. J., AUS> 3TI1AL1A
PRIME MINISTER
E. O. E. -PROOF-ONLY
TRANSCRIPT OF PRESS CONFERENCE, AUSTRALIAN HIGH COMMISSION,
NEW DELHI, 23 NOVEMBER 1983
PM: It seemed to me that what might be most useful to you were
iff I were to go through, not every detail but the outline of the
contribution that I made and relate it to the proposals that were
contained in Mr. Trudeau's opening submissions.
So going first of all through the contribution I made I went in
opening to the dimension of the problem that we're dealing with
when we're talking about the international arms race, that has
reached proportions of about $ 700 billion a year, which is
meaning that every minute of every day about $ 1 1/ 3 million
is being spent on arms. I pointed out, of course, the scandalous
waste of human resources and ingenuity that was involved in that.
I referred to the increasing level of tension between the super
powers in their negotiations, that those relations were
permeated with suspicion and that the between them is becoming
increasingly dangerous.
The context where there had been some attempt to portion blame
I said that it was rather to pursue that in detail. I said
that Australia did not subscribe to the view that the United
States bears the greatest responsibility for the present
difficulties between the super powers. I pointed out that our
western societies are open and that open debate takes place
which often exposes concerns and perhaps some weaknesses. This
sort of thing is not reflected in the Soviet Union, which is
pursuing the armaments program with unprecedented proportions.
I made the point that in my discussions with the United States
administration at the higest level, I believed them to be sincere
in wanting to bring a halt to the arms race. I asserted that
Australia does not accept the position that the nuclear weapons
states alone should have the right to determine these issues,
that their calculations indeed their miscalculations can effect
us all and indeed could eliminate us all. The Australian
Government does not accept that unilateral disarmament is a
viable option in bringing about an end to the arms race. What is
required are realistic and concrete and balanced proposals which
have at their heart a recognition of national security interests. / 2
I pointed out that as far as Australia is concerned, our security
interests require collective arrangements for our defence and we
have such an arrangement in the ANZUS alliance. I pointed out
that we clarified the nature of that alliance and that it has
been accepted by the three treaty partners.
I pointed out that a consequence of our security arrangements
with the United S-tates need the presence on Australian soil of
joint facilities. They play a positive role in maintaining
western security and they also have a significant role in
verifying arms control and disarmament agreements.
. I pointed out that this government has greatly elevated arms
control and disarmament goals within our foreign policy, that we
are a member of the multi-lateral disarmament negotiating body
and that in those bodies we are promoting a negotiation of
treaties to end nuclear testing, to ban chemical weapons and
prevent an arms race in outer space.
In the wider political arena we are using what influence we have
to convince the super powers to moderate their antagonism and
to improve their levels of understanding.
I pointed out that disarmament objectives are guided by the three
following principles security for all states at the lowest
possible level of armament, stabilit~ y in nuclear balance, and an
adequate verification of disarmament agreements. In line with
those objectives we are attaching a particular priority to
efforts aimed at securing nuclear disarmament through reductions
in the nuclear arsenals, the upholding of the international
non-proliferation regime and the conclusion of complete bans on
nuclear testing. I also referred to our proposal for a nuclear
free zone in the South Pacific.
I said that adequate protective provisions and verification is
the crucial pre-condition of progress in the area that we're talking
about and that Australia would wish to encourage and support
action in that field and I pointed out in particular in considering
our own capabilities, we are activel. y examining the possibility of
improving Australia'* s capacity to monitor nuclear explosions by
further developing our seismic monitoring capability.
That was in the area of verification. I said the problem of
proliferation is, of course, more difficult and that fact was indeed
reflected in the discussion which had taken place within the
conference to the point of my intervention.
They acknowledged there is no fool-proof means of preventing
proliferation of nuclear explosives, but we believe that the
process can and should be slowed down and the cost to the
proliferator increased.
I pointed out that in the context of any discussion about the
non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, an issue of particular
concerni to Australia and I would have thought to all of those
gathered, was the position of South Africa. While the concept of
aparthc~ id was totally opposed, it woulc utterly unacceptable
if apartheid were to becomie nuclear armed and that we all hiad a
vested interest in ensurini tlial-THiaL did not occur.
I said that we believed that the non-proliferation treaty should
remain a cornerstone of international effort to prevent the
spread of nuclear weapons and despite the view expressed by some,
that this was an inadequate treaty, it is the only game in town,
as someone else said. I pointed out that we went further than
that, of course, and we recognised our obligation under the
non-proliferation treaty, particularly article IV which had been
referred to in the recent debate in our party and in our government
and we recognised our obligation under Article IV of the NPT as a
producer and exporter of uranium to facilitate and participate in
the exchange of equipment, materials and information for the
peaceful use of atomic energy.
We believe, in that context, that we have a particu ' lar responsibility
to secure improvement in international safeguards against the
diversion of nuclear material from peacefu. uses. I pointed out
further that we supported the proposition for a comprehensive test
ban treaty and that we were one of the main promoters in the United
Nations of a negotiation of such a treaty.
I then went on to a point which hadn't been touched in the
discussion and which I believe insufficient attention is paid to
and that is that chemical and biological weapons are second only
to nuclear weapons in their capacity to inflict death and human
suffering on a massive scale and I put the view that Australia
believes that it is especially important that relative international
conventions be strengthened and I drew attention to the disappointing
fact that only 2/ 3 of the Commonwealth members are parties for
the relevant 1925 protocal of chemical warfare and less than 2/ 3
agreed to the 1972 biological weapons convention.
I finally drew attention to our concern that the arms race should
not extend into outer space, with the prospect of the extension
of the nuclear arms race into that arena is frightening in its
possibilities. I concluded by saying that I thought the
Commonwealth could play a constructive role in disarmament and in
reducing tensions and in that context let me say that I
supported the idea that had been advanced by Pierre Trudeau in his
opening submission-. Essentially, the Trudeau proposal is that
there should be a five power conference of the nuclear powers and
that there should be an agreement between them as to an appropriate
ratio of the nuclear weapons that they should hold and on the basis
of that agreement then a reduction down on the basis of that ratio
and in dealing with vertical proliferation in that way, it should
be realted to the objectives of the NPT, which, as he pointed out,
in its conception was in the form of a compact. That is that if
the nuclear powers would agree to a reduction of their weapons, in
return the other nations could become signatories to the NPT and
agre ' e themselves not to acquire the capacity for nuclear weaponry.
Now, he pointed out that the question of the NPT came up for
reconsideration in 1985, that he had had some discussions already
with Mrs. Thatcher, President Mitterrand and that he was intending
to have discussions with the Chinese, the Akmericans and the Soviets.
I expressed the view, on behalf of Australia, that any initiative
in this area was to be welcomed and that we were prepared to
welcome that. There was a view expressed in the conference that it
/ 4
was not appropriate to proceed along that path at this stage
and that more work had to be done in general preparatory
bilateral with the Soviets and China before going to the point
of a five power conference. I expressed the view that there
may be a possibility of narrowing that sort of thought of
more preparatory work with the Trudeau concept of a five power
conference. I think, Ladies and Gentlemen, that covers essentially the
contribution that I made. The discussion for today concluded
after 5. It will resume tomorrow. It may be then that I will
make a further contribution in the debate.
May I just make this point, which is totally unrelated to today's
events, but some information. I will be having lunch tomorrow
with Lee Kuan Yew and Foreign Minister Dhanabalan from Singapore
and Foreign Minister Chazali from Malaysia.
JOURNALIST: Where will you have the lunch?
PM: It will be here in the High Commissioner's residence.
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: Well, there may be. I would like it and I'll see if it can
be done.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, could you place in context the
discussions today on disarmament and the Trudeau initiative which
you've welcomed, with the news today that the Russians have
walked out of the INF talks in Geneva without setting a date for a
return. PM: I suppose obviously that is not a propitious sign, but that is
; hat had been signalled by the Soviet. If the United States went
ahead with its proposals for the Cruise and Pershing missiles
in Europe, I guess in that sense it is not surprising. I would
believe that after a period of indication of such protests that
the discussions will resume next year and I base that upon the
fundamental proposition that ultimately it is not in the interests
of the Soviet Union or any of the super powers to have to be
expending such an enormous and increasing proportion of their
capacity upon this build up of the nuclear arsenal. I think that
basic reality will come to bear in~ the way which will mean the
resumption of talks. Whether in the foreseeable future it means
that the Trudeau concept of the five power conference is
achievable, it is far too early to say.
JOURNALIST: Does your Government support the deployment of the
Cruise and Pershing missiles in Europe. How do you square that
with what you were saying today, if you do?
PM: Well, you may have noted that I said two things which are
relevant to that. I said the Soviet Union has pursued an armiaments
program of unprecedented proportions. The cause of the problem
in Europe was the original deployment by the Soviet Union of the
and there is no way in which realistically in this world,
you can talk about a unilateral move towards disarmament. Nor
will a situation be likely to reach be productive of a general
reduction if one side thinks that it is in a position of
relative inferiority and so there is nothing at all inconsistent
with what I've been saying today and those facts. Indeed, they
are totally consistent with and reflect the basic propositions
that I've put.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, can I ask you what Australia will be
doing in terms of increasing its ability to note nuclear
disturbances by seismic means, first of all. Secondly could I
ask you do you have confidence that the Trudeau initiative won't
die a death like the initiative of North-South dialogue which
was so prominent a couple of years ago.
PM: In regard to the first question, all I can say to you is
Uiiat technical work is proceeding to increase our capacity in that
area of seismic monitoring and I don't pretend to bring across
the technical detail. In regard to the second, I can't say and
nor can any reasonable person say that that proposal of the
Canadian Prime Minister will not die the same sort of death as
other proposals. Of course I can't say that, but I take the
view, and I think it would be the view of the great majority of my
fellow Australians, that any initiative is worthwhile because
I mean it is an obsenity how long have we been going now
about let's say 30 minutes that in that time $ 40 million has
been spent on the armaments race. It is just so clear that this
would be an infinitely better world if we could have a conversion
of a part of these resources. Now, if we took the view in
respect of any initiative that it may fail and therefore we don't
try that just doesn't seem to me to be the way we should go
about things.
JOURNALIST: We were told there was a move by some
countries for other Commonwealth countries to join Mr. Trudeau
in what remains of his mission. What is your view of other
Commonwealth nations joining and is there any thought of
Australia sending someone along?
PM: Well, you've obviously heard something about it. One of the
participants suggested other nations may be involved two or
three others and our name was mentioned. Let me make it quite
clear in respect of that. It was a hypothetical observation made
by one of the participants. There was no specific proposal. If
such a proposal were made, then, of course, we would consider it.
JOURNALIST: You'll have the opportunity in January, Prime
Minister, of talking to the Chinese. Do you think you're likely
to raise that then?
PM: Well, there is an interesting conjunction of time on that.
Thie Chinese Premier is going to be in Canada about the middle
of January, at the time of his visit to the United States. I've
been talking to Prime Minister Trudeau and I believe he would
keep me informed of those discussions and it may be that when I
go to China just a couple of weeks after that, I may be able to
assist in some way in picking up the threads of that discussion. / 6
JOURNALIST: Can we interpret from that, PM, that you will
make, whatever diplomatic effort we can to assist the implementation
of the Trudeau initiative?
PM: Yes, I made it clear in there that I believe that there was
a need to marry the sort of approach of Mr. Trudeau to that which
was put by another speaker. I mentioned of the need to be far
more preparatory-with bilateral work, particularly with the Soviet
bloc countries before you got to the stage of seeking a five
power conference. But if there is anything I could do to help the
concept, of course, we would do it. But let me emphasise, so
that I don't want to bdlt it up as there may be a plan to do.
It was a very low key sort of response because I think it's a
very ambitious concept that Mr. Trudeau has put forward. It is
worthy of support, but without deluding ourselves, it is
something easy of achievement. If there is something we can do
to help, we will do it.
JOURNALIST: There was some suggestion of talks of a possible
Commonwealth security umbrella for some of the smaller countries.
Did you address yourself to that particular idea at all. If
you didn't can you tell us what our views on that are now?
PM: No, I didn't and I must say it was put in passing by one
speaker. It would be quite to suggest that it was advancing
a serious and developed proposition.
JOURNALIST: Mrs. Gandhi, Prime Minister, seemed pretty critical
of Grenada and the events that occurred over there. There seemed
to be implicit criticism of the United States. Was Grenada at
all raised today?
PM: No, the way the discussion has been structured was really
that Pierre Trudeau introduced the matter and it was basically
around the area of the arms race and what could be done in that
area and there was agreement that the more specific items,
including Grenada would be the subject of particular discussions
later on.
JOURNALIST: Quickly, Prime Minister, whose initiative was the
meeting with the Malaysian and Singaporean delegates?
PM: We raised the question and, as I understand it I haven't
been engaged in the discussion I think they were more than
happy about it and were probably expecting that we would have a
meeting. JOURNALIST: Did you come up with any suggestion about how
Australia's Ambassador for Disarmament could play a greater role
in the Trudeau initiatives or any other Commonwealth moves?
PM: No, but I would believe that if anything were to develop in
this area, obviously having a person particularly charged with
responsibility in this area would be useful in maximising our
capacity to do something and we would use him.
7.
JOURNALIST: On the question of germ warfare, Mr. Hawke, will
Australia be trying to seeking that part or put that in the
communique which will be delivered next week other
countries to sign those treaties you were talking about.
PM: The question of the communique and how it is done is a matter
still to be decided. You will appreciate there is a problem
about communiques, as to whether you have a relatively short
document of general political intent which everyone can agree with,
or whether you have a much longer document where every sort of
items that has been mentioned by participants is included. At
this stage there is no decision about that. Speaking for myself,
it seems to me and I said this at the end of my contribution
I said at the end of this debate it is very likely that you are
all going to have to say if we are honest we are all going to
have to say to one another, well, what is there that is concrete
that has come out of it. It was in that sense that I said that
a move of support by those who haven't signed the 1925 protocol
and the 72 treaty that adherance to that would be something
specific and worthwhile and that we were working towards a new
treaty to expand the 1925 protocol. Now, they may feel that it
is worth giving some specific mention to that. It's too early to
say.
JOURNALIST: Can I ask a domestic question, Prime Minister?
PM: Yes.
JOURNALIST: The NSW Premier has apparently said today that the
$ 30,000 limit on the assets test is too low for NSW Property values
and will be seeking a response from you on your return. Do you
have any
PM: Sure, I'll always be prepared to talk with the Premier of
NSW. He is a political colleague and a close friend and I'll
be more than happy to talk with him.