been measured and responsible. Of course, they will involve
the nation and individuals in some cost. But this confirms the
seriousness with which we view the Soviet invasion and occupation
of Afghanistan, and the dangers that arise from it. It demonstrates
the government's determination to do what it must in the interests
of all Australians.
By its invasion of Afghanistan, the Soviet Union has created
considerable tensions. The responsibility now rests with the
U. S. S. R. to indicate that it is prepared to contribute to world
peace, to respect the integrity and independence of nations, and
to forego subversion and outright invasion as instruments of
foreign policy.
The history of recent decades has not been encouraging. Until
such time as the Soviet's commitment to these objectives is
forthcoming, independent nations of the world have no option but
to undertake a greater effort, and a greater response, at a
greater cost to preserve the independence and freedom of their
own people.
For our own part, we will meet that challenge.
000000000