CHECK AGAINST DELI! B EMAROED UNTIL DEIr-VERY
SPEECH BY THE PRIME MINISTER
FOREIGN CORRESPONDENTS CLUE
SYDNEY 23 SEPTEMBER 1991
Last year I addressed this club in December. It was a few days
after the United Nations Security Council had authorised
military action to force Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait. We all
hoped then that force would not be necessary. But we accepted
that if Iraq would not comply voluntarily with the UN's
demands, then Australia, along with many other nations, would
commit forces: to combat in support of the United Nations.
I explained to you here last year our reasons for taking that
momentous decision. I spoke about the importance of the Kuwait
crisis for the shape of the world order in the post Cold War
era. Well, Saddam Hussein did not draw back; the international
coalition did go to war on behalf of the United Nations; and of
course they wrere very swiftly successful. We will probably
never know the true scale of Iraq's casualties; the coalition's
were mercifully few. But for all who suffered we grieve. Even
short wars impose a terrible cost.
So I think it: is proper that I return this year to the
propositions I was putting to you last year, to see how the
world has gone since the Gulf War; to see whether it is indeed
a better place; and to see what more needs to be done.
Looking back over the past nine months, one would have to say
that there are many solid grounds for satisfaction about the
way the international community is developing.
First, of course, there was our swift success in the Gulf
itself. Since the First World War, the international
community has been trying to build the institutions and
summon the will to resist military aggression. This year,
for the first time, we made it work, and that has made us
all safer.
In the aftermath of the Gulf War, the international
communit~ y organised an unprecedentedly swift and effective
response to the plight of Kurdish refugees in and around
northern Iraq. Australian soldiers joined an enormous
internat~ ional humanitarian effort which transcended
internat~ ional boundaries, and the United Nations showed
unprecedented initiative and resourcefulness in protecting
Iraq's Kurds from their own government.
Elsewhere in the Middle East, the end of the Gulf War has
indeed, as we hoped and believed it would, brought a new
urge for peace between Israel and her Arab neighbours, and
new hope to the Palestinians. The Gulf War showed the
people of the Middle East that they have interests in
common, and taught them that they can cooperate to serve
those interests. The present moves towards a peace
conference are only a beginning. But they are the best
beginning we have seen in decades, and we urge all sides
to let the conference happen, and to make it work.
In South Africa, while violence and prevarication have
impeded the establishment of an interim government and the
commencement of constitutional negotiations, the promises
of President de Kierk's historic speech of 1 February 1991
have been largely fulfilled. The legislative pillars of
apartheid have been dismantled, political prisoners have
been freed, and exiles can return. Our impatience for the
establishment of the new South Africa should not blind us
to the enormous progress that has been made. I will
return to this issue later.
The Australian-French initiative to prevent mining in
Antarctica and preserve the wilderness continent has been
crowned by the agreement this year to an absolute ban for
fifty years, with strong provisions for its indefinite
extension. This is one of the most far-reaching
international environmental agreements so far. And next
year the UN Conference on Environment and Development will
aim to extend international action on the environment
still further.
Cambodia's factions have at last agreed on a settlement
process which will lead to free and fair elections for a
national government under UN sponsorship. For Australia
this is specially gratifying. The Cambodian problem has
threatened the stability of our own region, and Australia,
through Gareth Evans, has contributed much to the UN plan.
Also in our own region, many of the more durable relics of
the Cold War are breaking up. North and South Korea have
been admitted to the United Nations, holding out hope for
a peaceful future for the Peninsula. And China and Taiwan
have agreed to participate together in APEC.
Almost unnoticed, the conclusion of the START treaty
between the Soviet Union and the United States committing
them to cut their nuclear arsenals for the first time,
marked a stage in the end of the Cold War as decisive as
the collapse of the Berlin Wall.
And lastly, of course, there is the Russian Revolution.
There is no irony in that phrase. It is now obvious that
the events of the past month take the people of the Soviet
Union back again to the point at which, in 1917, they took
the path of communism, and offer them again the choice of
freedom. Having by their own actions overthrown the
largest, most powerful and most intrusive state apparatus
the world has ever seen, there can be no doubt what their
choice will be. Already, to our great delight, the Baltic
States have been restored to independence.
All that adds up to a lot of good news. I do not of course
claim that all of these happy developments are the result of
the Gulf War. But I do claim that all of these developments,
in so many different areas, show that we were right to believe
that the end of the Cold War offered not just an end to rivalry
and terror, but a beginning of cooperation and hope; that there
is indeed a ne~ w world order; inchoate, amorphous, but real.
We can see that reality in all of these developments. We see
people and nations moved by the same group of instincts and
aspirations; peace and freedom from aggression, democratic
institutions of representative government, the rule of law,
respect for human rights, the economic opportunities of a free
market, and respect for the environment.
And in every case we see a new willingness indeed a new
determination to cooperate internationally to fulfil these
aspirations. Your profession places a premium on scepticism, and there have
been plenty of sceptics about the new world order. But
journalists, find foreign correspondents in particular, have
their own quit~ e central place in this new world order. Because
one of its features is a growing acceptance of the role of the
international free press.
Journalists un~ der air attack in Tel Aviv and Riyadh and
Baghdad; amoncr the Kurds in the squalid mountains of the
Turkey-Iraq border; and with the people of Moscow around the
Russian Parliament in August, have done their vital part to
build the determination to cooperate which has made the new
world order work. So don't knock it you're a big part of it.
And journalists are part of it again right now in Yugoslavia.
The Yugoslav crisis is important, not just because the lives
and welfare of' millions of people are at stake, many of whom
have close links to Australia; nor is the crisis important only
because it threatens the peace and stability of an important
portion of Europe.
It is also important because, like the Gulf Crisis last year,
the way the world responds to the tragedy in Yugoslavia will
help to define in important ways the sort of world we are to
live in. Like the Gulf, it too is a test of our new world
order.
And that is why Yugoslavia matters. Through our Yugoslavian
communities, Australia has a direct and vivid stake in the
crisis through the most fundamental human connections of family
and friends. But beyond even that link, Yugoslavia matters to
Australia and other nations all over the world, because it
matters to all of us that we live in a world in which the
international community will not stand idly by and watch
thousands die and millions suffer.
The world has a right to expect that we can find a means to end
such senseless violence. It certainly has a right to demand
that we try everything that might work. That is why I have
from the outset rejected the reasoning of those who argue that
the United Nations should not even try to address this problem,
and who can give no better reason than that such a thing has
never been done before.
In 1991 it should be unthinkable that the United Nations could
stand back from a crisis that threatens the lives of millions,
and the peace of Europe, on a point of precedent.
And we should all be deeply disappointed if we find the limits
of the new world order drawn in the fields and towns of
Yugoslavia. I have higher hopes.
That is why I have written to the Secretary-General of the
United Nations to urge that the issue should, as a necessary
first step, be brought before the Security Council urgently. I
am glad to see that my call has been widely supported, and a
meeting is now expected later this week.
Ladies and gentlemen
Australia's interests are engaged in Yugoslavia, as they are
engaged throughout the world in the emergence of the new values
I have spoken about.
Australia's security has been enhanced as nuclear
confrontation has waned, and as the United Nations has
shown that it can respond decisively to aggression.
Our economic interests are enhanced as market forces
encourage growth in economies long held stagnant behind a
wall of centralised bureaucratic command.
Our environment is enhanced as more governments are forced
by their own people to take greater account of
environmental values.
And less tangibly but perhaps most importantly, our humanity is
amplified as more and more people around the world start to
realise the universal aspirations to dignity, security and
prosperity through the institutions of democratic government
and market economics.
For every culture and society around the world there will be a
unique way of translating that society's aspirations into
effective political and economic institutions.
We in Australia understand that fundamental human aspirations
may be realised in different ways, reflecting different
cultural and political traditions. Within internationallyaccepted
standards of human rights, different societies place
different values on discipline and on freedom; on cohesion and
on individuality; on respect for elders and on self-expression.
We should not be disturbed by these differences; they exist
between neighbours everywhere.
It is an essential element of Australia's cultural tradition
that we respect and tolerate values and perspectives that are
different from our own. We feel no embarrassment about
discussing such differences, because we accept that people of
good will may differ on significant issues without respecting
one another any the less.
But I am sure that this is not a uniquely Australian or Western
characteristic. I have found that some of our neighbours are
perfectly happy to discuss these cultural differences. I am
sure that they do not intend that Australia should conform to
their traditions, just as I know that we do not expect them to
conform to ours.
But I know that they do expect that we should make an effort to
understand their traditions and institutions before we comment
on them, and wre expect the same of them. I would have to say
that these expectations have not always been met from either
side. Ladies and gentlemen,
Each country bias to work out its own way to meet the needs and
hopes of its people. But there is great scope for
international cooperation to support individual countries'
efforts to achieve a better future for their own people, and to
the benefit of' us all.
Few international bodies are better equipped than the
Commonwealth to foster such cooperation. The Commonwealth
brings together both developed and developing countries. It
draws on the strengths of its politically and culturally
diverse member-ship to address the important issues involved in
the development of what we might call ' good government' in an
informal and consensual way. By ' good government', I mean the
institutions and practices which turn aspirations to democracy
and prosperity into practical reality.
At the Commonwealth leaders' meeting in Harare next month we
will be looking at the role of the Commonwealth into the next
century. Work carried out since the last meeting in Kuala
Lumpur has suggested that good government is one area in which
the Commonwealth can and should take a larger role.
Clearly this is a role for the Commonwealth which accords
precisely with broader international developments.
I look forward to discussions on this with other Commonwealth
leaders in Harare. We will be looking at ways to build on our
shared traditions and institutions to enhance democratic
processes and sound economic practices within Commonwealth
member countries.
In many respects the Commonwealth is already leading the way in
providing practical assistance to help member countries develop
good government. The Commonwealth Secretariat is running
training programs on electoral procedures for member countries,
and it is providing electoral observer missions in Bangladesh,
Guyana, and Zambia.
Within the Commonwealth membership itself, there has been a
heartening shift towards the principles and practices of good
government. Multi-party democracy is becoming more widely
entrenched, and economic policies are becoming more marketoriented.
In Africa, for example, Ghana is making steady economic
progress under a freer market. Nigeria's transitional
administration is moving towards multi-party democracy.
Zambia's first multi-party elections since independence will
take place in October, and the Commonwealth will assist in the
achievement of this national milestone.
Namibia, only recently independent, is already showing all the
signs of a robust democracy and a growing economy. I am proud
of Australia's role in assisting that process, and encouraged
by the early indications that a stable and functioning
democracy has taken a permanent hold in Namibia.
One area where we in Australia and the Commonwealth at large
feel a special obligation to help is in the development of just
political and economic institutions in South Africa.
South Africa is now approaching a crucial stage of transition
from the shameful era of apartheid to what we hope will be a
full non-racial democracy.
That South Africa has reached this point, after so many hard
years of oppression for the majority of its people, is a
testament to the vision and courage of Nelson Mandela and other
black leaders, and the foresight of President de Klerk, and to
the people of South Africa themselves.
But South Africa's substantial progress towards a free nonracial
democratic future is also due in no small measure to the
determination and cooperation of the international community in
adopting and maintaining sanctions against the apartheid
regime. The Commonwealth has played a leading role in developing and
implementing international sanctions. I take pride in
Australia's role in this; we have been consistently at the
forefront of those who have sought to apply international
pressure to South Africa to bring it to its senses. And we
remain at the forefront now in formulating appropriate
international responses to the process of reform in South
Af rica.
7.
The barriers in South Africa have not and will not come down
overnight. Dismantling apartheid will be a long and difficult
process. The continuing bloodshed on the streets is a tragic
testimony to the culture of violence built up over many years
of distrust and suspicion.
The recent peace accord is a heartening sign but it will be
some time before real peace can be guaranteed. International
pressure will. still be required to ensure that the reforms
underway in South Africa are brought to fruition and the
aspirations of its people fully realised.
This was recognised by the Commonwealth Committee of Foreign
Ministers on South Africa at their recent meeting in New Delhi.
The Committee has recommended, to Heads of Government in Harare
that the reforms implemented to date be acknowledged by the
immediate lifting of so-called people-to-people sanctions
including visas, airlinks, and cultural contacts. Trade,
economic and financial sanctions will be maintained until
further specified progress has been made. We hope that will
not take long.
And we must remember that in South Africa, as in so many other
countries, the political revolution is only the start.
Establishing a resilient, steadily-growing economy which can
fulfil the aspirations of all South Africa's people will be an
enormous challenge. South Africa's leaders must be careful not
to raise unreal expectations in their followers. The struggle
for economic prosperity will be no easier than the struggle for
political freedom.
The urgent need to rebuild South Africa's economy after the
ravages of apartheid means that sanctions should not be applied
any longer than is necessary to secure essential political
reforms. And we must start now to foster economic as well as
political reform.-
My Government has already established training and economic
planning assistance programs for South Africa. The
Commonwealth is also playing a leading role. A Commonwealth
working group has studied the needs of a post-apartheid
democratic South Africa and in Harare we will be looking at
ways in which Commonwealth members can assist in meeting those
needs. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, South Africa's economic
regeneration will require the same condition that makes other
economies flourish; a free international trading system. That
system is now under a grave threat.
Ladies and gentlemen
Amidst all the heartening developments over the past year, irk
one area the world has moved backwards. Against the trend, the
world trade negotiations in the Uruguay Round have scarcely
moved since last year when the Brussels ministerial meeting
which was meant to conclude the Round fizzled out.
S.. 8.
You will all know where we stand on the principle issues of the
Round. We have sought to bring agricultural trade under the
GATT for the first time, so as to reform the gross distortion
in this sector of world trade which hurts us so badly. We have
succeeded, through the Cairns Group, in bringing agriculture to
centre stage. To secure a result we have been prepared to make
major concessions both in agriculture and in other areas.
You will know that we hold the Europeans principally
responsible for the impasse. But I do not want here to recite
our grievances. I want to make a more general point. I have
said that the events of the past year have confirmed that there
is a new world order, and that it is based on principles of
cooperation and liberality. We have seen what can now be
achieved through international cooperation which even five
years ago would have been undreamt of. And we understand that
all of our nations live by trade; it is the foundation of our
prosperity. So how can it be that in 1991, the nations of the world cannot
agree to reform the GATT to everyone's advantage? With so much
at stake, why can't we get a result? Because I very much fear
that without the GATT, the achievements of the new world order
will be put at risk. That is why it is so imperative that
other vital issues like Yugoslavia important as they are do
not prevent world leaders from becoming deeply and personally
engaged in the complex issues of the Uruguay round. There is
no more important issue. Quite simply, the future of the
international community depends on it.