rl=
E AND 0 E -PROOF ONLY
TRANSCRIPT FORUM BRIEFING -27 AUGUST 1984 -TUVALU
6. 00 P. PRIME MINISTER HAWKE
P. M.
WE CONTINUED OUR DISCUSSIONS OVER LUNCH ON THE NUCLEAR FREE ZONE
PROPOSAL... ABOUT TESTING AND DUMPING. SOME OF THE STATES MADE IT
CLEAR THAT THEIR POSITION WAS ONE OF WANTING TO BAN ALL INVOLVEMENT
WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS OR ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
BUT OTHERS AGREED, I THINK THE* MAJORITY AGREED, THAT ANY ZONE CONCEPT
COULD ONLY BE ACCEPTABLE AND OPERATIVE IF IT LEAVES INDIVIDUALS
COUNTRIES FREE TO MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS ABOUT THE QUESTION OF THE
VISITS OF NUCLEAR ARMED AND NUCLEAR POWERED SHIPS AND THAT RIGHT,.
WHICH I THINK YOU WILL ALL RECALL, WAS INTRINSIC TO THE PROPOSAL
WHICH I PUT TO THE FORUM IN CANBERRA LAST YEAR, HAS BEEN ACCEPTED.
THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT NOMENCLATURE, WHETHER IT SHOULD BE
CALLED A SOUTH PACIFIC NUCLEAR FREE ZONE, THERE WAS ONE SUGGESTION
THAT WE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT SOUTH PACIFIC NUCLEAR WEAPONS FREE
ZONE BUT THAT WAS NOT ACCEPTED AND INDEED WAS NOT PROCEEDED WITH. THE
QUESTION OF NOMENCLATURE IS, I THINK, RELATIVi-LY UNIMPORTANT BUT IT
IS A MATTER THAT CAN BE DEALT WITH BY THE WORKING PARTY. ON THE
QUESTION OF THE PACE OF FURTHER PROGRESS, ONE SUGGESTION WAS RAISED
BY ONE MEMBER THAT THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY MEETING, LATER
THIS YEAR, SHOULD BE ASKED TO ENDORSE IN THIS YEAR, THE PROPOSAL
THAT WAS NOT REALLY PROCEEDED WITH BECAUSE THE MORE GENERAL VIEW I
THINK WAS, THAT IT MADE SENSE THAT 1WE IN THE REGION SHOULD DO MORE
WORK ON THE PROPOSAL OURSELVES BUT THERE WAS AGREEMENT THAT THIS ./ 2
RoOU. LD' OT BE 30METHING THAT E . SHOULD BE CASUAL ABOUTTHERE IS AN
SACCEPtA'iCE F TRIE' IMPORTANC' OF' fR'OCEEtING" EXPEiTlTI'OU'SY';" CERTAI'LYC
FO ' A. 5UPSE* TARK. ALN* tIGA W LL Dg' A-L . T WATE-T i BY . TlE
PR'' ISIO' OC ASSISTAICE 2UT FY OUR Ci; iN IMFUT, 0 ECNSUE: THAT THE
MATTER IS PROCEEDED lWITH EXPEDITIOUSLY. IT HOULD BE A HOPE, I SUPPOSE
THIS IS AN OPTIMUM POSITION, THAT OUT OF THE WORK OF THE OFFICIALS
THAT WE MAY BE IN A POSITION ACTUALLY TO PRESENT A DRAFT TREATY BY
THE 1985 FORUM WHETHER THAT WILL BE POSSIBLE, OF COURSE, REMAINS TO
BE SEEN OUT OF THE WORK THAT WE DO BUT I THINK YOU CAN SEE THAT THE
ATTITUDE THAT WAS ADOPTED THAT BEFORE WE REALLY INTRUDE FURTHER OUR
CONCEPT INTO'INTERNATIONAL FORUMS' PARTrCULARLY-THE'UNITED NATIONS.-
GENERAL ASSEMBLY, IT MADE SENSE THAT WE DO MORE OF OUR OWN WORK. I
COULD SAY BY WAY OF BROAD CONTEXT, THAT THE SENSE OF URGENCY HOWEVER
IN GETTING OUR OWN HORK DONE, WAS AGREEMENT THAT THE INTERNATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT HAD DETERIORATED, I HAVE MADE REFERENCE AND MADE
PROVISION TO THE BREAKDOWN OF THE START AND INF AND THE STAND OFF
SITUATION WHICH DEVELOPED BETWEEN THE SUHERPOWERS AND I BELIEVE THAT
THERE WAS GENERAL AGREEMENT THAT IN THIS SITUATION WHERE THE
TRADITIONAL FORA FOR PROCESSING HOVES TOWARDS REDUCTION IN ARMAMENTS,
PARTICULARLY NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS, HAD SOMEWHAT BROKEN DOWN. IT WAS THAT
MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THAT WE IN THIS REGION SHOULD DO . WHAT WE COULD TO
PROGRESS OUR WORK SO THAT WE COULD PUT TO THE WORLD OUR CONCERN ON
THIS ISSUE. THERE WAS AN UNDERSTANDING IN THE DISCUSSION OF THE FACT
OF INTERNATIONAL FREEDOM OF TRANSIT ON THE HIGH SEAS AND THAT, OF
COURSE, WAS ALSO A POSITION WHICH WE FROM AUSTRALIA HAD MADE CLEAR IN
FIRST PUTTING THIS POSITION BEFORE THE FORUM IN 1983. THERE WAS
REFERENCE TO THE PAPER WHICH WAS PRESENTED TO THE FORUM BY NAURU ON
THE QUESTION OF DUMPING. THEY HAVE SHOUN, WITH KIRIBATI, A PARTICULAR
INTEREST AND INVOLVEMENT IN THAT ASPECT OF NUCLEAR CONCERN AND THERE
WAS A REFLECTION OF THE CONCERN AT THE LACK OF PROGRESS IN
COMMITMENTS BY THE METROPOLITAN POWERS. SO ON THIS QUESTION OF
DUMPING AND WE WILL PICK UP THE PAPER BY NAURU AND KIRIBATI AND THE
PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE LONDON DUMPING CONVENTION, THAT HILL BE A
MATTER THAT WILL BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN THE WORK OF THE STUDY GROUP
BECAUSE IT WAS RECOGNISED AS A USEFUL PAPER. MAY I ALSO PICK OUT ONE
OR TWO OTHER POINTS THAT WERE TOUCHED UPON. THERE WAS REFERENCE TO
THE SCIENTIFIC PARTY, WHICH IN THE LATTER PART OF LAST YEAR, YOU WILL
RECALL, HAD GONE TO MORUROA AND WHILE FORUM MEMBERS INDICATED THAT
THERE WAS SOME RECOGNITION IN THAT REPORT, THAT THE EXTENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN MAY NOT NEED TO BE, IN ALL ITS RESPECT, AS
LARGE AS PERHAPS HAD BEEN THOUGHT BEFORE, NEVERTHELESS THAT REPORT
COULD NOT LEAVE ONE WITH ANY SENSE OF COMPLACENCY AND IN
ACKNOWLEDGING THE REPORT WE UNANIMOUSLY INDICATED THAT IT IN NO WAY
DIMINISHED THE OPPOSITION OF ALL FORUM MEMBERS TO THE CONTINUATION OF
NUCLEAR TESTING BY FRANCE. WE ALSO WELCOMED, AND THAT WILL BE
REFLECTED IN THE COMMUNIQUE, THE STATEMENT BY THE LATIN AMERICAN
PERMAMENT COMMISSION FOR THE SOUTH PACIFIC, THAT CONSISTS OF CHILE,
COLUMBIA, ECQUADOR AND PERU, ALL COUNTRIES WHO RECENTLY ISSUED, I
THINK IT WAS ON THE 6TH OF JULY, A CONDEMNATION OF FRENCH NUCLEAR
TESTING IN THE PACIFIC. AND ONE OTHER POINT WHICH I THINK AROSE IN
THIS DISCUSSION, WHICH SHOULD BE NOTED, WAS A SUGGESTION FROM THE
, PRIME MINISTER . OF.. HESTEPN S, OA-THAT IN. ADDIT-ONJ TO THE STAjFeENTS..
" TH L i-A'l' r T' U I , U FLECTI! IG THOSE i! ATTESr
WHICH I BAV TOLD YOU ", DOUT TC7A), Y, AND IIA' DDITION' TO THAT HE
SUGGESTED THAT ALL FORUM MEKBERS SHOULD IN FtCT WRITE TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF FRANCE ON THE QUESTION OF NUCLEAR TESTING AND OPPOSE
IT. AND THIS WILL BE DONE, I BELIEVE, BY MEMBERS INDIVIDUALLY AS WAS
ALSO THE SUGGESTION FROM THE PRIME MINISTER OF WESTERN SAMOA, THAT
LETTERS SHOULD ALSO BE WRITTEN TO THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT INDICATING
OUR CONCERN ABOUT THE POSSIBLE PROPOSALS IN REGARD TO NUCLEAR
DUMPING. THAT DISCUSSION OCCUPIED THE GREATER PART OF THIS AFTERNOON.
WE GOT ON AT THE VERY LATTER STAGE TO REPORTS ON THE QUESTION OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF A SINGLE REGIONAL ORCANISATION, BUT I REALLY HAVE
NOTHING TO REPORT TO YOU ON THAT. THERE WAS A COMMITTEE ESTABLISHED
ON THE LAST OCCASION TO LOOK AT THIS ISSUE THAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE SOUTH PACIFIC COMMISSION AND THE FORUM. BUT THAT
COMMITTEE HAD NOT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY OF DOING ANY SUBSTANTIAL WORK
ON THAT SO THERE'S NOTHING TO PUT FORWARD ON IT. AND WE AT THE END
WERE ON THE ISSUE OF REGIONAL CO-OPERATION AS IT AFFECTS SMALLER
FORUM MEMBERS. BUT THAT HASN'T COME TO A CONCLUSION. THAT, LADIES AND
GENTLEMEN, IS A COVERAGE OF WHAT HAPPENED THIS AFTERNOON.
JOURNALIST: MR HAWKE, SIR, SOME OF US HAVEN'T SEEN THE AUSTRALIAN
PROPOSALS WHICH HAVE BEEN PUT TO THIS MEETING. DO THEY VARY FROM THE
CANBERRA COMMUNIQUE GREATLY, OR WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO MAKE THEM
PUBLIC. I'LL LOOK AT THAT. THEY ARE THE PROPERTY OF THE FORUM, BUT
SPEAKING FOR MYSELF I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY THEY SHOULDN'T BE AND
I'LL MAKE ENQUIRIES ABOUT IT.
JOURNALIST: DID ANY FORUM MEMBERS EXPRESS ANY CONCERN ABOUT THEIR
DEFENCE OR SECURITY IN THE EVENT OF A TOTAL, A PROPER, NUCLEAR FREE
ZONE WITH NO WARSHIPS IN IT AT ALL BEING INTRODUCED.
NO, THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO THAT BUT I THINK THERE
WAS IMPLICIT IN THE CONTRIBUTION PERHAPS OF ONE OR TWO MEMBERS OF THE
VIEW THAT THEY HAD TO RETAIN THE RIGHT AND INTENDED TO RETAIN THE
RIGHT TO HAVE VISITS OF NUCLEAR-POWERED AND NUCLEAR-ARMED SHIPS TO
THEIR PORTS. AND SO I GUESS INFERENTIALLY THAI DID ENTAIL A JUDGEHENI
ON THEIR PART THAT THEY BELIEVED THAT IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO THEIR
PERCEPTIONS OF DEFENCE AND STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS THAT THEY SHOULD
BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT.
JOURNALIST: HOW MANY COUNTRIES INTEND NOW THAT WE'VE GOT A NUCLEAR
FREE ZONE TO HAVE VISITS OF NUCLEAR-ARMED OR POWERED SHIPS.
P. M. WELL, LET HE REFER TO THOSE TWO WHO HAVE THEM, WHO HAVE
INDICATED THAT THEY HAVE THEM, AND WOULD REGARD IT IS APPROPRIATEAUSTRALIA
HAS IT, FIJI DOES AND I THINK IT WAS CLEAR FROM THE
CONTRIBUTION OF TONGA THAT THEY WOULD PUT THEMSELVES IN THAT
CATEGORY. ON THE OTHER HAND VANUATU, FOR INSTANCE-THIS IS NOT ./ 4
S REFLECTING ANY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL DISCUSSIO} J BECAUSE THEY HAVE
, H. 1DE A D. CISION O-Dœ CL " TTk'' T " SELVES-' A" TOTAL. N"' JLEA". FrE'Z i"
SO THEY i'. OULDN ' T HAVE NUCLEAR-POisNED VISITS THicERE, NUCLEAR FO'c-. ES'-ED
SHIP VISITS.
JOURNALIST: MR HAWKE WAS THERE ANY SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT
THE MATTER BE RAISED AT THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY OR IT WAS
IT JUST ONE VOICE.
ESSENTIALLY ONE VOICE BUT IT WAS NOT PROCEEDED WITH.
JOURNALIST: DID MR LANGE EXPLAIN TO THE FORUM WHY HE WASN'T WANTED
TO RAISE IT WITH THE U. N.
P. M. WELL I THINK THE VIEW OF NEW ZEALAND WAS THAT THIS MAY GIVE
SOME SORT OF IMPETUS, BUT I THINK THERE CAME TO BE AN ACCEPTANCE OF
THE VIEW THAT IT MADE , MORE SENSE FOR US TO DO THE WORK. I MEAN THERE
ARE SOME QUITE SPECIFIC MATTERS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. WITHOUT
GOING INTO THEM ALL, ONE OBVIOUS ELEMENT IS THE QUESTION OF THE
GEOGRAPHICAL LIMITS OF THE ZONE THAT WOULD BE ENVISAGED. THERE MAY
BE SOME DIFFERENCES OF VIEW ABOUT THAT SO, WlE CAME TO THE VIEW, I
THINK, THAT IT MAKES MORE SENSE TO CLARIFY PRECISELY THE SORTS OF
THINGS THAT HE HAVE IN MIND, AND THAT YOU ARE MORE LIKELY TO GET THE
OPPORTUNITY OF MAXIMISING SUPPORT WITHIN THE UNITED NATIONS ONCE WE
HAD DONE OUR WORK. BUT LET ME BE FAIR, TOTALLY, TO NEW ZEALAND IN
THIS MATTER THAT THEY WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE IMPETUS WASN'T
LOST. AND THAT IS A VIEW THAT IS SHARED, CERTAINLY BY AUSTRALIA AS
THE SPONSOR OF THIS CONCEPT. AND WE HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THAT ME WILL
EVERYTHING TO FACILITATE, NOT MERELY BY FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE, BUT IN
TERMS OF INPUT, TO ENSURE THAT THIS WORKING PARTY NOW IS AN
EFFECTIVE, FUNCTIONAL ORGANISATION.
JOURNALIST: PRIME MINISTER, IN YOUR OWN OPINION, AND PERHAPS ON A
SCALE OF TEN, HOW NUCLEAR FREE IS A ZONE THAT ALLOWS THE TRANSIT OF
NUCLEAR ARMED WARSHIPS.
P. M. WELL, IT IS AS A ZONE, I THINK, TOTALLY FREE. IF YOU LOOK AT
THE RECORD OF OPERATION OF THE UNITED STATES VESSELS, FOR INSTANCE,
AND I HAVEN'T BEEN TAKEN INTO THE CONFIDENCE OF THE SOVIET UNION SO I
CAN'T SPEAK IN RESPECT OF THAT SUPERPOWER. IF YOU LOOK AT THE UNITED
STATES THEY HAVE A VERY LARGE NUMBER OF, I DON'T KNOW THE PRECISE
NUMBER, BUT HELL OVER ONE HUNDRED NUCLEAR POWERED VESSELS TRAVELLED
THE EQUIVALENT OF VERY MANY MILLIONS OF MILES, HAVE BEEN INTO ABOUT
150 PORTS IN 50 COUNTRIES AND WITHOUT ANY ACCIDENT OR SEEPAGE OF
MATERIAL. NON THE FACT THAT VESSELS HAD THAT RECORD MILL BE
TRAVERSING THE AREA AND BY THE DECISION OF AU10NOMOUS SOVEREIGN
COUNTRIES MAY IN FACT VISIT THEIR PORTS DOESN'T DIMINISH THEREFORE, I
BELIEVE, IN ANY SIGNIFICANT WAY FROM THE CO;' CEPT WHICH IS THAT WE ARE
SAYING THAT IW'E AS NATIONS WILL NOT ACQUIRE NUCLEAR WEAPONS, WE WILL
NOT MANUFACTURE THEM, WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE TESTING OF WEAPONS IN THE
REGION AND TO THE DUMPING OF NUCLEAR WASTE. SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE a
A PPETTY P! tL2VERS: AN' CATII/ r SEE* KER P. FTEYP F,-iCTS TO S U GE.. S'T T HA T.'
TrHAT : IYBA OF: TAE Ri CHT OF TR~ ANSIT ON THE HIGH SrEA'S IE', VOLVED
ANY DIMINUTION AN EFFECTIVE CONCEPT.
JOURNALIST: PRIME MINISTER, IS THIS RESOLUTION ON NUCLEAR FREE ZONES
IN FACT AIMED PRIMARILY AGAINST FRA. NCE AND NOT PARTICULARLY AT THE
AMERICAN FLEET. AND IF THAT IS THE CASE COULD THERE BE A REACTION
FROM FRANCE THAT WOULD EFFECT THE FORUM'S ABILITY TO EXERT PRESSURE
ON FRANCE FOR TH4E MORE SPEEDY INDEPENDENCE -FOR NEW4 CALEDONIA.
P. 14. : NO I DON'T SEE THE TWO THINGS AS LINKED BUT LET ME REPEAT THE
POINT THAT I THINK I MADE WHEN I ARRIVED HERE YiESTERDAY WHEN SO. ME OF
OUR AUSTRALIAN JOURNALISTS QUESTIONED ME. WE DON'T DELUDE O* JRSELVES
THAT THE PURSUIT OF OR EVEN THE EARLY ACHIEVEMEN4T OF A NUCLEAR FREE
ZONE CONCEPT BY THE COUNTRIES OF THIS REGION WOULD OF ITSELF FORCE
FRANCE TO STOP ITS TESTING. WE WOULD BE POLITICALLY NAIVE TO BELIEVE
THAT THAT RESULT WOULD FOLLOW. I THINK IN THESE SORTS OF THINGS ITS
A QUESTION OF AN ACCUMULATION OF PRESSURES, EXPRESSIONS OF VIEW. I
MEAN I GO BACK AS YOUR AUSTRALIAN COLLEAGUES IN THE PRESS WOULD
RECALL TO THE POINT I MADE IN REGARD TO THE FRENCH ATMOSPHERIC
NUCLEAR TESTING WHEN WE TOOK UP THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST THAT IN THE
EARLY 1970' S IT WAS PUT TO US THAT THIS W4AS PRETTY POINTLESS. BUT
THERE IS SOME EVIDENCE THAT THE ACTION lWE TOOK THERE ACCELERATED THE
DECISION OF THE FRENCH TO STOP ATMOSPHERIC TESTING AND TO GO
UNDERGROUND. NOW I MERELY SEE THE ACHIEVEMENT OF A NUCLEAR FREE ZONE
CONCEPT BY THE COUNTRIES OF THE REGION AS ONE ELEMENT OF THE
PRESSURE. AND GOING TO THE SECOND PART OF YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THE
REACTION OF FRANCE TO THIS PROCESS, TO WHAT THEY WOULD DO ABOUT NEW
CALEDONIA, I THINK THAT'S A QUITE ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION BECAUSE YOU
WILL-RECALL THAT I HAVE SAID, AND I THINK IT'S A VIEW SUBSTANTIALLY
SHARED BY ALL MEMBERS OF THE FORUM, THAT WE DON'T REALLY QUESTION THE
INTEGRITY OR INTENTION OF FRANCE ABOUT WANTING TO SEE INDEPENDENCE
FOR NEW4 CALEDONIA. RATHER THEY DO HAVE APPREH4ENSIONS ABOUT WHAT MAY
BE THE OUTCOME THERE OF A TOO EARLY GRANTING OF INDEPENDENCE. BUT WE
NEVERTHELESS TAKE THE VIEW TH4AT THERE SHOULD BE AN ACCELERATION OF
THE MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION. NOW 1 THINK FRANCE WILL UNDERSTAND THE
VIEWS T1HAT W4EH OLD ON THAT AND THE INTEGRITY IN TURN WITH WHICH WE
HOLD OUR VIEWS. AND I WOULD NOT IMAGINE IN ANY WAY THAT THERE'LL BE
ANY RELATION BY FRANCE IN ANY REACTIVE WAY OF WHAT WE' RE SAYING ABOUT
A NUCLEAR FREE ZONE AND WHAT THEY WOULD DO IN THAT AREA OF THEIR
RESPONSIBILITY.
JOURNALIST: PRIME MINISTER, DO YOU ACCEPT THAT BECAUSE NUCLEAR
WEAPONS IN TRANSIT ARE INSTANTLY DEPLOYABLE THAT THEREFORE TH4EY
SHOULD BE REGARDED AS PERMANENTLY DEPLOYABLE.
P. WELL THEY ARE PERMANENTLY DEPLOYABLE BUT I'M TRYING MY BEST TO
FOLLOW4 THROUGH WHAT'S INVOLVED IN YOUR QUESTION.
JOURNALIST: I SUPPOSE IT COMES BACK.. ./ 6
M. COULD. YQL TELL . ME HAT.. THE P. OI I. q. O YOUR.. Q, E. STI. O
I 0N'T QUITE FOLLO IT.
JOURNALIST: I SUPPOSE IT CO; MES DACK TO VWHAT SCT OF SANCTITY IN A
NUCLEAR FREE ZONE WHICH ALLO4S TRANSIT.
WELL THIS QUESTION OF SANCTITY WHAT YOU'VE GOT TO UNDERSTAND
IS THAT THE CONCEPT OF NUCLEAR FREE ZONE IS NOT SIMPLY ABOUT THE
TRANSIT OF WEAPONS WITHIN IT. IT INVOLVES AN UNDERTAKING ON THE
PART OF THE COUNTRIES PARTY TO THAT TREATY THAT THEY WILL NOT
MANUFACTURE OR ACQUIRE OR STORE NUCLEAR WEAPONS. NOW THAT'S
IMPORTANT IN ITSELF IF A SIGNIFICANT SECTION OF THE COUNTRIES OF
THE WIORLD MAKE THAT COMMITMENT SO THAT'S IMPORTANT. SECONDLY, THEY
INDICATE THAT THEY ARE OPPOSED TO AND WILL USE WHAT POWERS THEY HAVE
TO STOP THE DUMPING OF NUCLEAR ' WASTE MATERIAL IN THEIR REGION. SO
THAT HAS ITS IMPORTANCE. NOW1 THOSE THINGS HAVE AN INTRINSIC LIFE AND
REALITY OF THEIR OWN. IT JUST SEEMS TO HE, IF I MAY SAY SO IN MY
NORMAL GENTLE FORM, THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO LIGHT UPON
ONE ASPECT THAT IS THAT THIS CONCEPT IS CONSISTENT, AS I. T MUST BE,
WITH THE RIGHT OF TRANSIT ON THE HIGH SEAS AND SAY THAT MEANS THERE
IS NO REALITY IN THE CONCEPT. ALL THAT REVEALS IS NOT SOMETHING
ABOUT THE CONCEPT BUT SO! METHING ABOUT YOUR ATTITUDE TO IT.
JOURNALIST: PRIME MINISTER IF THE FORUM COMES UP AND FINALLY ACCEPTS
THIS RESOLUTION WHAT WOULD THE POSITION IF THE MICRONESIAN STATES,
WHICH MAY BE OBLIGED TO HOST AMERICAN NUCLEAR DUMPS, WILL THEY BE
ABLE TO JOIN THE FORUM OR WOULD THEY . BE
WELL THERE IS TWO POINTS ABOUT THAT OF COURSE. YOU APPRECIATE
THAT THEY ARE NOT FULL MEMBERS OF THE FORUM BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT
CONSTITUTIONALLY SOVEREIGN INDEPENDENT NATIONS. THEY HAVE THE RIGHT
OF OBSERVER STATUS BUT AS SOON AS YOU'VE SAID THAT YOU'VE ANSWERED
YOUR QUESTION IN TERMS THAT THEY ARE NOT SOVEREIGN INDEPENDENT
NATIONS, THEY HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH ANOTHER
METROPOLITAN POWER THEN THERE IS THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION. THAT
DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO HAVE AN INTEREST IN THE
WORK OF THE FORUM MEMBERS ON THIS AND THEY MAY WELL EXPRESS A VIEW
THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THE CAPACITY BY DEFINITION THAT A SOVEREIGN
INDEPENDENT NATION HAS.
JOURNALIST: SOME OF THEM SEEM TO BE MAKING OVERTURES TO JOIN THE
FORUM WHEN THEY GET A DEGREE OF INDEPENDENCE WHICH WOULD PERMIT THEM.
WOULD YOU DENY THEM MEMBERSHIP BECAUSE THEY MAY HAVE NUCLEAR
FACILITIES ON THEIR TERRITORY.
NO, THE POSSIBILITY OF BECOMING FULL MEMBERS OF THE FORUM ONLY
ARISES WHEN THEY ARE FULLY SOVEREIGN INDEPENDENT NATIONS AND WE DON'T
KNOW WHAT THE POSITION WOULD BE IN THEIR COUNTRIES WHEN THAT POSITION
ARRIVES. SO MY AUSTRALIAN COLLEAGUES WILL TELL YOU THAT I'M NOT
PRONE TO ANSWERING HYPOTHETICAL QUESTIONS. / 7
JOURNALIST: MR HIAINKE 00 YOU ARGUE TIAT THE NUCL. AR FREE ZONE IILL
A SIGI; IFICANT CO'FiUTR UTIONI TO NUCLEAR NO:-? ROLIFERA ' IOu,' IF
0SOW ILL IT DO IT JUST BY POSITIVE EXAMPLE OR THROUGH SOME OTHER ; ORE
CONCRETE WAYS.
P. M. ELL ONCE YOU GET INTO THE AREA, THIS BORDER AREA, OF NUCLEAR
NON-PROLIFERATION YOU KNOW THAT NEXT YEAR IN 1985 IS THE REVIEWl YEAR
FOR THE NPT TREATY. AUSTRALIA HAS A VERY FIRM VIEW ABOUT THE
IMPORTANCE OF THAT INSTRUMENT IT'S BEEN REALLY THE ONLY INSTRUMENT
IN EXISTENCE WHICH OFFERS A BASIS FOR PREVENTING THE PROLIFERATION OF
NUCLEAR WEAPONRY. NOW ALL I CAN SAY THEREFORE IN RELATION TO THAT
QUESTION IS THAT I'Il NOT ONE FOR OVERSTATING WHAT CAN BE DONE IN THE
INTERNATIONAL ARENA. IF YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS YOU KNOW THAT IT'S FOOLISH TO OVERSTATE THE POSSIBILITY OF
INITIATIVES. I THINK WHAT YOU CAN SAY ABOUT IT IS THAT, THAT THERE
IS GOING TO BE AS YOU LEAD UP TO THE NPT REVIEW TREATY NEXT YEAR THAT
ATTEMPTS BY MANY OF US TO TRY AND GET AN UNDERSTANDING ON THE PART
BOTH OF SIGNATORIES TO THE NPT AND OTHERS WHO HAVEN'T YET SIGNED IT
OF THE NECESSITY OF TRYING TO MAKE THE BASIC CONTRACT WHICH UNDERLIES
THE NPT WORK. AND IT IS ON THE ONE HAND THAT THE NUCLEAR WEAPON
STATES SHOULD NOT INCREASE THEIR WEAPON CAPABILITY BUT SHOULD MOVE TO
A REDUCTION OF IT AND IN RETURN FOR THEM HONOURING THAT PART OF THE
CONTRACT THEN NON-NUCLEAR WEAPON STATES SHOULD DECLINE THEMSELVES TO
HOVE TOWARDS THE ACQUISITION OF WEAPONS. SO THEREFORE MAKE IN
RESPECT TO YOUR QUESTION I WOULD SAY THAT TO THE EXTENT THAT WE GOT A
NUMBER OF STATES IN THIS REGION WHO IN A SENSE FORMALISED THEIR
COMMITMENT TO THE NON-ACQUISITION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS, THAT WOULD BE
SOMETHING. THE PROCESS TOWARDS THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE ARGUMENT
THAT ONE COULD USE ABOUT A COMMITMENT IN REGARD TO A SIGNIFICANT
NUMBER OF STATES IN THIS REGION TO TRY AND MAKE THAT CONTRACT WORK.
NOW I DON'T WANT TO OVERSTATE, IT'S NOT GOING TO DO MORE THAN THAT I
THINK. JOURNALIST: PRIME MINISTER YOU TALK ABOUT THE TALKS ABOUT THE
GEOGRAPHICAL EXTENT OF A POSSIBLE NUCLEAR FREE ZONE. ARE WE TALKING
ABOUT OR CAN WE TALK ABOUT ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE ECONOMIC ZONES OF
EACH INDIVIDUAL STATE PUT TOGETHER. IF SO WHAT CAN WE SAY..
I DON'T THINK WE CAN TALK ABOUT IN A STRICT LEGAL SENSE MORE
THAN AREA EZ'S. BUT THERE'S MORE TO IT THAN THAT I THINK IT'S A
QUESTION OF NOMENCLATURE. YOU SEE THERE'S BEEN A TENDENCY TO TALK
ABOUT THE SOUTH PACIFIC NUCLEAR FREE ZONE. WELL ONCE YOU GET UP INTO
SOME OF THE AREAS IN WHICH OUR MEMBERS OF THE FORUM ARE INVOLVED
WE'RE SPEAKING OF WHETHER YOU ACCURATELY DESCRIBING IT IN TERMS OF
THE SOUTH PACIFIC NUCLEAR FREE ZONE, THAT IS REALLY THE CONCEPT THAT
IS INVOLVED.
JOURNALIST: MR HAWKE IS THERE A FEELING AMONG SOME OF THE FORUM
COUNTRIES THAT A NUCLEAR FREE ZONE FOR THEM AS A MEANS OF WEAKING OF
ANZUS. 8
P. M. NO. THERE'S ONLY TWO OF US IN THE FORUM WHO ARE , EMBES OF
AN'ZUS NEH. ZE/.. LiA D A;, D OURSELVES. AN D ' 17 1 LiA,.. AiD ITTESASC
CO1MITMENT TO ANZUS AND HE, THAT IS AUSTRALIA, IHEN W,. 4REA ISED THE
CONCEPT FOR THE FIRST TI", E LAST YEAR MADE IT CLEiPR THEN', A POINT
WHICH WHICH ESCAPED A COUPLE COMME, NITATORS IN AUSTRALIA I MIGHT SAY,
BUT NEVERTHELESS WE MADE IT CLEAR IN CANBERRA LAST YEAR THAT
INTRINSIC TO THE PROPOSAL WAS THE RIGHT OF INDIVIDUAL NEMBERS OF THE
FORUM TO MAKE THEIR DECISION ABOUT THE VISIT OR 4Oi-VISIT OF NUCLEAR
POWERED AND NUCLEAR ARMED VESSELS. SO AS THE PRIHE MINISTER OF NEW
ZEALAND MADE CLEAR TODAY THE QUESTION OF THE RIGHT OF IIDIVIDUAL
STATES IS SACROSANCT AND WHAT NEW ZEALAND DID OR DID NOT IN THE EVENT
FINALLY DO ABOUT THAT ISSUE WAS A MATTER INDEPENDENT OF THIS..
JOURNALIST: DID ANYONE DISPUTE THAT RIGHT BEING SACROSANCT?
P. M. 1 NO.
JOURNALIST: WHEN THE DRAFT PROPOSALS PUT WIERE THERE ANY AMENDMENTS
PUT AT ALL?
P. M. NO WELL THE WAY THE FORUM IS OPERATED, WHICH I THINK IS A VERY
SENSIBLE ONE, IT THAT YOU HAVE A BASIS OF DISCUSSION. THE AUSTRALIAN
PAPER FORMED THAT. THERE WERE SOME DRAFT AMENDMENTS CIRCULATED BUT
THERE WAS NOT VOTE ON THE RESOLUTION OR ON THE AMENDMENTS. AS I'VE
PUT IT TO YOU IS HOW IT TRANSPIRED AND I THINK THAT PROVIDED A BASIS
WHICH WAS CERTAINLY TOTALLY SATISFACTORY TO US FOR THE WORK NO1J OF
THIS WORKING PARTY TO PROCEED ON IT. BUT THERE WAS NO VOTE.
JOURNALIST: WERE SOME OF THOSE AMENDMENTS ACCEPTED BY
NO REALLY THEY WEREN'T PURSUED. TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE, THfE
QUESTION OF NOMENCLATURE AND THE SUGGESTION THAT THE WORK WEAPONS BE
INCLUDED, WELL THAT WAS FLOATED BUT NOT PURSUED. ON THE QUESTION OF
GOING TO THE UNITED NATIONS, WELL THAT AGAIN WAS FLOATED BUT IN THE
DEBATE THAT FOLLOWED IT WAS THEN NOT PURSUED.
JOURNALIST: WERE TH4ERE ANY OTHERS?
P. M. WELL THE ISSUES THAT ARE RELEVANT ARE THE QUESTION OF THE
INCLUSION OF EAPONS IN THE TITLE, THE QUESTION OF GOING TO THE
UNITED NATIONS. ONE SUGGESTION THAT W4AS MADE WAS ABOUT AIMING TO
HAVE A DRAFT TREATY BY 1985. THAT WAS ACCEPTED AS A4 OBJECTIVE AND
THAT CERTAINLY MAKES SENSE. WHETHER IN FACT, GIVEN THE COMPLICATED
ISSUES THAT HAVE TO BE DEALT WITH, THE WORKING PARTY WOULD BE ABLE TO
PROCEED THAT FAR TO ACTUALLY HAVE A DRAFT TREATY READY FOR NEXT YEAR
I'M NOT SURE. WE, AS I'VE SAID, WE WILL DO EVERYTHING W4E CAN TO TRY
AND ACHIEVE THAT OBJECTIVE.
JOURNALIST: MR HAWKE ON THE POSSIBILITY OF JAPANESE NUCLEAR DUMPING,
HOW STRONG WAS THE EXPRESSION OF CONCERN OVER THAT POSSIBILITY.
SPECIFICALLY WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION TODAY ABOUT POSSIBLE ACTION / 9
AGAINST JAPAN?
P. M: WERE FEELINGS WERE STRONGLY HELD, PARTICULARY BY THOSE
MEMBER COUNTRIES ADJACENT, BUT NO THERE NAS NO REFERENCE TO
POSSIBLE COURSES OF ACTION.
JOURNALIST: MR HAWKE HOW WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO CALL THIS A NUCLEAR
FREE ZONE IF, FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAD AMERICAN WARSHIPS PARTICIPATING IN
EXERCISES CARRYING LARGE QUANTITIES OF AMERICAN NUCLEAR BOIMBS IN THE
WATERS OF POSSIBLY TONGA OR AUSTRALIA HOW CAN IT BE A NUCLEAR FREE
ZONE P. M. : WELL, I WILL GO OVER IT AGAIN. I THOUGHT IT WAS FAIRLY CLEAR
BEFORE. NO0 COUNTRY WHICH ENTERS INTO A TREATY CONCEPT OF THIS KIND
DOES SO ON THE BASIS THAT ITS GIVING AWAY ITS RIGHTS TO MAKE
DECISIONS WHICH ARE RELEVANT IN ITS PERCEPTION OF ITS OW4N....( TAPE
BREAK) IN VIETNAM TH4EY HAVE COMMUNICATION FACILITY, THEY HAVE NAVAL
BASE FACILITIES, THEY NOW HAVE 17 -AIRCRAFT. DIVIDED BETWEEN THE BEAR
AND BADGER AIRCRAFT, NOW THAT IS, I AM NOT SAYING THAT IN ANY
BELIGERENT SENSE, I AM SAYING MERELY THAT THOSE ' rNG ARE DESCRIPTIVE
OF THE REAL WORLD, OF WHICH WE ARE PART, OF WHICH W4E ARE VERY
ADJACENT. NOU1-IT IS AN EXERCISE IN ILLOGICALITY FOR YOU TO IM1PLY,
EVEN IF YOU DON'T ASSERT IT, THAT YOU CAN NOT CONSISTENTLY HAVE A
VIEW ABOUT WHAT IS NECESSARY FOR YOUR STRATEGIC ALLIANCE RELATIONSHIP
AND ALSO MAY I SAY PARANTHETICALLY ALSO RECOGNISE THE REALITY OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW, THAT IS THE RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF TRANSIT ON THE
HIGH SEAS AND AT THE SAME TIME, BE ABLE TO ENTERTAIN A VIEW THAT YOU
WILL DO WHAT IS OPEN TO YOU IN OTHER AREAS TO TRY AND USE YOUR POWERS
TO LIMIT THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR, OTHER ELEMENTS& OF THE NUCLEAR
CYCLE IN YOUR AREA. THAT IS, THAT YOU CAN AT THE SAME TBIMEP MAKE
DECISIONS THAT YOU WON'T, MANUFACTURE, USE OR ACQUIRE NUCLEAR WEAPONS
YOURSELF. YOU WON'T STORE THEM. THAT YOU WILL OPPOSE THE DUMPING OF
NUCLEAR H4ASTE MATERIAL. I AM AFRAID, H4AVING SAID IT TWICE, IF YOU
CAN'T UN4DERSTAND THAT DISTINCTION, THERE IS NOT VERY MUCH HOPE THAT A
TH4IRD TIME OF SAYING IT ON MY PART WILL CLARIFY IT ANY MORE.
JOURNALIST: PRIME MINISTER, WHICH FORUM COU. NTRY IS LIKELY TO
ACQUIRE, STORE OR MANUFACTURE NUCLEAR W, 1EAPONS?
NONE, AS FAR AS I CAN SEE.
JOURNALIST: PRIME MINISTER, WHAT IS YOUR ASSESSMENT OF MR LANGE'S
GRASP OF 1 HE SO-CALLED INTERNATIONAL REALITIES?
P. MN.: I THINK HE HAS A GOOD GRASP OF THEM
BT ., io
1c
J ALIST:" ' P-rim'e ' M. ilist-:, ' reinscriptiO.
Was there a feeling in the general'agreement to' roject
the Vanuatu proposal. Vas there a feelinc this w.. as
for all time, or was there any sucjgestion that the
rejection don't exist here that might be considered again
next year? There are very few things that are for all time.
No, it was a decision by the Forum in respect of this year.
We will be meeting again in 1985, I suppose it is conceivable
that another decision could be taken then.
JOURNALIST: ( Inaudible)
What I have said before I left Australia remains
valid, and that is, that the Cabinet will consider the
report of the Senate committee of inquiry and we will consider
that and our position in regard to matters involved in that
report will be made clear to the Parliament when we resume
next week.