TRAN'SCRIPT OF PRESS CONFERENCE, KING DAVID HOTEL, JERUSALEM
27 JANUARY 1987
L 0 E -PROOF ONLY
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawk-,-did you-urge--Mr -Shamir-to accept-thhe
Soviet Union and the PLO in an international peace conference?
P: I -put -to -the-Pri-me iitr tIbeiv h conciept _ oftfh~ e_
international conference had merit. And that means that I also
indicated in that context there is a place for the Soviet Union
as part of that process. . As far as the PLO was concerned, I didn't
go specifically to that. It is quite clear that the question of
thie PLO is-something that will have to he determined in the
processes of discussions between the parties as they go further
down the path with peace processes. Clearly, the position of
myself and my Government is that the capacity of the PLO to play
a role in these processes depends on their pkeparednes to
recognise the right of Israel and-that-is done most desirably,
of course, by an amendment to their charter which calls for the
destruction of Israel. Alternatively, in terms of the approach
that King Hussein was purs~ ng between February of 1485 and
February 1986. The recognition On their part of the resolutions
242 and 338 constituting a basis for negotiation.
JOURNALIST: What * hs Mr Shamir ' s response?
PM: The Prime Minister repeated his position that they didn't
like the idea of an international conference that was a matter
essentially for negotiation between the parties directly concerned.
I put the view to him that we wvould not see, and as I understood the
Jordanian position, they would not see the conference as imposing
solutions upon the parties within the framework of an
international conference properly convened on agreement between the
Earties that it uould provide a framew~ ork within which discussions
etween the parties would take place. Because it is obviously the
case that in the end no agreement is going to be no viable agreement
is going to emerge except out of negotiations between the parties.
But an international conference could provide a framework. I
raised the question of the resumption of diplomatic relations bertween
th~ e Soviet Union and Israel and some change in the attitude of the
Soviet Union and the treatment of Soviet Jewry. And the Prime
Minister indiicated that in th1e event that these things were to
happen then that could constitute a changed position within which
there wouldibb a place for the Soviet Union in the processes concernir
the achievement of a peaceful resolution of the Israeli
JOURNALIST: has he asked you play any--role?
PM: No, he hasn't asked me to play a role.
ki
JOURNALIST: Do you see a role for yourself?
PM: No, I don't push a role for myself but I merely indicated
again to Prime Minister Shamir as I did to the King of Jordan and
the Prime minister of Jordan that if there was any way in which
Australia could be of assistance, however small, we stood ready
to be of assistance. And the Prime Minister noted that with
appreciation. JOURNALIST: Is it possible that Mr Sheverdnadze will come if and
when he comes to Australla?
PM: of course. I will-discuss thesje, issues-with Mr-Sheverdnadze
if and when he comes to Australia.
JOURNALIST: Mr -Hawke.,-. could raise-the--subjec-t of -th. visittoL__
Australia by Mr Ariel Sharon. Does it concern you that there
could be some controversy and concern amongst Australians by that
visit? Have you been concerned by it?
PM: obviously there could be some concerns about that but all I
can say is that that hasn't been a matter of discussion.
JOURNALIST: Will you welcome him to Australia?
PM: It won't be my role to welcome him. When Ministers come to
Australia the Prime Minister doesn't meet Ministers. The
Minister concerned meets and deals with Ministers.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, just getting back to the middle East talks
that you had with Mr Shamir. Did you feel in any sense that his
attitude was somewhat inflexible?
PM: He ' has got a tough position. But let me say this that I
have no doubt that the Prime Minister and the Government of
Israel is committed to achieving a just and durable settlement of
the Israeli/ Arab dispute. And I think that the Prime minister
recognises that both within Israel and outside Israel there are
differences of opinion about the paths to peace, how to get
there. And I would think he recognises that there is legitimate
room for these differences of opinion. And I would hope that his
attitude would be that if you can keep talks going in a variety
of ways, including the involvement of other countries like
Australia, in these sorts of discussions that gradually there is
going to emerge sufficient commonality of ground to accelerate
the processes. But I think what has got to be understood is that
you are dealing here with a dispute of longstanding in which
* there are long historical and deep emotional feelings and..
attitudes involved. And it is somewhat unrealistic to expect
them to be dissipated overnight. The important thing that I have
discerned in the two countries now that I have visited Jordan
and Israel that there is a real commitment to achieving peace.
And all of us who have an interest in trying to assist in the
achievement of that objective have got to keep on trying and, as
I say, to try to get to a position where there can be sufficient
common ground to get real negotiations going.
JOURNALIST: Could there be greater flexibility there on the part'
of Mr Shamir?
PM1: Well, obviously one would always like to see a maximum of
flexibility but it's not for me to come here and tell the Prime
Minister of this country by public exposition how he should
conduct himself. The proper ways of conducting these affairs are
by quiet and diplomatic discussion and by enabling the parties
involved, in these case Israel to understand the integrity of the
way in which you put a position and I am certain that Mr Shamir
understands and accepts the full integrity of. Australia's
position in this
JOURNALIST: Do you think that he was at all impressed? I assume
that you put to him your impressions-of.-the--Jordanian visit.
made it very clear that you were impressed by their integrity.
Do you think that you made an impact on him at all?
PM: Yes, I think I did, because as you would appreciate that
some two and a half hours of discussions with the Prime Minister,
and then some informal discussions and over three hours with the
King, I did have a fairly unique opportunity of getting the most
up to date detailed exposition of the Jordanian position, and
yes, I do think I was able to impress Mr Shamir, firstly, with
the total integrity and commitment of the Jordanians to wanting
to achieve a just, reasonable and durable peace between Israel
and their Arab neighbours. I have certainly succeeded in
conveying that, and I think I also succeeded in conveying to Mr
Shamir the reason behind Jordan'-s thinking as to the appropriate
processes, as to why Jordan saw an international conference as a
necessary part of those processes.
JOURNALIST: Do you see any prospect of Mr Shamir moving on this
matter? Was he at all impressed1 by your arguments about the
conflict of the framework of that matter?
PM: Well, you will have to ask Mr Shamir if you have the
opportunity. You would have to ask him as to what impression I
had upon him in expressing the views that I did. But what you
have got to understand when you are talking about Mr Shamir's
views and positions is that he is the leader of a coalition
government and that within that Government he readily
acknowledges as there is within Israel as a whole, there are
differences of opinion, and he acknowledges that there are
diversities and legitimate differences of opinion, so the
processes of going down this tortuous path to peace, the
processes not only between Israel and her neighbours and other
countries who are interested in this issue but it-is also a
question of processes within Israel.
JOURNALIST: Do you think that Mr Peres has it right, that his
position seems to be very similar to yours?
PM: As yet, Greg, I haven't had the opportunity as you would
appreciate of talking with Shimon Peres, he returns to Israel
tomorrow, and I will have the opportunity of fairly lengthy
discussions with him during tomorrow afternoon and tomorrow
evening at the dinner that he is giving for me. I suppose it is
obvious from what Mr Peres has said publicly, I suppose it is
obvious from the reports of the meetings at Alexandria last year
between Prime Minister Peres, as he then was, and President
mubarak that there is a greater degree of similarity between what
he has been saying and the view that I have about what will be
necessary to get these processes going effectively and let me
make it quite clear I don't come to Israel in any sense to try
and exacerbate any differences that there may be between the
Prime Minister and his Foreign Minister. That would be
counter-productive. In the end these processes are going to have
a chance of working, then there has to be an Israeli position,
the achievement of that position is properly for the
p-roce-sse s of -th-is g6e~ it-.-
JOURNALIST: Did you-ur ge.. the P-rim e Minister to stop the
settlements program in the West Bank, and secondly, did j0u urge_
Israel to sign the non-proliferation treaty?
PM: Well, taking the first part of your question, it is fairly
obvious, the direct answer to your question is I didn't say that,
I didn't go to the issue and say please stop the settlement. I
make the point that in so far as we are talking about the rights
of self-determination for the Palestinians with the possibilities
of an independent state emerging and then I will be saying that
the view that's emerged to me from discussions in Jordan as to
the most likely outcome of those processes would be a form of
confederation with Jordan. I mean it follows from that, that our
statement and policies beforehand about the five-year settlements
is understood. Now the second part of your question about
non-proliferation, I did discuss that matter with the Prime
Minister Shamir. I said to the Prime Minister that Australia
which has an alliance relationship with the United States, has
nevertheless consistently since we've been in Government, pursued
the cause of disarmament, or vigorously perhaps in the pursuit in
the other issue in the international sphere, and I pointed out to
him the commitment that we have to th,-NPT and that we saw this
as an important part of the progress on the part of realistic and
verifiable disarmament. And said to him specifically that we
would regard it as appropriate for Israel to consider an
adherence to the NPT. The response of the Prime Minister was an
interesting, and I think, an important one. He recognised
Australia's interest, and proper interests in these matters. He
said that the position of Israel was this: that they had offered
and their position had remained this to the states in the
region. They, Israel, want the states in the region to sign an
agreement to which Israel would be party, rennouncing the
acquisition and utilisation of nuclear weapons, and he said to me
that if the states of the region were prepared to sign such an
agreement that's what Israel would do, and I asked whether that
would be within the framework of the NPT and he said it was
conceivable it could be within that framework but what was
important was that it had to be a real agreement, a resourceful
agreement, and it would probably need even more than the NPT.
JOURNALIST: Did Mr Shamir actually ask you for your agreement of
representation from the Soviet Union?
PM: He raised the question of not only the release of Soviet
Jews, but the treatment of Jews within the Soviet Union, and
asked me and the Government to do whatever we could in that
regard. And he did that in the context of expressing his
gratitude for all that I and the Government and had done in that
respect. I said to him that both I and Bill Hayden had
consistently since we've been in Government at every appropriate
opportunity raised these issues and that we will continue to do
SO.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, did Mr Shamir indicate to you the
Arab countries had agreed to sign an agreement on the nuclear
weapons, that Israel might be prepared to dismantle its nuclear
-__--armaments-program?
PM: Well, it seemed to me to follow logically that this was an
agreement-which he wished to see, then that would follow. I
didn't ask him what the extent of their program was, we have seen
the public reports. But obviously it follows logically that if
there was to be a signed agreement--that there-was to be noacquisition,
no utilisation, then the extent that any state was
in a current situation which was not consistent with such a
treaty, then they would have to take the steps to become
consistent with the treaty.
JOURNALIST: Did you know about the Sharon visit, at the time of
the invitation from the Trade Minister?
PM: Not immediately, no. You know the way I run this
Government, that I don't stand over my ministers, and say before
you make decisions which are legitimately within your portfolio.
JOURNALIST: sensitive
PM: Yes, but there are a lots of things that happen which are
sensitive, and part of the strength of my government is that
minister's know that I have confidencg in them and I'm not an
interfering Prime minister. I have said many times, and it is
appropriate to say it again, that it is an extraordinarily
competent Ministry it is the best Ministry by far since the war
in our country. One of the reasons for its strength is not only
the individual competence of the Ministers, but the relationship
I have with them.
JOURNALIST: you know about it in advance..
PM: Hey, that sounds terribly like a hypothetical question.
JOURNALIST: Do you think it damages the perception of your
even-handed policy towards the Middle East, given that your
Government has rejected the UN seminar in Australia, would have
brought a PLO diplomat to our country?
PM: There is no comparison to a solution. We'll have to leave
it there.