PRIME MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT OF NEWS CONFERENCE, HOTEL ROSSI, VANUATU
1 AUGUST 1990
E OE PROOF ONLY
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, does the communique mean
that the weapons from West Germany should not be
destroyed at Johnston Atoll?
PM: What it means is that the Forum has expressed a
concern about that issue. If you turn to the paragraph,
it's about paragraph 28 as I recall. Yes 28. It says
' While noting the stringent precautions being taken by
the United States, the Forum remained concerned by the
substantial potential risk to the environment and peoples
of the Pacific of the whole operation, including, in
particular, shipments of chemical weapons stockpiles from
the Federal Republic of Germany'. So they've expressed a
concern. JOURNALIST: Both Mr Palmer and Mr Namaliu have that
the Forum will oppose the transport of weapons for
destruction. PM: Well the Forum understands that there is nothing
that can be done by the Forum about that issue. There
was considerable discussion on the issue. There's no
doubt, absolutely no doubt, some members of the Forum
would clearly prefer that that not happen. There was no
consensus on that point. The communique goes as far as
there was consensus.
JOURNALIST: Was it a humdinger of a debate as Geoffrey
Palmer said?
PM: Well it may be a humdinger by New Zealand standards.
By the standards of the Australian Labor Party it was
pretty tame.
JOURNALIST: Does it mean that the weapons shipments
will go ahead?
PM: Let's just get the framework right. The Forum was
never going to be able to determine what was going to
happen. The best that the Forum can do on this issue was
to express its point of view. As I say, the communique
of the Forum goes as far as there was consensus and I
obviously acknowledge, as I would've before the Forum,
that there were points of view which go beyond the
consensus contained in the communique. 9
JOURNALIST: Why do you think you failed to convince the
Forum communique
PM: Why did I fail to get the Forum
JOURNALIST: Persuade. Why were you unable to-
PM: Unable to persuade them to adopt a communique to
stop-JOURNALIST: The shipment of weapons.
PM: Because I never set out to do that. So how can I
fail in something I didn't set out to do. I mean I
accept as a politician that I can be accused of failure
if I try to do something and I don't achieve it. I don't
accept that it's a reasonable proposition that I failed
in something I didn't set out to do.
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: No but you heard what she was saying. It was the
other way around. What I am putting is that I put to the
Forum my view and the consensus of the Forum has not put
an opposite to my point of view. I mean it hasn't said
this shouldn't happen. It has expressed its concern. I
think that's the appropriate consensus to have. I mean
if you've got a range of opinions there from one which
says they at one point some of them didn't want any
action at all on Johnston Atoll. You've got some for
that point of view to mine where I think on balance it is
for disarmament reasons best that the FRG stock goes
there for destruction. Now those positions remain. I
hold mine and we have a consensus which goes as far as is
possible and that is to express the concern that people
have about the potential risk. I am perfectly relaxed
about that outcome. It seems to me directly in line with
the best that I could've hoped to achieve.
JOURNALIST: So you weren' t rebuffed?
PM: Look, this is infantile. I mean, with respect, it's
infantile. I was neither rebuffed, nor was the absolute
Australian position endorsed, which I never had any
expectation it would be. The important thing that has
happened out of the discussion is that the Forum has
expressed the view that there should be the destruction
of chemical weapons.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke,
PM: Wait a minute, let me finish. That they have
expressed the view that there should be the destruction
of chemical weapons and they have expressed their
concerns about the possible dangers. Certainly the view
is quite clear, which is Australia's view as well, that
the absolute limit of what should be done at Johnston
Atoll is the three categories. That is those 1800 tonnes
of weapons which are on Johnston Atoll, other stocks
which may be elsewhere in the Pacific, and the stocks
from the Federal Republic of Germany. And beyond that
there should be no more activities there and as far as
the balance of United States stocks are concerned, they
should be destroyed at replica plants on the mainland
United States which is the intention of the United
States. JOURNALIST: said previously by Mr Palmer and Mr
Namilau, have left the clear impression that the Forum
sent a message, definite message to the United States
shipments of those stocks from the FRG Johnston
Atoll... PM: I repeat, I would've thought that this is not a
complex issue. I mean that what I've said in terms of
what's here in the communique makes it quite clear. Let
me, as it does not seem to have been understood, go to
what the wording of the communique is on this issue.
' While noting the stringent precautions being taken by
the United States, the Forum remained concerned by the
substantial potential risk to the environment and peoples
of the Pacific of the whole operation, including, in
particular, shipments of chemical weapons stockpiles from
the Federal Republic of Germany'. They expressed concern
about the whole particularly the shipments of
chemical weapons stockpile from the Federal Republic of
Germany. But they understand that the weapons have to be
destroyed and in regard to those that are there on the
atoll I think there was almost unanimous agreement that
they should be destroyed there. So there's an expression
of concern. But there it is.
JOURNALIST: your reading of that communique, the
Forum is not sending a message to the United States that
they should not send those weapons?
PM: That would be the preference of some members of the
Forum. That would be the preference. I don't want to be
rude to you but how many times do I have to make the
point, and I'll make it again, and I would hope that it
gets through to you. Because it's not a complex point.
It's a very simple point. This is a consensus document.
So a consensus document by definition, if you understand
the word consensus, goes as far as expressing a view held
by all. And that's what it does. So it doesn't go as
far as to say the Forum is saying that all members are
agreed that shipments should not come from the Federal
Republic of Germany. Because there was no such
consensus. It expresses a concern about potential
problems. Ok, I'm quite relaxed about that. But you
could not have a consensus document which said all
members of the Forum were saying that shipment shouldn't
come from the Federal Republic of Germany. Now I repeat,
that is essentially a very simple proposition which is
reflected in the communique.
JOURNALIST: I think I'm across that simple proposition.
Rabbie Namilau's across it because
PM: Well you would have to ask Mr I mean I'm not here
to answer for Mr Palmer, nor am I here to answer for Mr
Namilau. I'm here to answer for Australia, which I'm
doing. JOURNALIST: But Mr Namilau's the Forum chairman and
PM: No he was not the Forum chairman. I mean if you
don't know that by this
JOURNALIST: Forum spokesman, and he has presented that
view to us here tonight.
VAUGHAN: ( inaudible)
PM: The gentleman here is saying that's not so. That he
read the communique to you.
JOURNALIST: Well he did but he also
PM: Well if he read the communique to you it's quite
clear. And I would've assumed that he would do that and
the communique is in terms that I've put it and with the
limitations that I put. And however much, and I know
that you don't want to come all this way without the
possibility of a story, but go beat, beat beat, beat-up,
you will not change in any way, if you're going to be
accurate, the reality of what I've put to you. Because
I'm not making up something. I'm telling you what's
there, I'm telling you factually, I'm telling you what a
consensus is and I'm telling you how far that consensus
communique has been able to go in expressing the view of
the Forum as a whole.
JOURNALIST: How do you expect the United States to
respond to the concerns?
PM: I don't know. I hope they will take it seriously.
Clearly what I want to happen is that we will in this
twenty-one month period take the opportunity to a) have
reported to us what's happening, b) I would hope that
scientists from the Forum would actually go there and
have the opportunity of seeing what's happening and c)
and most importantly, we will certainly be conveying to
the United States those questions that have been raised
in the report which we have circulated to all Forum
members. They have the complete reports that were
available to me and you will see that there were certain
questions raised there. We will raise them with the
United States and I hope they'll be taken into account.
JOURNALIST: Was Australia the only country to stand in
the way of the resolution which might have condemned the
transportation of weapons
PM: No.
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: I'm not going to what happened in terms of
individual positions within the Forum. I answered that
question but I don't go to disclose positions of
particular Forum countries. I mean if you want to try
and find that out you do, but I'm not going to it.
JOURNALIST: You acknowledge that some of the countries
did obviously want the final to go as far as How
hard did you have to argue with them not to
PM: I didn't let me see. How hard did I have to go?
Not as hard as I've had to go on some issues in my
political career. I expressed the view, as I always do,
did it generously, articulately and with a compassionate
view of alternative positions.
JOURNALIST: What's happened to the scientific mission
that you proposed yesterday and today I understand?
* PM: I would think that what is likely to happen -and
let me make this point. The other members of the Forum
made the point that they haven't got the scientific
personnel to participate on a scientific basis in such a
mission. But I would think it would make sense, and it's
perfectly compatible with paragraph 29 ' The Forum
therefore called for early discussions with the United
States on all aspects of the JACADS operations, including
the shipment of stockpiles from FRG.' That it's
consistent with that that we should send some scientists
there. And as I said in the discussion, despite the fact
that our fellow members of the Forum may not have the
scientific qualified personnel, I still think it would be
sensible for some of them to go with our scientists.
Because it wouldn't be satisfactory, I think, in the
circumstances just to have Australians and New Zealanders
there. I think we should have some other people with us
so that they can have the opportunity of asking questions
and being informed.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, you said earlier on that you
didn't want to come to the Forum telling the Pacific
nations what to There's obviously been a very long
debate this afternoon. Were you forced into the position
though of trying to direct them where they didn't want to
go? PM: No, of course not. I mean I would've thought that
you would've understood from my statements of yesterday
that I'm very conscious of the position of Australia. We
have a responsibility to put our knowledge and our
position before the Forum. It would be an insult to our
fellow members of the Forum if we didn't share with them
the knowledge that we have and the positions that we
adopt on the basis of the knowledge we have. Now having
done that, having put your positions, you don't stand
there and say now look, Big Brother has spoken, that's
the position that you must adopt. You do your best to
try and persuade and there is no doubt that as a result
of the position that I've put there is a reflection of
the Australian position within the communique.
JOURNALIST: What do you think motivated some of the
small island states to oppose this proposal so
vigorously? PM: I have no doubt what motivated them to do it. If
you hear of a proposition which is involving the
destruction of chemical weapons and there are suggestions
made by people, as there have been without being
exhaustive about it, and without being condemnatory of
them. But Greenpeace for instance have expressed
concerns and those concerns that have been expressed have
raised apprehension in the minds of these people. That's
perfectly natural. It's what one would expect. I
certainly think they wouldn't have been doing their duty
in this Forum if they hadn't raised those concerns.
There's nothing esoteric about why they would express
those concerns. I would be surprised if they hadn't.
JOURNALIST: Do you accept the line from Mr Palmer where
he said that Forum nations are very concerned that
sending the stockpiles from Germany could create a
dangerous precedent for other countries to use the
Pacific as a dumping ground?
PM: I think that that will not happen. I think the
Forum was correct to express the general point of view,
which they do, that we don't want the Pacific to be
regarded by metropolitan powers as a convenient dumping
ground either for hazardous waste or the testing of
weapons, that it shouldn't be thought of in those terms.
But in regard to Johnston Atoll, I remind you that the
position there is that there are the three categories.
We'll be certainly, from Australia's point of view as
well as the Forum, making it quite clear that we expect
the United States to adhere to what they've said. That
is that there will only be the 1800 tonnes on Johnston
S Atthoaltl , t hearney woitlhle rsb e foau nfdi rmi n antdh e cPoamcpilfeitce aenxdp ecthtea tiFoRGn atnhdat
the rest of the United States stocks of chemical weapons
shall be destroyed in the mainland United States in the
eight plants, in the eight populated areas of the United
States where those plants are planned to built. Now if
that's done, and I expect without question that it should
be done and will be done, then I don't see that there's
any precedent for any other countries to say well we'll
come and try and do this in the Pacific. And what you've
got to remember is that they would have to have a place,
any other power would have to have a place in the Pacific
where they could do it. That, as far as I know, wouldn't
be available to them.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, are you aware that the US Congress
has passed an amendment requiring a feasibility study to
look at transporting chemical weapons from the sites
where they are and do you think one can still have
confidence in Senator Cheney's assurance that they will
not be moved to Johnston Atoll?
PM: Yes.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke, on another issue
JOURNALIST: Are you aware of the amendment?
PM: Just a minute, just a minute. I'll come back to
you. Don't feel that you're going to be ignored.
JOURNALIST: Did you meet with Ratu Mara this afternoon
and, if you did, how did the discussions go and what did
you cover?
PM: Answer, yes, I did meet with Ratu Mara for a period,
I think, of about 40 minutes during the break. The
discussion was conducted amicably. I can't go to
everything that was discussed, but clearly the issues
were essentially what has happened and likely
developments within Fiji and the Fiji-Australia
relationship. That was the generic area of the
discussions. I conveyed to the Fijian Prime Minister the
concerns Australia has about the developments and made
that clear, but didn't, you know, go on and on and on at
great length made the point. I was concerned
essentially now to talk about the future and I believe
that despite the flaws that have been referred to, that
the situation is that the Constitution will now provide
an opportunity for Fiji to return to a form of
representative government and there is no doubt that in
that sense the new Constitution will provide at least a
firmer basis for government than the interim arrangements
which have been in place since the coups of 1987. I
think one must say that regrettably, but realistically,
there appears to be no likelihood that a significantly
different Constitution would be agreed upon in Fiji at
the moment. Now that seems to be a realistic assessment
of the situation. Now, obviously, I make the judgement
that it is a matter for the coalition interests to make
their own decision as to whether they are going to
participate in the processes under the new Constitution.
That's their decision and no-one else's decision. But I
expressed the view and I have the view that it, there
would be, I think, value in their reconsidering their
initial statement that they're not going to participate,
that they're going to boycott the processes. It seems to
me that it's important that all groups in Fiji should
stay engaged in the parliamentary processes and, for as
far as it's possible in that way, for the multi-racial
traditions of Fiji to be kept alive. Now clearly, as far
as the future is concerned, how the relations between
Fiji and Australia will develop will depend, amongst
other things, upon how the system of government develops
under the new Constitution and, may I say, particularly
including the extent of military influence. So these
were the range of issues and the basis upon which I
conducted the discussion with the Prime Minister of Fiji.
JOURNALIST: boycott, do you believe that this
Constitution is broadly acceptable to the majority of
Fij ians?
8
PM: Well, there's obviously a significant proportion of
the Fijian population that don't accept it. I mean, the
interim government would acknowledge that, but having
said that and we have referred to what are perceived as
inadequacies, you've got to now ask yourself, is thereany,
is there any possibility, any realistic possibility,
of there being a different Constitution adopted and if
the judgement is made that there is not, then it seems to
us that what needs to happen is to try and get the system
of representative and parliamentary government going
again, even from the point of view, those who would
prefer to see what they regard as a better and more
representative Constitution, to try and get this going
and on that basis, see if subsequently there may be the
basis of change. I'm sorry, now someone was saying I
haven't answered a question.
JOURNALIST: question was whether you were aware that
the US Congress had passed
PM: The answer to that is no.
JOURNALIST: If the elections are held in Fiji over the
Constitution by the Council of Chiefs, and if Rabuka
is elected as Prime Minister and he attends the next
Forum, obviously Mara is not going to attend. Will you
attend the Forum, next Forum, next year if Rabuka comes?
PM: Yes, I'll be at the next Forum. Of couse I will be.
Well, when I say of course I will be, I mean, all other
things being willing, but I don't have my attendance,
whether it's at the Forum or at the Commonwealth,
determined by other people. I go to the Forum and I go
to the Commonwealth to represent Australia's point of
view and to advance Australia's, both Australia's
interests and Australia's concerns, as to how it may be
able to be of assistance to others. If you take the
situation of the Commonwealth, for instance, that group
of some 50 nations, the fact that I sit down with some 49
other leaders from the Commonwealth doesn't mean that I
embrace the Constitutional position of every state there
at the Commonwealth. Far from it. There are
Constitutional positions in some of the Commonwealth
countries that, may I say, are significantly less
democratic, significantly less democratic than the
proposed Constitution of Fiji. But the fact is that you
go, you discuss the issues that are before, whether it's
the Forum or the Commonwealth, and you do it in a way
which is based upon what you think is going to best
advance the interests of your own country and the others
with whom you're meeting.
JOURNALIST: ( inaudible)
PM: I don't think anyone went into this Forum meeting
believing that we were going to determine what the United
States would do. But I think there is a chance that out
of this meeting certain concerns that we have are going
to be able to be addressed to the United States. Let me
say that I believe that in talking to the United States
9
now I will not only have the authority of speaking as far
as Australia is concerned, but I will certainly be able
to say on particular issues that have been raised by my
scientists that I've shared this information with my
colleague countries in the South Pacific and they at
least, at the very least, share those concerns. So that
in speaking to the United States there will be that added
authority. I believe that the United States will listen
seriously to what we've got to say because I can assure
you that I-will be putting these issues to them very
seriously. ends