4jAUSTAI k
PRIME MINISTER
Transcript Press Conference Travelodge Hotel
8 August 1984 5.30 pm.
E 0 E Proof Only
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke how did you interpret what Mr Somare
had to say this morning about Mr Lange's position on nuclear
issues. Well the only way it can be interpreted and that was
what he was saying that what individual countries do about
the question of visits of nuclear armed and nuclear powered
ships is a matter for each individual country. I mean he had
no intention of intervening in that position. And I understand
that subsequently he's made that quite clear.
JOURNALIST: Does the election of Mr Lange however boost the
chances of getting a nuclear free Pacific?
No because the question of a nuclear free zone in the
South Pacific had its own momentum from within the countries
of the area. I should qualify my answer by saying to the
extent that Mr Lange's predecessor had been perhaps less than
enthusiastic about the concept it means that we will have
New Zealand supporting the position that I'd been advancing in
the Forum last-year.
JOURNALIST: Are there some problems with the proposal at this
stage. Well only the proposal of taking a concept which is what:
you always have, taking a concept from a position of a concept
into a treaty. That will take some time. But I believe it's
achievable. It's not something that's going to happen overnight.
But there is obviously widespread support amongst the countries
of the region for it.
JOURNALIST: Is there division among the South Pacific nations
about the question of nuclear ships passing through the South
Pacific. In other words is that consistent with a nuclear freE!
zone in the South Pacific.
Oh yes, it's consistent with it and we have made it clear
at all times that our proposal for such a nuclear free zone would
embrace the right of ships of our ally, the United States, to
pass through. r* d ~ UinIr fWr nr 1
JDURNALIST: Well having said that what are the principles
that Australia would be putting to the South Pacific Forum
later this month?
The same principles as we advanced very explicitly
last year and that is that we believe that in this area
it should be a nuclear free zone in terms of the non-storage
or acquisition of nuclear weapons. It should be free from
testing of nuclear explosive devices and there should be
no dumping of nuclear waste products in the area.
JOURNALIST': In between now and the" South Pacific Forum
in two or three weeks time would thiere 11p further communication
with the French Government. No, not with the French Government?
No, not with the French Government directly. What's
been happening at the official level is there's been an
interchange of views and by the time we get to the Forum
we'll be in a position to further discuss this matter
more specifically. It will be after that that I imagine
collectively and perhaps individually there'll be a.
communication to the French Government of the position
of the countries of the region.
JOURNALIST: Are you saying Mr Hawke that you'd be happy
with an agreement for a nuclear free zone which allows
individual governments to make a decision as to whether
or not they allow nuclear ship visits?
No, the question of being happy with it, that's what
we ' ye had as our position consistently from the beginning.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke in Geneva Mr Hayden suggested that
Australia might have to have another look at its position
on the bases if progress wasn't made by the Americans towards;
disarmament. What is your comment on that.
I've seen the reference to that. In fact I've spoken
with Bill Hayden today by phone and there is no story here.
What Bill said in his speech in Geneva was precisely what
he has been saying from the time we've been in Government
and that is that we have, as an independent Australian
Government, a view a strong view about the necessity
for moves by the great powers towards nuclear disarmament.
And we have used our position, I think our particular
position, with the United States to put that view. And of
course we've already had, as it were, a positive result
from the exercise of that influence. You will recall that
in November of last year we were able to persuade the
United States to change what had been its previous view
of opposition as to the work of the Committee of Disarmament
to enable the Australian sponsored resolution for work on
a comprehensive test ban treaty to proceed. And the United
States, as a result very substantially of our advocacy to them
changed that vote from opposition to abcstengion. And then
just in June of this year we got their agreement to the form
for a draft memorandum of approach on this issue. So what
P. M. cant Bill was saying in Geneva was really that we
will be continuing to put that view. And in the conversation
I had with him today he indicated to me that the American
representative in Geneva had expressed their approbation
of the view that was put.* And I am confident, as is Bill
Hayden, that with that reaction from the United States
we'll be able to continue into the future what we have
effectively done in the past. And that is being a constructive
and positive ally with the United States in the ANZUS relationship
still to establish that we are not a nation which simply accepts
automatically what any other nation or any superpower does.
We maintain the right which we've exercised to-put our
view strongly and it's a matter of pleasure to both the
Foreign.-Minister and myself that we have been able to
use this special relationship with thepjnited States to
achieve those positive results since November of last year,
and we'll continue to do that.-
JOURNALIST: But the Australian position is, is that it will
review its attitude towards the bases if there's not
satisfactory progress by the U. S. on disarmament.
No, that's putting the emphasis the wrong way.. There
will be a continuation of the position that we've adopted
now, to this point. And that is that we will push in all
the relevant international forums and in our discussions
with the United States the necessity for positive action
to move towards reducing the level of nuclear armaments.
And we have received to this point positive responses
from the United States. So the question of review of the
bases situation doesn't arise. Mr Hayden had been responding
in hypothetical situation and as he pointed out to me the
facts are that the United States has indicated since his
speech in Geneva a very positive response to what he had
to say.
JOURNALIST: Did you contact Mr Hayden or how come you were speaking
to him today.
Yes I contacted him by phone.
JOURNALIST: Over this matter?
Yes I wanted to talk to him about that and some we of ten
speak to one another while he's away.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister do you think the Americans in any
way have been dragging their feet on this disarmament issue.
I don't think we can just stand up and say they've been
dragging their feet. I mean there are -two superpowezs involved
in this situation and both Mr Hayden and I are satisfied from~
the discussion that we've had at our various levels of the
administration that they do want to see positive moves in
this area. They haven't always received the degree of positive
response from the Soviet Union that you would like to see.
P. M. cant Now we are going to continue to press our
position both with the United States, with whom we have a
special relationship. We'll also be putting the view
to the Soviet Union and particularly in regard to the
development we've been able to achieve on disarmament
in regard to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. What's
required there to enable that work to proceed is a positive
response from the Soviet Union. And as we've said recently
we will be putting to the Soviet Union that there should
be a positive response from them.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke if you are satisfied with the approach
that the-Americans have been adopting why were Mr Hayden's
remarks seen as necessary?
What you've got to understand is that there are two
stages. Mr Hayden made his speech and then he was asked
hypothetical questions following that speech. And he
responded to those hypothetical questions what he's made
clear to me, what the actual position is, what the response
of the Americans has been. And he believes that that response
which they have made to him will be one which will become
clear publicly.
JOURNALIST: Was it wise for him to be responding to hypothetical
situations given your own attitude to hypothetical questions.
Well that's almost a quasi-hypothetical one itself.
It will have been quite clear to you, as I'm sure it has
been to everyone else at any rate, from the time that Mr Hayden
has been Foreign Minister that we have a very close co-operation.
And I have on many occasions as well as privately, publicly,
gone out of my way to express not only my confidence, but
my wholehearted satisfaction at the way he's discharging his
job of Foreign Minister.
JOURNALIST: On New Caledonia in the discussions during today's
talks with other leaders what position did you put for
Australia. I'm glad you asked that question. because there's some
suggestion that it may not be clearly understood. The
quick run down of what I said was in these terms that I
suppose of all the countries represented around the table
there today, no country more than Australia had been
engaged in the rather difficult situations with the French
both in regard to testing and also, of course, in regard
to the question of exp6rts of uranium to France. positions
of arguments. Having said that I said that one needed to
understand the position of the French and-I was in a position
well to do that because of the meetings I had with President.
Mitterand in Paris last year. And I conveyed to the meeting
what had been said to me by President Mitterand and I'm in
a position to say that to you essentially what the President
said to me was that France had no economic or strategic
imperatives to remain in New Caledonia. If they could they
would rather be out of it now. He used the example he said
that if it was a Zimbabwe he said, we wouldn't be there, because
of th * e ethnic composition of the country in Zimbabwe was quite
clear.. There were no problems and colonial power should have
.2 ' I 1
.1 A
I 13 S
P. M. cant been out. He said the unfortunate situation
in regard to New Caledonia was that the Kanak population,
with which he said his own historical association of being tl-. e
closest rather than with the Colons, is nevertheless in a minority.
They are about 43 per cent of the population. And if in fact.
France was simply unilaterally immediately to hand over
independence it would be the Kanaks at this point who would
suffer because they didn't have the arms, the arms were with
the Colons. They didn't have at this stage the degree of
professional and technical training that the Colons did.
And a position of immediate independence would be one in
which they'would suffer. And what the French were about is
to try in the intervening period to create a situation wherein
the Kanaks would come to a position whei~ e at the time
of independence they would be better equipped to benefit
from it. And in fact the Statute of Internal Autonomy which
would be passed by the French legislature in the near future
is bxplicitly based upon the right of the Kanaks to
independenceAnd the provision within that Statute the approach
for the referendum to be held in 1989 is premised upon the
intention of the French to create that situation. And so,
as I said, I was in a position to judge the integrity of
President Mitterand on this and 1I adjudged his integrity to
be complete upon it a view which was Endorsed by colleagues
around the table today. And I said all of that in the
context of course that we were totally committed. I have
consistently been and so has the Government to the
concept of independence as soon as possible and one within
which the Kanaks would have the opportunity to exercise
their independent rights. And that in fact, that exposition
which I gave, was one which was accepted without demur around
the table.
JOURNALIST: Would your approach be seen as cautious.
Well I don't know whether partiecular adjectives are,
one particular adjective, is adequate to describe a complex
situation. And what I would say, and the view that I believe
was accepted and shared around the table, was that we all know
that we want an end to colonialism in this area. That's
clear and unequivocal. What we must be concerned about is
that in the process of the end of the co~ lonial regime which
we want to see as coming as soon as possible, that you
must try and ensure that the act of ending the colonial
regime in fact happens in a way which is not going to be
against the interests of the people with whom you're most
concerned. Now if you describe that as cautious, well that
may be the appropriate adjective. I believe it's realistic
being based as it is upon a commitment to.. the earliest
possible end of colonialism. And as I say that exposition
which I put was, I believe, shared around the table.
JOURNALIST: Where's the next CHOGRM going to be held.
In Malaysia, but no date has been fixed for it. I think
what should be understood is that there was an acceptance of:
the value of the CHOGRM. concept. It has a value particularly
for the smaller states the less developed states who
are embraced within CHOGRM. But there was a feeling that WE!
shouldn't necessarily commit ourselves to an automatic meeting
every two years. Dr Mahat ir, the Prime Minister of
Malaysia, offered to host the next meeting and when that
will be held will emerge from a co-ordination of our views
as to when it will be worthwhile. ' The practical work should
proceed-amongst the various functional committees that deal
with issues of trade, agriculture' and m~ aritime issues. And
when the functional work of ' those committe has reached
a point where a meeting of the., political heads of Government.
would be useful, that's when it will take place.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister are you satisfied that it is
worthwhile that the South Pacific Forum, ASEAN and CHOGRM.
( should continue).
Oh well, You're talking about quite different
organisations there. But let me go to each one of them.
There's no doubt about the South Pacific Forum. There.. s no-one
who has any doubt about the usefulness of that organisation
and the functional work that it does and its service in the
South Pacific area. That is clearly useful and Australia
willingly makes a substantial financial contribution to the
work of the Forum because successive Governments have
recognised the practical value of the work that's done there.
With CHOGR4 there may be a view in some quarters that that
merely duplicates the work of the South Pacific Forum, but
of course that's not the case. Because in CHOGRM in addition
to the Pacific states you also have the involvement of some
of the Asian Governments and that gives an opportunity of
interchange of views and experience which doesn't become
available through the Forum. And I think that what was
accepted today is that there must be a concentration upon
the func onal committee work of CHOGRM. So it has that
advantage and you've got to remember that there are the
smaller nations who are, as it were, associate members of
CHOGM who don't get the right therefore of full involvement
in the overall CHOGM meetings. Those three are the Maldives,
Tuvalu and Nauru. Now obviously for those three who are
not full members of CHOGM, CHOGRM has its significance.
Now you mentioned ASEAN well of course that is a quite
different body and there is no question I think in anyone's
mind either within ASEAN or outside it of the usefulness
of that body. It has achieved a status ahd an efficacy
which I think would have surprised even the original
founders of it. And so its viability and usefulness is
simply not in question.