-JA1JSTAL A 1,.
PFUME MINSTER
TRANSCRIPT OF PRESS CONFERENCE 4 MARCH 1985
E 0 E PROOF ONLY
PM: I have had conveyed today to the representatives of the
government of the United States and New Zealand that Australia as
the host government for the proposed July meeting of the ANZUS
Council, it was decided that that meeting should be postponed
indefinitely. That decision had been made-necessary as a result
of the situation that has arisen following the decision of the New
Zealand Government in regard to the United States Naval vessels.
It became clear as things developed that it was unlikely that that
meeting could in any practical sense go ahead. The United States
conveyed to me in Washington that they could not see the
attendance at such a meeting as practical. We could un~ derstand
that postion. And indeed I would say that I believe that the New
Zealand Government itself must have foreseen following its
decision that this position would be likely to arise. We, of
course, have the pre-eminent responsibility as a government to
ensure that the essential security interests of Australia are
protected. This will be done by appropriate bilateral
arrangements between us and the United States and between us and
New Zealand. And I believe that I will be in a position later
this week to make announcements as to those arrangements that will
be made. Throughout this position that has arisen following the
decision of the New Zealand government, I and my Government have
been committed at all points to trying to ensure the protection of
Australia's national security interests. WE have been consistent
at all points throughout and I ask that people contrast the
consistency of the Australian Government position with the
nonsensical and inconsistent and political opportunism of the
Leader of the Opposition. He has said today, that, he hFs argued
all along that Australia should use every pressure available on
both the United States and New Zealand to ensure and indeed an
earlier meeting take place because the role of Australia now ought
to be one of mediating, trying to get the parties together. I
hope it will not have escaped your attention, I believe it will
not escaped the attention of the Australian public, that indeed Mr
Peacock was last year was pursuing exactly the opposite position.
He was saying that Australia should move in, discard New Zealand
and work for the establishment of a bi-laterial relationship. I
content myself with quoting from the transcript the Leader of the
opposition's speech on the 16 October which goes to the AM program
where it was said, the Opposition Leader, Mr Peacock ' has made
foreign policy one of his first targets, and his guns are aimed
directly at New Zealand." Mr Peacock said, Liberal
Government would give New Zealand just three months," this is on
the 16th of October, ." would give New Zealand just three months to
lift its ban on nuclear warships and if New Zealand elected not to
to anything in this he said then a Liberal Government
would try to negotiate a new bi-lateral treaty with the United
States to replace the ANZUS pact. So his position then was let's
shoot New Zealand down, let's have a bi-lateral pact. Now he is
saying we should be negotiating with the United States and New
Zealand. The facts are clear and they are unarguable and that is
that it is totally impractical in the current circumstances that
such a meeting can proceed. Therefore in those circumstances, it
is, as I repeat, the pre-eminent responsibility upon this
Government which I will discharge, of ensuring that this country's
security are protected by the appropriate arrangements to be made
between us and the United States and between us and New Zealand.
I would add finally that it is the common position of the three
treaty partners, that the treaty remains in place but until such
time as normal operations can be resumed under the treaty then we
will ensure that our interests are protected in the only way that
they can be done appropriate bi-lateral arrangements.
JOURNALIST: Will this mean separate meetings with the US and New
Zealand?
PM: Yes,*-it will.
JOURNALIST: Prime Ministei'r, this time Australia is making
decisions as the host country, so is the situation, this time
Australia and not the United States is punishing New Zealand?
PM: No, it is not a question of Australia punishing New Zealand.
It is a total misinterpretation of the situation. My statement
makes it clear that as a result of the decision by New Zealand
itself, and the reaction of the United States, that it simply
would not be practical for a meeting to go ahead. The United
States made it clear that it could not attend a meeting in these
circumstances, we understand that position and I repeat I believe
that New Zealand must have foreseen that once it made that
decision, you can't have a continuation of a alliance relationship
if an essential element of that relationship comes to an end. It
is not a question of punishing. Indeed, we will continue to have
bi-lateral relations with New Zealand.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, given the fundamental difference of
opinion over nuclear ships between the United States and New
Zealand, how is it that you can say here, that it needs to be
emphasised at this point, is not in dispute between any of the
ANZUS partners?
PM: Well, because it is the fact. And if facts are clear and
simple and straighforward, they should not be in dispute. Because
the United States says the treaty remains, we say the trea ty
remains, New Zealand says the treaty remains.
JOURNALIST: What is the treaty now, Mr Hawke?
PM: Well the treaty * is a document which sets out relationships
between the three treaty partners. Now one of the treaty partners
has made a decision in regard to the defence relationship, that an
element of that, that is the availability of its ports to the
naval vessels of another, that is the United States, will not be
there. And in those circumstances what has been regarded as an
essential element of--the defence relationships is not operating.
The United States has responded to that. And so, in those
circumstances the actual operations, previous operations, existing
operations, of the treaty are not in fact operating. That does
not mean that the treaty itself does not exist. I mean I would
have thought that that is self-evident.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, are you saying it exists but is not
operating? PM: I am saying it exists but is not operative in respect of the
significant elements of it, which had previously been operating
and without being exhaustive, the tni-lateral exercises are not
operating, there has been a decision to cease the exchange of
intelligence. These important aspects are simply not operative
now. JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, in addition to the ANZUS treaty as it
now exists, will you now be seeking a mutual defence pact. with the
United States?
PM: I don't believe that that is a necessity because what the
United States has made clear is that they regard the relationship
between the United States and ourselves as still operative.
Perhaps I can make it best, most clear to you, by reading to you
what the Secretary of State Shultz said on the 20th of February,
which goes precisely to this point. He issued a press statement
which included the following statement. " I am pleased by the
announcement of Prime Minister Hawke of Australia on 19th of
February that his Cabinet had reaffirmed Australia's support for
the ANZUS Alliance and for the full responsibilities that the
alliance entails. We note that the Prime Minister describes ship
visits and US/ Australian joint facilities as continuing
fundamentals to the Australian/ United States alliance
relationship. We welcome these reaffirmations of Australia's
commitment to its ties with the United States." Now when you take
that into account, his statement of the 20th of February, with
what was also said by thePresident of the United States when we
were there earlier in February, it is quite clear as far as the
United States is concerned, as it is clear as far as Australia is
concerned, the operational defence relationship between us remains
intact.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, will there be formal ministerial
level meetings between Australia and New Zealand under ANZUS in
future? When do you expect they might take place? Will they take
place annually? Are there any arrangements
PM: I have said earlier in this conference that I will be in a
position later this week to make a statement as to the, both in
respect of the United States and Australia, and in respect of
Australia and New Zealand, precisely the form of discussion that
will take place. But they will be bi-lateral.
JOURNALIST: Prime MInister, did the Americans tell you in what way
it would impractical for them to sit down and talk to New Zealand
in an ANZUS Council meeting?
PM: NO they didn't go into detail, but I would suggest that
developments since then make it clear that if you have cut off
intelligence communications from one party to the other then in
the nature of things it is going to be pretty difficult to sit
down and have discussions about the range of issues which in
themselves would tend to be covered by such intelligence
information.
JOURNALIST: Sir, in your view is there any significant element of
the ANZUS treaty which is operative at the moment?
PM: I think you would have to say that in so far as ANZUS was a
tni-lateral relationship, that no there is virtually nothing of it
which is operative now. And I say in operative terms, having
emphasised that the treaty itself is, remains there. Now, my
obligation on behalf of the people of Australia, that in a
situation brought about as a result of a dispute and a difference
between the other two treaty partners, that we do everything we
can do ensure that our essential national security interests are
maintained. And that is what we have done, and what we will
continue to do.
JOURNALIST: Sir, is it a concept now rather than a treaty?
PM: It is a treaty. I mean, I don't know how many times one has
to give an answer.. I think if you look at the transcripts of what
I have said before you will get the answer to your question.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, did you ever consider putting the argument
to the United STates that an ANZUS Council meeting might have been
another opportunity to seek some sort of creation..
PM: Now what I indicated when it was put to me in Washington that
the United States, as it saw it then, could not see its way clear
to participate, was that we said we could understand that
position. But I said I would have to discuss this matter-with my
CAbinet colleagues when I returned to Australia. I also recall
1
that at that point Michelle, the decision had not been made by the
United States in regard to what they would in fact do about
intelligence sharing. It was only subsequently that that decision
was made. Now I and my colleagues have as I indicated to the
United STates that I would do, we have considered-this matter and
we agree that in all those circumstances, as I say a meeting of
the ANZUS Council is not practicable.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, although you say that the ANZUS treaty does
remain now, is it not a fact that even if the United STates wanted
to unilaterally withdraw, under the terms of ANZUS it would not be
able to do so immediately.
PM: But you keep getting into situations which are not relevant.
I repeat I think for the third time, that the. United States has
made it clear that that is not a course of action that they want
to do. So that it can, and hopefully I won't need to say it
again, the position of the United States is that they are not
talking about withdrawing from the treaty. They are not talking
about tearing up the treaty. Now that is the fourth time. I hope
it's clear.
JOURNALIST: Do you feel Mr Lange's current international odyssey
in both in what he is saying and doing, is actually further
undermining the spirit and character of ANZUS or threatens to?
PM: I don't want to make any comment on what you refer to as Mr
Lange's odyssey.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, there is implicit criticism on criticism of
New Zealand and support of the United States in the statements
that you have been making. Would you agree that the United States
unilaterally upgrade or have changed the meaning of the treaty by
insisting that the two other parties accept nuclear armed ships?
PM: No, that is an interpretation which is entirely without
foundation.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, given that important sections of the
Treaty are now not operative, is Australia less secure than we
were before?
PM: No, we are-certainly not-less secure. Again I would have
thought it was clear by now, but again I will repeat it, that as
far as the United States is concerned, their relationship, the
rights and obligations which apply between our two countries,
remain operative. There has been no diminution in that at all.
JOURNALIST: Is New Zealand less secure?
PM: Well, that is ultimately a judgement that New Zealand has to
make as to whether it is less secure and I don't think that the
situation would be assisted by a gratuitous observation from
myself as to whether they are less secure. We have adopted the
6
consisted position, as distinct from the Leader of . the Opposition
who has jumped from one position to another on this seri'ous matter
from the end of last year. We have adopted a consistent position
throughout that is that we are not goin g to attempt to interfere
with the decisions of New Zealand or of the United States. Our
pre-eminent and continuing responsibility has been the protection
of our national security interests.
PM: Mr Hawke, why does the Australian Government as the host of
the ANZUS Council choose to make the announcement of the
cancellation, rather than leave it to the US Government who didn't
choose to participate?
PM: Because we are the hosts. We are the ones who issue the
invitations. Now what we have got to and that is on a
rotational basis. It was our turn to host this year and now we
have got to deal with the realities. I am not in the business of
trying to play political advantage in this, as I keep repeating.
What we have got to do is to make sure that we make decisions that
ensure that Australia's real interests are protected. Now the
realities are that the Council could not in any effective sense go
ahead. Therefore, we as a Government have to be in a position to
go ahead and make the bilateral arrangements with the United
States and bilateral arrangements with New Zealand. Now, you
can't go ahead and finalise and organise your bilateral
relationships if you are still deluding yourself and deluding
other people that the other meeting is going to go ahead. It
could not go ahead. There is no reasonable, practical effective
way in which it could go ahead, so that had to be cleared out of
the way and let's get on with-the business of dealing with how we
are going to protect Australia's interests in this bilateral
fashion.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, did the United States make it clear to us
that if we decided to go ahead with the meeting, they would not
attend ( inaudible)>
PM: I made it clear that they said that they could not attend a
meeting in those circumstances.
JOURNALIST: Did you seek the views of the New Zealand Government
before deciding?
PM: In the sense that I am not trying to tell New Zealand what
to do, the reciprocal is that I am not conducting my affairs on
the basis that I have to get my decisions cleared with New Zealand
or with anyone else. My responsibility is to Australia. I have
got to deal with this in terms of how you are going to protect
Australia's interests in a context created by the decisions of
others, about their bilateral relations, now the New Zealand
Government made a decision. There was an inevitable reaction from
the United States. As I say, I can't believe that New Zealand
could not have been aware that this is the sort of positi-on that
could have been arrived a-t, but in the circumstance created by
others, then we have, as I say I repeat a pre-eminent
responsibility of taking action to ensure the protection of
Australia's interests and that is what we will always do, as
distinct, I repeat, from Mr Peacock who tries to play politics in
this in October and say, destroy New Zealand. Go for a bilateral
treaty. And then in March says, no don't do that. Negotiate
together to keep them together when it can't be done. That is not
what we are about. We are about the real decisions that have to
be made in this real world.
JOURNALIST: So Mr Hawke, are you hoping now to be rid of this
matter, or are you hoping that it is now a matter between New
Zealand and the United States?
PM: It's not a question of being rid of this matter. I repeat
that the dispute as to whether ships of the United States go into
New Zealand is between the United States and New Zealand. I have
never been possessed or seized of the matter, never, because it
has always been a matter between the United States and New
Zealand. So how can I get rid of something of which I have never
been seized.
JOURNALIST: Do you think there is something odd, Prime Minister,
for the fact that your Prime Minister is out tripping through
Indo-China.
PM: I haven't got a Prime Minister tripping through Indo-China.
It may be that wish may be father to the thought, I accept.
JOURNALIST: Your Foreign Minister is tripping through Indo-China
proposing a role for Australia as a mediator in a conflict which
( inaudible) but our two major allies doorstep.
PM: You always want to be very, very careful about argument by
analogy to make sure that there is an analogy. There is not one
in the circumstances to which you refer. As far as the position
in Indo-China is concerned, there is no treaty relationship with a
situation where one party to the treaty has said this is not
operative and the other has said in those circumstances there is a
certain reaction. Now, in the case of Indo-China we have got the
position where we have certainly an interest in the area. Our
interest in the area has been welcomed by all parties concerned.
Already, Bill Hayden, the Foreign Minister, has played a useful
and constructive role which has been welcomed by others where he
has been acting, as he has, on behalf of our Government. It would
be quite silly and counter-productive for us to say because you
have got some problem in regard to ANZUS that you are not going to
continue there. The ANZUS relationship is one thing. We deal
with that as it stands. It is in no way analagous to what is
happening there. It is entirely appropriate that Mr Hayden should
continue the discussions he is having there and we will continue
to have them because if there is any way in which in those
circumstances we can help to play some role, however small, in
trying to bring that problem to an end, we will do-it.
I, 8
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, in the weeks since your talks with Mr
Shultz have you sought to warn New Zealand that the ANZUS Council
was in jeopardy?
PM: I didn't need to be a messenger. I made it-clear that we
are not a messenger. I said right from the beginning that that is
not how we see our role. You don't believe there haven't been
discussions between the United States and New Zealand.
JOURNALIST: Do you believe that the US has handled this whole
matter with the utmost sensitivity?
PM: I am not here to make judgements, as I said to Max Walsh
about odyssies of one leader around the world, nor am I here to
make judgements about the United States. I have made it clear in
my opening statement that we indicated that we understand the
reaction of the United States in this matter and I don't think
there is anything to add to that.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, would it be reasonable to conclude
that you discussed the inevitable consequences of this action by
New Zealand with Mr Lange when you talked with him at thc South
Pacific Forum?
PM: Well I talked with Mr Lange before the South Pacific Forum
and at the South Pacific Forum wie didn't go into any further
details on this matter. I have simply said here that the
Government of New Zealand has made a decision early in the piece
on this matter. I can't believe that in their consideration of
the decisions they have taken and to which they have adhered,
that they have not addressed their minds to the likely
repercussions.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, has the United States been just
withdrawing its intelligence New Zealand, in other words to
cut off Australian intelligence?
PM: Well I invite you to have a look at the transcript of the
press conference I had on that matter.
JOURNALIST: Why was this decision made now rather than closer to
July.. PM: Well I have already answered that question. Let me repeat
it. Our responsibility is to look after and advance Australia's
national security interests in the real world with which it is
faced. It is quite clear that the trilateral meeting can't go
ahead and that the trilateral relations are not operative. Now
that is the reality. Now, are you suggestig that knowing that
that is the reality I should say, oh well, perhaps a star will
appear in the sky and something might change that real world
situation. We have got to live in that real world situation, so I
have got to be in a position my Foreign Minister, my Defence
Minister have to be in the position to discuss with the United
States what are the arrangements, how are we going. to operate now
in that real world. We have to do the same with New Zealand. it
would be a gross dereliction of duty if faced with that reality, I
said, well I will delay making the arrangements which are
necessary to be made in Australia's interests.
* JOURNALIST: Is it also the reality that the operations of ANZUS
will remain dormant until there is a change of government in New
Zealand?
PM: No, that question has been put to me before. I am not in
the business of saying there has got to be a change of government.
It may be. I don't know. It may be that this Government in New
Zealand could change its position. I don't know.
JOURNALIST: If the New Zealand Government doesn't change its
position, would it be in Australia's security interests for that
government to be defeated?
PM: oh.
* JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, when do we get the Beazley/ Hayden papers
on ANZUS?
/ PM: When do we or when does the Cabinet. I mean, who should get
them first. I mean, do you mind if we get them first?
JOURNALIST: I don't mind ( inaudible).
PM: No, well you have got your own arrangements about that
presumably. We, the Cabinet, expect to get them next week. We
hope to.
: 4* JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, are you concerned that the conflict
between the US and New Zealand is damaging to the security of the
South Pacific region as a whole?
PM: Well, Geoff, let me answer it this way. I think obviously
everyone would have a greater sense of continuity if this problem
hadn't arisen, but I would think that the countries of the South
Pacific would feel, no, from the statements that have been made in
the United States and by myself that as far as the relationship
between the United States and Australia is concerned, they remain,
as I have said, undiminished. So there will be that sense of
continuity. As far as the relationships between Australia and New
Zealand are concerned, we will attempt to keep them in the best
possible shape. So as far as the South Pacific area generally is
concerned, I don't believe there is any reason for concern. There
would have been a reason for concern if this Govenrment had
followed the vacillating policies of the Opposition who one day
a are arguing destroy ANZUS and then another start trying to mediate
in the situation which is unmediatable, but where the countries of
the South Pacific can see the consistency of position that has
been followed by the Australian Government and our commitment to
ensuring that the relationships with the United Sta-tes remain
intact and that we will do our best to do the same thing* with New
Zealand, I don't think in those circumstances there is cause for
concern on their part.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, why do you assume it is unmediatable if
Australia hasn't tried?
PM: It is not a question of not having tried. If you have the
position where as a result of the decision of the New Zealand
Government an important element of the relationship has come to an
end the access of ports for their ships and the United States
in those circumstances has said that it could not and would not
participate in the meeting. And you have the position that New
Zealand is saying, well, no that is it's position. It is not
changing, then you can't mediate a position where the two parties
are saying that is our position.
JOURNALIST: If no-one tries. I mean, you were ACTU President. I
mean, I am sure were faced with similar..
PM: Well, again I warned before about analogies. If you
believe that in a situation talking about the national security
interests of this country, that you are going to say, no, I will
attempt now to interfere in the decision-making process in New
Zealand and I will attempt to interfere in the decision-making
process in the United States, then you are pressing an analogy
which is not sustainable. I mean, which way do you want it. Do
you want it that Australia is going to try and pressure New
Zealand. I mean, what I have been told before and I understand it
and accept it, is that New Zealand is a sovereign foreign country
and that it is not Australia's position to be trying to push New
Zealand around. I have certainly, I mean not that I am an avid
reader of everything that you write if you can accept that
without any disrespect but that certainly has been the position
that you have espoused. Now you can't have it both ways. You
can't be arguing that Australia should be staying aloof from,
leaving this independent nation of New Zealand there to make its
own decision and at the same time saying, oh no, you should be
interfering to get them to change to accommodate to the United
States. In international relationships where two countries make
their position clear on what they regard as a matter of
fundamental impor tance, that is it. There are other areas where
countries concerned can indicate that there is room for manoeuvre,
that there is hope for discussion. Going back to the analogy
that was pressed before in regard to Indo-China, if you want to
say that the two sides roughly in the Indo-China dispute -on the
one hand Vietnam and on the other the ASEAN group there both
sides have indicated that they welcome the involvement of
Australia. It's not a question of dogmatic positions with no room
for positive discussion. They have welcomed and said, perhaps
there is room. That is not the position here.
JOURNALIST: Just to take you back to that answer. you gave Geoff
over there about the South Pacific.
PM: Yes.
JOURNALIST: Your words were that you see the relationship
between the US and Australia remains undiminished.
PM: Yes.
JOURNALIST: Then you went on to say as far as New Zealand and
Australia are concerned, we will attempt to keep it in the best
possible shape.
PM: That's right.
JOURNALIST: Are we to infer from that that our relationship is
diminished, as you see it?
PM: No, what I am saying is that there have got to be further
discussions with New Zealand anid Australia. Those discussions I
will be able, as I say, later in this week to spell out. There
hasn't been, therefore, at this stage, any statement by New
Zealand of its reaction to the position. I was able to quote
precisely from the administration in the United States as to what
the position was. There is no corresponding statement to which
You should read no more into it than that.
JOURNALIST: Has Australia informed New Zealand that the July
Council meeting is off indefinitely because the Americans w-. on't
come, or had Washington already told them?
PM: No. Washington could not have told New Zealand because the
Ambassador of the United States and the High Commissioner for New
Zealand were both informed just before 4 o'clock this afternoon.
JOURNALIST: So this treaty as a tripartite agreement remains
indefinitely a treaty in name only?
PM: Well, I believe that that is not an unfair description
because if in fact a treaty which is a trilateral treaty and under
which certain operations have been going on if those operations
are no longer going on then I guess in some sense that is not an
unfair description. But I do want to emphasise consistent with
what I have said about not intruding into the affairs of New
Zealand or of the United States, in our discussions that we have
with the United States and with New Zealand I mean it may emerge
that there are certain things that went on before which may still
go on. But it is impossible at this point to be definite about
that and therefore I have the responsibility of making sure that
we get the bi-lateral relationships in a sensible, operative way.