UTALIAL
PRIME IMINISTER
FOR MEDIA SATURDAY 31 MALY 1980
SPEECH TO THE YOUNG LIBERALS
IN THE GREAT HALL NATIONAL GALLERY
' I am happy to be here tonight and to share a birthday with you.
The Young Liberal movement was ten years old when I entered
Parliament. I suppose it could be said, without exaggeration, that the
y/ ears since then have been years of excitement and innovation;
years which have confirmed Liberalism as the driving political
force behind Australia's progress.
Tonight provides a fitting opportunity to acknowledge the
contribution during this time by the Young Liberal movement.
" It s efforts have been characterised by a consciousness of the
need to be attuned to the problems and the potentialities of
young Australia.
In order that we meet this need adequately, it is important to
recruit more and more of each generation of young Australians
to the cause of Liberalism; to enjoin them with us in an
unyielding commitment to meet successfully the challenges that
confront us.
rphe passage of 25 years since my entry into Parliament has
strengthened me in the belief that, as Australians, we have an
unrivalled inheritance in Australia.
We have increasing responsibilities to protect that inheritance.
What I want to suggest to you tonight, is that we must never
vacate the battlefield on which is waged the fight for Australia's
freedom and values the fight for our very security.
Those who have preceded us, by sacrifice and example, are the
source of our rich legacy.
Now, opportunities beckon us which, if taken, promise to make
our inheritance even greater for generations who follow.
That is why, in celebrating a birthday, in reflecting on the
passing of another year or another decade, we need to ask
ourselves whether as individuals, as a movement, or as a nation
we are growing up as well as growi; ng older.
2
Because we are a bit older, we need also to expect that we are
bit wiser; a bit clearer * about what we want from our country;
bit more committed to the part we are to play in the nobler
tasks of humanity.
. Phis will require from us the determination to seek f-' rom our
philosophy a relevance for the times ahead.
years ago, it would have been difficult to anticipate the
changes that have occurred since then, at home and abDroad.
At home, in 1955, there were ten universities in Australia; now
there are nineteen.
There were 49,000 students in tertiary education; now there are
317,000.
There were 220 vehicles per thousand head of population; in 1979
there were 490.
And our national development has undergone trememdous change.
A rich, artistic and cultural talent today complements our
national performance.
The world of theatre, opera, ballet, film science, literature
and sport has produced great Australians.
our record at home and abroad is a catalogue of diversity and
achievement; for our size, perhaps unparalleled throughout the
world. Yet, on the international front, even in 1955, there was an air
of world uncertainty.
Australian soldiers had been involved in the Korean conflict
only a few years before.
one year earlier, a European power had been defeated in Vietnam;
and in Europe, the Cold War continued to threaten another disaster
involving the, . great powers.
At th -at time, as young Australian men and women, none of us would
have been able to say with confidence that there would be no
world war for 25 years.
Yet that has been the case in spite of major and tragic conflict
especially in South East Asia and Africa.
Perhaps one of the consequences of a long interval of relative
peace has been the very real danger that those for whom peace
and freedom are secure, lose sight of the predicament of those
to whom both are denied.
That those who enjoy the privileges of freedom become complacent
about the need for vigilance in its defence.
Generations in the West have grown up without knowing the horror
of war; without understanding the price of freedom; without
having an example in their lifetime of the barbarism of which
mankind is capable.
This is a momentous achievement which we must continue to defend.
Indeed, in the period since 1955, many of us in the West have
been part of an era of unprecedented economic expansion.
As part of that expansion, two new powers, Japan and Germany
emerged from the wreckage of World War II.
Two former enemies, now our friends, provide for Australia a
greater sense of security and a stronger alliance in the free
world. This is symptomatic of many changes in the world order; a simple
index of that change is the rise of nation states reflected by
membership of the United Nations.
At the beginning of 1955, there were 56 member states.
Today the membership is 152.
These new members are predominantly from Africa and Asiaformer
colonies of the European empires.
This has meaint reduced political domination by Europe with the
emergence of the Third World as an increasingly powerful force
in world affairs.
Further, the concept of monolithic communism that arose from the
Second World War has also changed.
The disillusionment of China with Soviet behaviour, during the
period when the two were closely allied, is manifest in
continuing Chinese distrust of Soviet imperialism and in China's
determination, now, to pursue its own course.
The same spirit of independence guided Tito's Yugoslavia.
In this way, both countries have come to play important roles
in world affairs.
With these-and ' other changes, and our relative remoteness over
yea... from major-international disturbances, has come a change
in attitudes.
For too long, there has been a pernicious complacency surrounding
much of the well-being we enjoy.
our advantages have been, to some, de-valued by familiarity.
For too many, the contrasts between political systems have
become blurred.
Too often, the delusion is promoted that many of the benefits
of democracy are consistent with socialism; that most social
systems have the same fundamental objectives; that a free
society can survive without effort, without will, without
commitment. This view is taken by those with so little understanding of the
incomparable benefits and virtues of democracy that they are
willing to allow them to be chipped away.
By people with so little understanding of the future, that the
present does not matter that much.
By people who are luke warm and uncommitted to idealism and
. Liberalism; uncritical of socialism or communism.
By people who ask apologetically, what is in a name?
By people with so little to believe in that they have nothing
to defend.
When an appreciation of the virtues of a way of life is lost,
there is no will for its defence.
Is it not time to understand that what we de-value today, we
may lose tomorrow?
Is it not time to ask whether we have taken the precious gift
of continuing peace too much for granted; whether we have been
spoiled by economic growth; whether we have been in receipt of
so much of the world's goodness that we have become blind to
the world's threats.
There are those who argue that our blindness derives from a
convenient habit of accommodating the behaviour of many
countries and regimes which pose as the enemies of freedom.
Solzhenitsyn argued only a few years ago that:
" The anguish of a divided world gave birth to the
theory of convergence between the leading Western
countries and the Soviet Union."
He spoke of this as:
" A soothing theory which overlooks the fact that
these worlds are not at all evolving towards each
other and that neither one can be transformed into
the other without violence."
" Besides," he said, " convergence inevitably means acceptance of
the other side's defects and this can hardly suit anyone."
We seem to have moved too close to a tolerance of the defects
and human misery inflicted on peoples of the world by oppressive
regimes. Indeed, it was the acceptance by the West of the defects of the
Soviet Union in the period since World War II, that prompted
Solzhenitsyn to proclaim that a decline in courage, is the most
striking feature, that an outside observer notices in the West.
Acknowledging the existence of courageous individuals in public
life and in the influencing of events of the West, Solzhenitsyn
went to to condemn those who exhibit:
" A depression, passivity and perplexity in their
actions and their statements; even more so in their
self-serving rationale as to how morally justified
it is to base policies on weakness and cowardice."
He spoke of these forces in the West as being:
" Tongue-tied and paralysed when they deal with powerful
government and threatening forces; with aggressors and
international terrorists."
It is not easy to dismiss such criticism.
Especially when the Soviet leadership has shown, all too often,
that where it perceives the opportunity for a Soviet advance,
the concern for peace is instantly put aside.
Remember the invasion of Hungary in 1956; the Berlin Wall in
1961; the Cuban missile crisis in 1962; the invasion of
Czechoslovakia in 1968.
We do not need to condemn them; for them condemn themselves.
In the wake of instability and tension created by this behaviour,
attempts at Detente developed in the early
But it soon became apparent, that Detente meant different things
to different people.
Under its umbrella, while the United States diminished its relative
expenditure on defence, Soviet defence spending remained high
and absorbed 11-13 per cent of the total Soviet income each year.
The comparable United States figure was around 5 per cent.
Detente, in the sense of meaning a lessening of tensions,
applied in Europe; but elsewhere it had no meaning at all.
It is doubtful if the high expectations raised by Detente were
ever justified..
Spea) king on Dioscow radio on November 12, 1968, President Brezhnev
had outlined the extent to which the Soviet Union would go to
protect socialism, when he said:
".. the establishment and defence of the soveegt
of states which have embarked upon the road of building
socialism is of particular significance for us communists
when internal and external forces hostile to socialism
seek to reverse the development of any socialist country
towards a restoration of the capitalist order this is
the concern of all socialist countries."
Here is explicit proof of the Soviet determination that once
a country adopts socialism, it will be prevented by the Soviet
Union from ever throwing off its shackles. 6
And after Detente had been welcomed in Western Europe, President
Brezhnev himself proclaimed that Detente:
"... does not in the slightest abolish, nor can it
abolish or alter the laws of the class struggle."
As a result, since Detente, we have seen the Soviet Union actively and
openly seeking to further its international influence by
subversion, by the provision of arms and the use of surrogates in:
Angola Ethiopia The Yemen and
Vietnam.
Of course, the most recent and most brazen example has been in
Afghanistan. As a result of this invasion, the Soviet Union has so far succeeded in
achieving: the creation of a buffer state
a closer proximity to the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean
acc~ ess to alternative bases for strategic aircraft,
should the USSR desire it
an ability to deploy troops across the Pakistani border
an inherent ability, depending on the type of aircraft
that may be deployed, to provide tactical air support
over the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Sea and the eastern
half of Saudi-Arabia.
the inherent ability to provide limited air support to
the Soviet Indian Ocean squadron.
W ho could deny that these developments represent an unqualified
threat in a critical region of the world.
In these circumstances, there is no substitute for effective
co-operation in the support of national independence and
individual freedoms.
There is no substitute for effective co-operation in the defence
of vajtues we cherish.
In all our history we have stood with allies when values important
to our way of life were threatened.
Unless like minded countries and people so stand today, one by
one we will fall, diminishing everywhere, liberty and the right
tLo be free.
This is the lesson of history.
It is the lesson that has not been learnt by our political
opponents.
Why is it that Mr. Hayden accuses President Carter of election
year politics almost as though President Carter had engineered
the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? 7
In his eagerness to criticise the Australian Government
Mr. Hayden slips into the error of seeming to make excuses for
t~ he Soviet Union.
Ir know he says that he opposes the invasion of Afghanistan.
Yet he and his Party have put themselves in the position of
opposing measures designed to send a clear signal of our
abhorrence and determination to the Soviet Government and people.
We are entitled to know why.
Trhe recent months have provided a new and significant opportunity
. for independently minded countries, individuals and thinkers to
indicate that this is the time when we must demonstrate a
collective international rejection of Soviet imperialism.
This opportunity has been welcomed and accepted by countries in
our region: by Fiji; by Indonesia; by Malaysia; by Papua New Guinea;
' by the Philippines;. by Singapore; by'Thailand; by China.
. By our powerful trading partners and friends: Japan, Canada and
Germany.
And in New Zealand, where the Olympic Committee has decided to
go to Moscow, the Leader of the Labor Party has joined with the
Government in a strong call, as recently as 15 April, that
New Zealand should
" take the strongest possible stand against
competing at the Games."
Is it strange or is it natural that the Australian Labor Party,.
in the fLace of such concerted support for freedom and national
independence stands as the odd man out?
The decisions concerning participation at Moscow are decisions
concerning national and international priorities and principles.
The United States of America is the unchallenged leader of the
free world.
It x Ernffiins the only country with the power ultimately to defend
the free world.
To undermine support for this power, is to insult the priority
we give to freedom and to deny the recognition we owe to those
strong enough or willing enough to defend it.
A new international challenge confronts us.
But challenge has been with us throughout history.
It has involved nations, and men and women, in difficult choices,
significant decisions.
Such decisions and choices always have greater significance
for young people, the quality of whose lives in the years
ahead depend so much on the response that is made to challenge
no0w. Wie need to understand the challenge, the danger, the threat.
Wie need a clear eye for our own objectives; a firm hand in
reaching our goals.
L-et us proclaim the principles that guide the values we defend.
WThen decisions appear hard and complex let us look to our
principles and our objectives in order to clear the course that
we must pursue.
B~ ut in pursuing our principles and values, we must remember that
the Soviet Union is also of this world; that, ultimately, they
and we must find a means of living together if peace is to endure.
It must be understood that our determination is not directed
against the Russian people; but against the policies of expansion
and domination pursued by the Soviet leadership.
Trhese policies have come together in Afghanistan.
Trhat is why world leaders and individuals, concerned for human
values, concerned for the cause of mankind, have determined to
send a clear signal to Moscow.
A signal, whose strength demonstrates to the Soviet Union that
-the judgements of the world cannot be ignored.
Each of us has a role to play in sending that signal.
E'ach of us has a commitment to our own future.
Without that commitment, our freedom and, perhaps, in the end,
its existence will not be sustained.
' rhis is why e'a'ch generation must be prepared to defend for
itself the righ+-: to liberty, if liberty and the pursuit of
happiness are to be guaranteed and secured.
What we defend is an inheritance which extends beyond the span
of a lifetime.
roday's responsibility is ours.
Let us fulfill it well. 000---