AUST'I I. A
PRIME MINISTER
FOR MEDIA SUNDAY JULY 4 1982
MR HAYDEN'S POSITION ON NORTH WEST CAPE AGREEM. 4: NT
Mr Hayden last week once again raised doubts about his real
commitment to the Australian-US alliance. Early last. month,
Mr Hayden stated a policy which meant that no US, British, or
French Naval vessels could visit Australian ports. Australia's
ability to co-operate under the ANZUS Treaty would have been
p shattered. After talking with the US Deputy Secretary of State,
Mr Stoessel, Mr Hayden said he supported ANZUS and would
allow the ships of allies into Australian ports, although
his statements were at all times equivocal.
Then last week, Mr Hayden apparently repeated his statement
of last year that Australia must be able to veto all US
orders initiating military action which might go through
the joint communications facilities at North West Cape.
Why, only days after claiming to support ANZUS, did he revive
his North West Cape policy which would so damage AlNZUS and
Australia's defence co-operation with the United States?
The ANZUS treaty commits Australia and the US separately and
jointly, through continuous and effective self-help and mutual
aid, to maintain and develop their individual and collective
capacities to resist attack. One of the steps we took together
against the background of ANZUS was to set up the North West
Cape facilities for defence communication.
The North West Cape agreement provides for consultation at the
request of either government concerning the station and its
use. It is a relay station, a way of ensuring that information
can always be transmitted to submarines, even underwater.
The most urgent messages would concern US response to an
aggressor. In such a situation, Mr Hayden's proposed veto
would be absurd. In requiring the US to n k the Australian
Government whether it w.: iF hed to in terpose a veto, Mr l-i'yden
must know he is demandi rgq the ipmpoisible.
It has always been known that the North West Cape facilities are
part of the United Stn '. etc: r rcnce system:. Mr Ha ' den's position
would seriously weoaken I-. e e' f-, t iveness oc the US deterrent to
nuclear war, which is ;: iportan; to Aut:-in's security and to
the security to a. 1Wo'.' r S ni! 1O' ./ 2
Noctrh West Cape is a joint fac lity for the benefit of Australia
and the US as independent and co-operating allies. Australia
uses it to transmit lmessages to our ships. We would not accept
any interference in imeieages we send. Ncr would we expect to
dictate to the U; what cssag; e. it could or could not send.
The North West Cape agreement c( ontains no idea of control,
by either government, of the messages which the other might
send through the facility. Successive Labor Defence Ministers
in the Whitlam Government accepted the operations of the
facilities. They recognised that there could be no veto. With
that experience behind him, why does Mr Hayden now call for a
veto? It is because he wants to shut the facility down, as he
has threatened to do? If that is what lie wants, then the
community ought to know, because closing it down would weaken
the US and Australia significantly.
Mr Hayden's renewal of his veto demands, after the ANZUS conference,
and after his discussions with Mr Stoessel and his subsequent
statements, raises serious questions about what his real
position is on defence co-operation with the United States.
It raises basic doubts about what he means when he talks
about support for ANZUS. How can Mr Hayden say that Labor
" will do nothing to undermine" ANZUS when he wants to impose
these impossible demands on the United States? Australia's
relations with the US would inevitably be damaged if these
demands were pursued. Mr Hlayden must know this. Why then
has he renewed them? After his equivocations on admitting
nuclear armed ships to Australian ports, why is he now insisting
on a North West Cape position so much more acceptable to the
socialist left?