Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference 1971
" COIV'. OiPWLALTH IN T11-1' 7' EVE3' TrIES AND CoMIIYoir'JEALTH DECLARATIOil
รต p4eech by~ the Prime Minister,. Mr. John Gorton
Before I actually discuss the Commonwealth in the Seventies and President
Kaunda's Declaration which is intimately bound up with the Commonwealth in the
Seventies, there is one thing which I think it is rather appropriate to say.
I think it was Mr. Forbes Burnham who in his set speech earlier in this
conference jokingly remarked on whether Great Britain went by the name of Britain
or went by the name of the United Kingdom, which is sometimes confused, and he
thought it might have something to do with the place around the table at which the
representatives from that nation sat. I think perhaps I might add to this.
It is really quite immaterial which place at the table the representatives
of Britain occupy, because if it were not for Britain there wiould be no table at all for
anyone to sit around. We are all of us former colonies and we were, all of us, governed
by former Governments in Great Britain. We all achieved independence sometimes
given more reluctantly than at others but we all achieved independence. And having
received it, we were able to form an association which I thinky no former colonial
power -would have been able to form with those whom it had previously governed.
And as we look forward to the seventies, and as we look forward to what the
Commonwealth may do or may not do in those years ahead, we may perhaps spare
just one brief moment to look back with some appreciation of the acts which made the
Commonwealth possible.
There is undoubtedly going to be in this new decade further problems with
which the Commonwealth must concern itself in all areas. And it is because we are
at the beginning of a new decade that I thought it was appropriate for President Kaunda
to set down, as he did, statements as to what the Commonwealth was, how the
Commonwealth can operate, and what the Commonwealth saw as the major problems
facing it in this coming decade of the seventies. And I was therefore able to support
fully in principle the unusual course that such a declaration z-hould be made by this
Conference. But I would like first to express Australia's opinion of what the Commonwealth
is and as to how we think it should operate.
It is, as the proposed Declaration quite clearly says, " a voluntary association
of independent sovereign States" and it comes from the six continents and the five
oceans and it has certain positions in common and certain aims in common. It may
be that in the achievement of those aims and in the working o: Z the Commonwealth as
it meets together, there may be required to be changes of some kind in the way it
operates in future.
But 1 believe that in other cases it is vital that there should not be changes
but there should be retention of the way in which the Commonwealth has operated in
the past. In that way the nations Of the Commonwealth come together to exchange views,
to listen to the point of view of those who come from other nations, to get to know
individuals which is of quite some importance. But it never operates in the contejt
that there should be decisions made by Commonwealth members that are binding on
any single member of the Commonwealth, and it never operates on the concept
that a general consensus of view should be in any way binding or taken seriously
and acted upon by any constituent member who does not share in that consensus.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, and I wish it to be clearly stated in the record,
that Australia believes that that principle must be retained. It is utterly essential
that there should be no attempt, conscious or unconscious, to turn the Commonwealth
into a mini-United Nations. Because as I see it, if that course is followed, then the
Commonweal th itself will tend to disintegrate. It cannot be a gathering of people
seeking to impose views on any single member.
And that goes for all those sitting around this table. Certainly that is the
concept that Australia has of the role of the Commonwealth. Those are the ideals,
those are the concepts which we seek in the Commonwealth, and I would like all to
be aware of that.
VWe ourselves do not, and will not, seek to impose our point of view on
anything on anyone else. Similarly, we will not accept the concept that there could
be an imposition on us of a point of view with which we do niot agree.
And so that, Sir, is whAt I would hope the Commonwealth would continue
to be in the Seventies a voluntary association of independent sovereign states, each
state retaining complete independence, no state, either alone or in conjunction with
others, seeking t o try to make decisions binding on any other member of the
Commonwealth. I think, perhaps, that it is not altogether a good development that we have
been so concerned with seeking to get forms of words which can meet with general
agreement. The end result of that is very often there is a form of words to which
everybody says they subscribe and views which everybody says they hold, but a form
of words which in fact does not fully set out completely the views of anybody. And
I think it is much better for the Commonwealth to operate i future without worrying
about different views being expressed. / 3
For our part, we would be perfectly happy to be the only nation sitting around
this table who disagreed with what everybody else wanted to do or say. And we would
think none the worse at all off any other nation should they alone differ from the viewis
of others. This, of course, is an extreme example, but it ic~ put to underline v-hat
I believe to be the principles on which the Commonwealth should operate as it approaches
the . problems of the seventies. Those problems have in my view, very properly been
isolated in President Kaunda's Declaration. I would like to see them stated as: problems
with which the Commonwealth must concern itself and not go any further in indicating
how the Commonwealth or members of it should concern themselves with overcoming
thlem. But there is a value to my mind at this stage, at the beginning of this decade,
in saying what the problems are and, in the old traditions of the Commonwealth,
exchanging our views on those problems and the methods which might be adopted to
tackle them. In the Declaration we have before us, which deal-c with the Common., wealth
in the Seventies and I think the study of that and the Declaration are indivisible
there is properly first set down the need to maintain peace i the prosperity of all
Commonwealth nations is to proceed without interruption. There could be few, if any,
who would deny that this was a major task, and that this was something which vitally
concerns us all.
I don't myself believe that peace is threatened, others generally do, by
a difference in wealth between one country and another. That may exacerbate tensions,
but I do not believe that that is a maj or threat. Rather I tMA that the threat comes
from conflicting ideologies, and that, I would suggest, mighnt be recognised by all as
the major cause threatening the continuance of world peace. It was not a difference
in living standards which led to North Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia. It wias not a
difference in living standards which led to Laos being subject to military aggressioni.
It was a difference in ideology.
I would have liked this Declaration to contain within it the words that " the
Commonwealth condemns any armed attack made by any nation upon any other nation."
I cannot myself see why there should be any objection to that. If peace is to be
maintained, and there is a basic need to maintain it, there Should not be aggression by
any nat ion upon another, and more particularly perhaps there should not be any
aggression upon any small state.
It is quite properly stated later in this Declaration that the independence of
all the countries sitting around this table is of concern to all others. Any armed
attack made on any small state anywhere puts in jeopardy all small states everywhere.
I hope a recognition of that might be a contribution towards the maintenance of that
peace which President Kaunda so rightly put at the head of his Declaration. A
The other problems which we must meet, the ones we all have, include
the question of providing international aid to countries which are developing but
still have much scope for development. May 1, for emphasis, say in regard to that,
that, comparatively, Australia is a rich country. Comparatively, if one takces other
comparisons, it is not a rich country. I don't feel that we are doing any injustice
to anybody by being a comparatively well-off country. We have been lucky we
Work hard. But I don't think that is doing any injustice to anyone, and I am glad
to see that that phrase does not, as I understand it, appear in the declaration now.
That is not to say that there is not a need for those who are better off to
assist those who are not so well off, and that is not to say that it is not to the self
interest of those who are better off to try to assist those who are still growing.
I do not see-the aim of international aid as being a handout, rather must it be a
well thought-out attempt to provide to those nations who are in need of further
development the capacity for that development, to provide the capital -for a
particular project, for industrialisation, for improving agriculture, for providing
the means by which such countries can assist themselves. And certainly, as-the
Chairman of this Conference so cogently remarked several days ago, no nation
is its brother's keeper. It isn't. But it must be its brother's helper; it can help
its brother to help himself. And in that way there can be no obligation. Obligationo
are nasty things. So I would say, in approaching the problem of aid, what is needed is a
clear understanding that what is done in this field is done to provide the capability
and the capital to the nations who are developing so they can raise themselves to an
economic position where they will no longer need such help. This will take some
time but this is the basis of the approach to this problem.
I would add one thing to my remarks on aid. This is provided, and I
hope it will continue to be provided, and we are playing our part in international
aid, but let us all listen to those other words of the Chairman of this Conference.
That is that while it is necessary to assist the growth, to assist the people of
developing countries to help themselves throughout the world, there can be no
obligation to do this indefinitely if every advance so made is swallowed up by an
increase in the population of the countries being helped. This is a matter under
the control of the countries concerned and this is of as vital interest to the real
economic growth of the countries as is the amount of aid of one kind or another
that is provided. Those statements in themselves are not enough to deal with this second
point which President Kaunda made. Supposing this is done, supposing nations are
helped to industrialise, are helped to increase production of various kinds so that
internally perhaps the standards of living may rise. Yet that will not be enough
unless we can somehow devise outlets in other countries for the products which
are produced as the result of such industrialisation. The two mtters go
absolutely hand in hand, and -the.-two matters are ones. with which the Commonwealth
should concern itself, with which vie-. axe bappy to concern ourselves. The solutions
are not easy because there are vested interests to stop the filow of manufactured goods
not only from less developed countries but even from such countries as Australia.
These will need to be matters which we must seek to overcome in the sever-ties" and
proper matters to which we might direct our attention.
Another matter in this Declaration which I believe to be of great moment Li
the Seventies is the question of feeling between different races. It is of no use, I
think, pretending that in general there are not, in many countries at any rate, racial
feelings between people with different coloured skins. There ought not to be but there
is, and we must start from that premise. Let us try and do one thing that is-. reasonably
easy, and that is that each one of us say as I am prepared to say and mean that
we will, within our own country, abolish all governmental discrimination of any kcind.
That we can do, that each nation here can do, and that each nation here has not yet
completely done. If we could do that, and I1a m prepared to do it I will do it anyw~ ay
that would be one advance. But not enough, because that after all is onlyjr governmental
discrimination and there would still remain the areas in which governmental
discrimination was not a factor.
And can we perhaps seek to diagnose this illness of racialism? For only by
proper diagnosis can a proper cure be worked out. I think there is not a feeling
between countries when those countries contain people of different races. There is
not, I hope, a feeling against Australia by Zambia, and certainly no feeling against
Zambia by Australia. I don't believe that the people of any nation feel objections to
other nations on social grou nds. That would be my first attempt at a diagnosis of
the problem. But we see that within nations this problem is hard to eradicate and it is
hardest to eradicate if in any nation there is a large proportion of people with a
different skin colour from others. That is why, I think, we see more evidence of
racial feeling coming to the surface in a country where such a situation exists.
If that is so, how is that overcome? Well, a beginning, I think could be
made, by making sure that, if there are in any countries large groups of people ofdifferent
race, there is not, to reinforce that racial feeling, economic differences
affecting any particular race. Such differences reinforce any racial feeling that
there may be, and we must give our attention to that.
And, secondly, we should try to see, all of us, in such ways that we can,
that in the circumstances I have outlined, there should not be a reinforcing GIf racial
feeling by religious feeling because that again reinforces and makes it difficult
for this whole problem to be overcome. And perhaps in these 1970' s, we may be
able to take some steps along this road. e / 6
It will take a long, long time -in my opinion for attitudes of the masses
completely to change. There is no such attitude among intelligent people, but it is
largely there in the masses. In the circumstances I have outlined, it will take a
long time to change, but if each of us in our own countries seeks to do what we car-,
then gradually this change will take place.
I don't think it can be forced, I don't think it can be a forced change but I
do think there should be a constant attempt, and I do think that attempt can well be
successful. We believe that the Commonwealth, as it is at present constituted, and
without any changes, is of value and has proved itself to be so. We also believe
that the potential value of the Commonwealth is much greater than at present. This
value is slightly vitiated, as we have seen in this conference, by us all spending
most of the time talking at enormous length about the things on which we disagree.
I don't say that we shouldn't talk about things on which we disagree. We should.
We should each put our point of view and others should say they agree with it or
disagree with it and then go on to something else. Something else, I would hope, on which
we all agreed and could work on with a common goal.
So we see the Commonwealth as of value, provided it operates on the
principles I have enunciated. We see it of an even greater value in the future because
it is likely that if our efforts are successful, then the areas of disagreement will
contract", the things on which we have discussions from different sides can be
reduced. If this happens, there will be a bigger opportunity to work on matters
on which we agree, and we might have more constructive results in the end.
It has been suggested to me from time to time you might have even
diplomatically hinted at it yourself, Mr. Chairman that Australia tends sometimes
to be rather an intrangisent country. But in declarations, which I hope will not
become a practice, or in resolutions, or in other matters, we do not think that we
should put our name or give our support to statements that we do not thoroughly
agree with or say we will take courses of action which we will not, in fact, adhere
to. And we will not do this.