E. O. E. PROOF ONLY
TRANSCRIPT OF PRESS CONFERENCE, AUSTRALIAN HIGH COMMISSION,
NEW DELHI 8.30 28 NOVEMBER 1983
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, how would you assess the concept
of Pierre Trudeau going to China now, given the fact that
America and the Soviet Union have virtually cut off relations,
particularly over the NIF?
PM: They haven't cut off relations. In respect of one area
discussions there has been a walk out on the NIF talks and
that specifically related to the decision in regard to the
Pershing and Cruise missiles. I think it's a good initiative.
The heads of Commonwealth Governments have welcomed it. I
think any attempt to open up discussions between the five nuclear
powers makes sense and I see in this morning's press that the
Soviets have indicated a preparedness to talk with him and he
now has the support of the Commonwealth Heads of Government.
If there is anything we can do to assist in that process, we will.
JOURNALIST: Has it taken on a greater importance in the last
couple of days? Earlier on you described it as very ambitious.
PM: Well it is still ambitious and Pierre recognises himself
that it is ambitious. He is not saying that it will succeed.
We will take the view that when you look at the issue involved
that is the question of whether we are going to have nuclear
war or not the possible , destruction of human civilisation as
we know it then I think any effort is worthwhile.
JOURNALIST: Mr. Hawke, the Goa declaration is that just mere
platit-udes, or what can it achieve?
PM: Well, may I say just before, going to the Goa declaration
specifically the actual Goa declaration dealing with international
security matters generally is only one of the elements of the
meeting at Goa and I guess in some senses you could say the
least productive because it is a very general sort of statement.
My main area of disappointment with the G~ oa decliration is the
very passing, and by implication, reference to horizontal
proliferation. There is an emphasis upon the issues of vertical
proliferation by the major powers like the nuclear powers and I
believe not sufficient attention is given to the at least in
my judgement equal problem of the spread of nuclear weapons,
but in the other areas of Cyprus and Grenada I think the Goa
weekend has been particularly productive. / 2
JOURNALIST: send weapons to other Heads of Government
and if so which ones, Mr. Hawke?
PM: I made it in the discussions. When we were trying to
irnalise the communique I made the point there and I was
joined in it by Pierre Trudeau in particular that there
wasn't sufficient spelling out of the question of horizontal
proliferation and the dangers involved in that. What is there
is as far as we were able to go.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, why did you sign the document if
you were so disappoinited in it.
PM: I think it is an overstatement to say I am disappointed
in it. What you've got to realize
JOURNALIST: They were your words, Sir.
PM: Well, disappointed about one particular issue, I said.
T didn't talk about the document as a whole. You've got to
understand that you are dealing with a range of people that
cover aligned and non-aligned countries, developed and
developing countries and from all the regions. Now, you are
rather unreal if you start off in a context like that thinking
that you're going to get great unanimity on every issue and I
tend to think that given the composition of the meeting it
went just about as far as it could go. My particular
disappointment, however, as I say, is that I think there could
with some degree of realism be more reference to the dangers
posed to the future of the world by the possibility of the
wider spread of nuclear weapons and I said that at the meeting
and I repeat it now.
JOURNALIST: Mr. Hawke, this meeting has involved a heck of
a lot of time and a heck of a lot of money. Are these meetings
really worth it?
PM: I think so, but I think there is an argument for reducing
the period of the meetings. I believe that if more preparations
were done before the meeting that is with documents being
circulated more specific documents being circulated. See,
we had no specific documents before we got here. I think if
that sort of thing were done, you could concertina the period.
I believe that the meetings are worthwhile in two or three
direct ways. Let me make it clear. The opportunity this is
particularly so for me on the first occasion -of getting to know
personally and quite intimately a range of leaders from all over
the world is very useful. You can conduct sensible discussions
with them in an environment like this which would be difficult
elsewhere and in matters of particular importance to
Australia. Secondly, I think on particular issues this meeting
has been very useful and I cite Grenada. I don't think before
you got here you would have expected, given the divergent views,
from within the Caribbean states and certainly given the strength
in the views of the African countries aqainst the action that
took place, that you would have expected to get a joint
communique in such mild termis as far as the past was concerned
arid constructive as far as the future. Secondly, in regard to
Cyprus, I think the establishment of the working group of
five nations including Australia, to work in association with
the United Nations, does add some hope to the resolution of
that issue, which of course is of particular interest to so
many of us in Australia. So yes, I'm sorry for the length of the
answer, but I think in those general terms and in regard to
specific issues with which we've dealt, the meeting has been
worthwhile. It has demonstrated the utility of the Commonwealth
as an institution and of meetings within it. I repeat I think
there is a case for shortening the meetings and a way of doing
that is by more intensive preparatory work.
JOURNALIST: Mr. Hawke, have you been informed of the Victori an
conference decision on uranium and do you believe that this is
likely to undermine your own Government's uranium stance?
PM: I'm not going to talk about those domestic issues here. I
Riave read the cables.
JOURANLIST: What was your response after you read them?
PM: Well I say I'll wait till I get back to Australia to
d-iscuss these, but I think you can see by my demeanour that
I'm not terribly upset.
JOURNALIST: You ' re still fairly relaxed about uranium then.
PM: I don't think one should ever be relaxed about an issue
11ike this. I repeat. You can see I don't look to be shedding
any weight or sweating at the forehead or anything like that.
JOURNALIST: Inaudible
PM: Come on, I'm not going into any detailed discussion about
that. I can assure you that when I'm back in Australia I'll
be prepared to talk about it.
JOURNALIST: Mr. Hawke, which countries resisted being more
specific on horizontal proliferation and what were the main
reasons they gave?
PM: Well, there were not reasons spelt out. I think it's fair
to say that India has a fairly strong position about this and
about the NPT, but I don't think it's useful to go into
specifics further than that about individual countries.
JOURNALIST: Do you think there might be a slight touch of
hypocr'isy about some of the Commonwealth nations that have
come to the nuclear issue that is they want the super powers
to scale down nuclear proliferation yet they want to retain
their own right to develop nuclear arms?
PM: Well, I'm not using the word hypocriLsy, but if you look
ait the NPT it is based as they put it on a contract. The
contract is that the powers that have a nuclear capacity will
not proceed with further development and on that basis the
non-possessors will niot seek to acquire and the argument of
the non-possessors is that those whio have got it haven'tL kept
to their part of the bargain, therefore, they are entitled niot
to keep to theirs. Now, putt ing it in simpler termis that is
the exposition. Now, I think it is inadequate to approach
it in that way. I simply make the point that while we've
had an extraordinarily troubled world for the last nearly
years when the world experienced the use of an atomic
weapon, the balances that operate between the powers that
have nuclear capacity and weaponry has operated to prevent
its use. I am hopeful that the considerations involved in
that would continue to produce that result. Now, I am much
more apprehensive for the future of the world where more
powers had nuclear weaponry. Now I don't need to name the
powers involved, but I would think that the considerations
which have operated, produced an absence of nuclear war
between the majors, that those considerations are far less
likely to apply when you do have a spread of nuclear weaponry
and that is why I took the view and continue to hold the
view that we should be at least as concerned about that issue.
JOURNALIST: Sir, bearing in mind your preference for shorter
CHOGMs, do you think there is a need for the regional meeting?
PM: Well, Australia has expressed some doubt about those.
It looks as though the matter is still to be discussed but,
as I understand it, Michael Somare is going to be opening his
new Parliament House next year and everyone who would be going
to CHOGRM where it was supposed to be in New Guinea, would be
there for that and I think there may be some attempt to bring
the two things together have the people gathered together
there for the opening and a short meeting in regard to CHOGRM.
Now, that may make sense on this occasion, but I think we ought
to direct attention to the question of the necessity or
otherwise for the sort of regularity into the future. I have
my doubts about that.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, how would you describe the state
of play now between the Soviet Union and the United States?
Would you describe it as dangerous or getting more dangerous?
PM: Well, I think it is fair to say that there has been an
escalation of dangerous rhetoric and yes, I think it is fair to
say that the position between the two major super powers is
potentially more dangerous than it has been for some time, but
I don't want to exaggerate that. The first Soviet indicated
that if the United States, in cooperation with its European
allies, went ahead by the end of 1983 with the station of
the Cruise and Pershing missiles; then that they would withdraw.
Now, having said so consistently and frequently that they would
do that, it seemed to me inevitable that they would do it. I
have the view that after a period of time the talks will
resume. There is no suggestion that they are going to cut out
communication and dialogue in other areas and so it is a pity
tha the breakdown in the NIP talks has taken place, but I
don't despair about that.
JOURNALIST: Mr. Hlawke what was your talks with Mr. Trudeau
about yesterday?
PM: Well, there is a matter of this group of parliamentarians-
!-don't know what they were actually called some groups from
the United States came to sec me earlier in the year and they've
got some concept about parliamentarians for international
peace I don't think that is the exact title of it and
he was asking me all about that and we had a fairly
common view about it that the concept sounded OK, but
perhaps there were more immediate and practical things that
we should be concerned with, but we weren't trying to
completely douse them with cold water.
JOURNALIST: Did you talk about Peking?
PM: Yes, I did have a talk with Mr. Trudeau about his visit
to Peking. I wished him well and asked him to convey my
best wishes to Premier Zhao, who I will be meeting myself
within a matter of a few weeks.