PRESS OFFICE TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW WITH VINCE SMITH 2UE
FRIDAY 15 FEBRUARY 1980
Question Prime Minister
Yes. I think it was a constructive and a useful discussion.
We have put out a joint press statement as a result. The people
I was talking with of course, are not empowered to make any
decisions-. I did not expect that they could. But I did want
to be able to speak with Mr. Grange and as many of his people as
he wanted to bring along, as soon as possible, so that I could
explain in detail the background to the Government's view and the
seriousness with which we regard the whole international situation.
And I think that is understood. The press statement that we have
put out a few monents -ago says that the Australian Olympic Federation
explained that they were concerned as to whether a withdrawal by
Australia or a number of nations would constitute an effective
boycott, and the President of the Federation did not feel that
Australia should withdraw unless it was established beyond reasonable
doubt that an effective boycott would take place. They point out
that constitutional processes that they would have to go through
in making the decision and concluded by saying that they will give
very serious consideration to the views that the Government put to
them..
Question Prime Minister
Yes it has. Now there was some doubt about that point in earlier
correspondence I wrote a letter which has also been published,
to Mr. Grange and which was given to him this morning. That letter
in part says that the Government is also strongly of the view that
it would not be in the national interest of Australia for Australians
to participate in Games held in Moscow and therefore asks that in
the event of the Soviet not withdrawing from Afgh-anis-tan, no
Australian team be sent. So that should clear up that point, which
was necessary from ' their interpretation of my earlier letter. I
also made the point as I have before that we are not going to
withhold passports. It is a request and we are not in the business
of acting like the authoritarian, totalitarian kinds of regimes
that we oppose. The Government does not direct
Australian sporting bodies
Therefore there has to be responsibility on other people to take
into account the policy and all the totality of the considerations.
Question Prime minister
Well I saw a survey yesterday. Is there another one produced this
morning?
Question Prime Minister
Well I am not all together surprised at that because in the earlier
periods our television screens were giving pictures of Russian
troops and tanks marching through Afghanistan almost nightly. Now
that has not been on the television screens recently. I don't know
when that poll was taken but the Government has really only been
expressing the view strongly about the reasonsover the last three
of four days. Some people have expressed the view to me
that they are surprised that in the absence of the Government's.
. views were being press publicly,* which had not happened up to a few day ' s ago,
surprised at so many people were in support of a boycott.
Question Prime Minister
Well that would be a view that-could be taken but I do not think
that it advances Australia's cause much to say that it will not
trade in things which everyone else is going to go on trading in.
One of the things I wanted to do when I was overseas was to see
what goods the British and the Americans in particular were not
going to trade with in the Soviet Union, because I wanted Australia
to be in a similar position -not necessarily identical but similar.
I found in terms of the commodities that have had some publicity
here, there is no thought of an embargo really in relation to the
Soviet Union. We have cut off scientific and cultural links.
There are the grains embargoes, which will hurt, the fisheries
embargoes, limitations on Soviet fishing, virtually the end of
access to their scientific vessels to any Australian pors.
Question Prime Minister
I think that the weight of public opinion and the weight of
international opinion, 104 nations in the United Nations, the
Islamic Conference these things have been expressed quite
spontaneously as well as from the developed countries of the West.
If you think back after Czechoslovakia it was not possible to get
a condemnation out of the United Nations of the Soviet Union. So
this does represent a very real change. It is not just an East
West thing. It is countries all around the world expressing a view
and of course why a lot of attention has been given to the Olympic
Games is that it is a very public thing. It is the Soviet Union
itself that has said that the holding of the Games or the awarding
of them to Moscow is a great political event. And they have also
said that the awarding of the Games to Moscow represents a mark of
approval of Soviet foreign policy. Now they have said that to their
own people. It has gone out in their formal papers to their party
activists. It is that kind of . politicisation of the location of
the Games which the Government believes makes it doubly important
for Australians not to attend and not to compete. Because if 3
Australians, Americans, Englishmen and Germans and all the rest go
it is not going to be what the Olympic Committees or the athletes
themselves say, the important thing then will be what the Soviet
Union news media says to the Russian people. And they will be
saying very plainly all these fine young men and women are
accepting the Socialist faith and philosophy and repudiating their
own society. And I do not believe that giving the Soviets that
degree of internal self confidence will be at all helpful in taking
the world to a more secure and safer international environment
where the integrity and independence of nations is respected.
Question
Prime Minister
Well the relationships with the ASEAN countries are very good on
a personal basis and on a governirent to governnent basis. I know the leaders
of all those countries personally and I know they are just as much
offended arnd just as much appalled by the Soviet action as we are.
The only country with whom we have not really got a good
relationship in Southeast Asia is Vietnam, I suppose, and
the Vietnam regime in Kampuchea.
Question Prime Minister
Well you know we tried. After the Vietnam War I can remember telling
Vietnamese emissaries in Canberra look we are prepared to let the
past be past, we are prepared to provide aid for the rebuilding of
your country.,-we hope very much you can work constructively in
Southeast Asia, with other countries there to build a peaceful
world. And we were providing aid, and substantial civil aid and
what happened? They signed. a defence treaty with the Soviet Union
and now they have got 22 divisions in Kampuchea. So we tried taking
that path.. I have got to say it did not work.
Question Prime Minister
What do you mean if the worst comes to the worst?
Question Prime Minister
Yes. Well I hope they won't. But we are not going to use the
methods of dictators to stop them going. That is not the way a
free society ought to act.
Question
4
Prime Minister
Well I believe it would be a very great tradegy. I really do.
It takes a number of nations but assuming the United States and
significant countries in Europe and Australia ( boycott) then you
have a pretty effective protest. Somebody has got to be first
in the ring with making decisions about that. We are in close
touch on a government to government basis with the United States.
and with United Kingdom. Against that total background I think
we need to keep in mind the objective of the United States, of
Europe and of middle ranking countries like Australia. And that
objective is to make sure that the Soviets do not go further.
The objective is to make sure that we can establish a more peaceful
and a more secure world which does respect the independence of
states and if governments are making the judgmen -that a boycott
of the Olympic Gamnes is a significant ingredient in helping to
establish that objective
Question Prime Minister
No we have not lost. It just makes it harder to establish that
secure world. It means that one of the devices that could have
been used to diminish danger has not been used and it means that
greater efforts are going to have to be put onto other things to
convince the Soviet Union of the total determination of the United
States and many other countries, that further aggression will not
be allowed or tolerated. 000---