PRIME MINISTER THURSDAY 28 FEBRUARY 1980
From the Press Office SUMMARY OF AM
Afghanistan and. the Olympic boycott: this week saw the issue
become the subject of a bitter and divisive party Political
debate in Federal Parliament, with a scathing attack on the
Prime Minister by the Leader of the Opposition and Mr. Fraser
accusing the Labor Party of trying to find excuses for the
Russian invasion of Afghanistan. The Prime Minister is with us
this morning speaking to Warwick Adderley.
Question
Well Prime Minister do you regret the manner in which Afghanistan
and the question of an Olympic boycott has turned into a bitter
party political debate.
Prime Minister
Oh of course I do because the Government set out very firmly to
try and establish the circumstances in which we could have and
would have a bipartisan policy in relation to Afghanistan.
Question
What steps did you take to seek a bipartisan policy Mr. Fraser?
Prime Minister
If you could just let finish an answer please and in the introduction
to this programme you, whoever did the introduction, whoever wrote
it, inadvertently fell into an error, which I think was perpetrated
yesterday when it said that I had put it that the Labor Party as
a whole was trying to find excuses for the Soviets over Afghanistan.
I said there was a thread in the Labor Party. That's quite a
different matter. and it happens to be totally accurate and it is
because of that that the efforts that the Government has taken to
try and establish an effective boycott of the Olympic Gamnes, for
example, and other effective measures, has been sought to be
undermined in the debates and the discussions that have gone on.
I think this is regrettable and most unfortunate.
Question Mr. Hayden claims that by referring to that thread you're impuning
the patriotism of Labor politicians. Was that your intention?
Prime Minister
If Mr. Hayden is taking that view he has an extraordinary sensitivity
which is surprising after his period in the Parliament. Because
let me demonstrate why I said it. There is one Labor member and I
do not want to mention names, but if you wish to look up the Hansard's
it is all there there is one Labor member who has made it plain
that it is a Russian presence, not an invasion, not a suppression,
not an occupation. Now if that isn't making excuses being an
apologist I don't know what is.
Question But in referring to a response to either a Russian invasion or a
Russian occupation or a Russian presence, is opposition to a
boycott un-Australian?
Prime Minister
The Leader of the Opposition has said that a boycott of the Olympic
Games would be one of the most effective means of bringing the
abhorrence of the free world through to the Russian Government and
to the Russian people; and with that we are at one. He is record
as having said that very plainly in the Hansard. Then he said if
there is international support of course he will support it. Then
a little later he said there is not sense and no justice in a
continued pressure for a boycott of the Moscow Games by the
Australian athletes.
Question Can I draw your attention to the point of my question Mr. Fraser.
Under the present circumstances is opposition to a boycott
un-Australian?
Prime Minister
If you allow me to answer the question without interrupting and
if you are going to continually interrupt then all right so be it.
But I would be grateful if you would allow me to answer the
question before interrupting and we will make more progress quicker.
I am making the point that Mr. Hayden said quite plainly that a
boycott would bring the message through to the Russians and the
Russian people very effectively. Then he said there is no sense
and no justice in a boycott. And he ended up his statement in
the Parliament yesterday by saying if there is an effective boycott
the opposition supports it. That's fine but if it wants to support
it why won't it work for it? Why does it do everything possible
to try and prevent the effective boycott being established as far
as Australia is concerned when he knows that this is the one thing
that can bring the message home to the whole of the Soviet people.
Now that's a great question that he has to answer.
Question Is not working for a boycott un-Australian?
Prime Minister
You introduced this term ' un-Australian', I didn't.
Question No on the contrary Mr. Fraser, Mr. Hayden introduced the question
of patriotism and I'm trying to explore that issue.
Prime Minister
You have introduced the question of un-Australian, I didn't and I
am not making any charges about patriotism. I said Mr. Hayden
was too sensitive. The question I asked him is if he says a boycott,
as he does, is an effective means of getting the message through to
the Soviet people, and-it is an invasion and a suppression of a
people we are talking about, not a Russian presence, and if he says
there is going to be an effective boycott, the Labor Party then
supports it in those circumstances why will he not work for it?
why does he then have to work against it as he so patently has.
Question Mr. Fraser can we turn to your view that the Russian invasion poses
the most serious threat to world stability and peace since World
War II. It's been reported that the Office of National Assessments
advised you that that wasn't the case before your trip overseas
and that the occupation was merely defensive and didn't pose a
threat to Western oil supplies. Is that true?
Prime Minister
No it is not true. And that report happens not to be true. There
is a particular device by which Mr. Hayden can be briefed through
the office of National Assessments. He asked my office and I
would normally approve-and Mr. Furlonger would give him a briefing.
That request was not made. That briefing was not made. Mr.
Hayden was not briefed. Many people differ as to the reasons why
the Soviets went into Afghanistan. But all the Government's
advisors agree that once they are in Afghanistan, as they are, that
opens up opportunities for further adventures by the Soviet Union,
opportunities which in all their history, they have shown themselves
only too willing to take. It's not only in Afghanistan that we have
to look for this lesson, buic in Africa, where they have armed
40,000 Cuban troops, in Vietnam and in Kampuchea, in northeast
Africa and now in Afghanistan, in nearly part of the world they
are the only country that has been promoting and supporting
subversion, invasion, destruction.
Question If then, the situation is as serious as you say, d * o you regret not
having sought a bipartisan approach over Australia's response
before announcing a boycott?
Prime Minister
We did take a bipartisan approach and Mr. Hayden has said in the
initial stages that a boycott would be an effective means of
bringing the message home through to the Russian people. And
on that basis, we were entitled to expect that he would support it.
And I still am puzzled as to why he doesn't.
Question You actually approached-Mr. Hayden over it?
Prime Minister
Would you please let me answer a question. It is a great habit of
the ABC to interrupt but so be it. Mr. Hayden had made is perfectly
plain that he believed the boycott would be the effective way of
getting a message through. Since he criticised and strongly
criticised, which I applaud, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
the natural result of that one would have thought would be that Mr.
Hayden would support the boycott now he does not. This time he
has gone on to say if there is ultimately an effective boycott of
course he would support it. But if he believes an effective boycott
is necessary to get the message home you have to work for what you
believe not Just sit on the sidelines and say other people can do
it. .4
Question If the Government and the Opposition then are divided at the
moment, are you prepared to make that division an election issue?
Prime minister.
Oh look I am not going to talk about elections in this matter.
It would be much much better if Australia can have one policy
in relation to these matters. You have only got to look at the
way the British Labor Party supported the present British Tory
Government in relation to these particular matters. They didn' 1t
seek to get in and undermine and undercut what Prime Minister
Thatcher is doing, but to establish an effective response and
people really do need to understand what all this is about. The
Soviets have moved into Afghanistan.-the largest and most
powerful land army in the world a small non-aligned, inoffensive
State, you said it-was defensive reasons, but Afghanistan could
never have offered any threat to the Soviet Union and the whole
world knows that.
Question
Mr. Fraser that's where we'll have to leave it we are running
out of time. Thank you very much for joining us.
It seems that the Soviet Union may be trying to find a-way out of
its problems in Afghanistan. Reports from London indicate that
the Soviets may support a British proposal to the EEC that
Afghanistan be given the status of a neutral state. Mark Colvin
reports. The British Foreign Office is denying that it has
received messages from the Kremlin expressing support for the idea
of a neutral Afghanistan. But a report published in London's
Evening News states categorically that such messages have been
received in White Hall. The British initiated the proposal at
last week's EEC meeting and Lord Carrington has been following it
up in meetings with his counterparts around Europe. The proposal
was originally something of a gamble based on the theory that
Russia' s invasion had been intended as a stern warning to Soviet
Islamic minorities. The idea was that the Kremlin might now be
searching for just this kind of face-saving device. The political
editor of the Evening News said he has seen informal messages from
high Kremlin sources to White Hall, which indicate that this may
indeed be the case. and which urge Lord Carrington to keep pushing
the neutralisation proposal. There is no question that the United
States is in favour of the EEC proposal. President Carter has
already publicly endorsed it and what could improve its chances of
success with the Soviet Union is its stress on flexibility. I
was given to understand in Rome that an agreement on a neutral
Afghanistan need have no political strings attached and-the British
at any rate, would not object to a communist government in Kabul
as long as it was an elected government. However Lord Carrington
made it clear then that many details had still to be worked out.
David Willis reports from Moscow that it has been equally hard to
obtain an unequivocal indication of Soviet reaction to the proposal
for a neutral Afghanistan.
Diplomats, including an American Ambassador have been taken
hostage in yet another guerrilla attack on an Embassy. This one
in Colombia in South America. Geoff McMullen reports from
Washington.