PRIME MINISTER'S INTERVIEW WITH LAURIE WILSON q
CHANNEL 7
TAHITI 11/ 5/ 75 FOR REPLAY 12/ 5/ 75
Question : In general terms, what was the most significant
single thing about this trip as far as you are concerned?
Mr. Whitlam : I wouldn't like to dramatise it in the terms
of any-one particular thing. There were two important things
we did; one was to have the far-ranging, frank exchange of
views at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Jamaica,
and the second one was to have a pretty thorough round-up of
views, exchange of views, in Washington with the Administration
and with the Congress. I wouldn't choose which was the more
important of those two.
Question As far as Jamaica went, there was some suggestion,
some criticism that perhaps you adopted a slightly lower profile
than you would have wanted to and perhaps you should have. I'm
obviously referring to the Vietnam question. Why was it that you
didn't push it a little stronger there?
Mr. Whitlam : What we are intent on doing, of course, at the
Commonwealth, is to discuss those things which interest a fair
number of us. Now I did point out, quite briefly, and everyone
immediately accepted the proposition, that on Vietnam which was
obviously a land-mark in world history, we ought to express the
view that nations should con-tribute as much as they can to the
reconstruction and rehabilitation of that country and to bring
it into the community of nations. I raised that, and in fact
it was raised by Mrs. Gandhi and Mr. Lee Kuan Yew in the general
discussion on world and Commonwealth trends and then I later made
the point that there should be a reference to it in the communique
and there was. There was no dispute about it, so it didn't need
to take up very much time. I have seen some suggestions that we
ought to have spent more time on it, or I should have. I don't
see any basis for that. There was no need to spend more time on
this. There were some aspects of Vietnam, such as refugees, which
of course, I did mention to, I suppose half a dozen Heads of Government
there who were interested in these matters New Zealand, Fiji,
Britain, Canada, Singapore and Malaysia.
Question : Of course later with President Ford, this was a major
point of discussion.
Mr. Whitlam: What was a major point?
Question : Vietnam in general, Indo-China of course.
Mr. Whitlam In the general, regional set-up, in the aftermath
of Vietnam, obviously. This was quite an important thing, not
only with the President and the Secretary of State, Dr. Kissinger,
and Deputy Secretary and Assistant Secretaries of State, but also
of course, with the two Houses in Congress.
Question: You said in Washington that as regards reconstruction
there, you weren't going -to shirk your responsibility. We would
be a ready and willing partner to the U. S. Exactly what will we
be doing as regards reconstruction?
Mr. Whitlam In the budget for the financial year which is now
expiring, we made provision, and I think we did in the previous
budget, for reconstruction and rehabilitation in Vietnam, both
South and North. I think we spent about five times as much in
the South as in the North because it's taken longer to get the
structure of reconstruction going in the North. They have not
been accustomed to getting it and they've been a bit suspicious
of international organisations through which we prefer to inake
our contribution. Now, the United States is not likely to make
as big a contribution to these matters because of her recent
experiences * Lhere, but obviously countries like Australia, which
are in a position to contribute, should do so.
Question : Would you Place any sort of time period on reconstruction?
Would we be looking at that sort of thing?
Mr. Whitlam : I wouldn't like to say. I mean what do you mean
by reconstruction?
Question Do we presume that we will provide funds for reconstruction
for the next five years or the next fifteen years or can't you
set a time?
Mr. Whitlam I'd say five's more likely. Because if one thing
is clear, it is the astonishing resilience of the Vietnamese people.
They have had a bigger battering for a longer period, than any
nation in modern times. You would have to go back hundreds of
years before you could think of any nation which has been so
battered or so bruised or even brutalised as the people of Vietnam.
But they have shown an amazing resilience, astonishing, and they
will come through this. They are after all, a nation which has a
very considerable history of identity and they've been willing to
fight against people who wanted to buy into their affairs. They
did it against the Chinese before last century, they did it against
the French in the end of last century and the first half of this.
Question : Do you foresee a period of real stability now in the
Indo-China region?
Mr. Whitlam I'm reasonably optimistic that the energies of
the Vietnamese will be devoted to reconstructing their country.
Question You say you are reasonably optimistic. Can you see
anything going wrong?
Mr. Whitlam : It's obvious that things can go wrong. The
astonishing thing is that all the Heads of Government in
countries which are concerned I've seen -them all for hours
at a time in the last six weeks for instance, President Suharto
came downm to Australia and spent a few days with me and then in
the last couple of weeks in Jamaica, I've been with the Prime
Ministers of Malaysia, Singapore and other countries further away,
such as New Zealand of course and Britain, we have discussed all
these matters as well as in North America.
Question : If I might move on now to the question of refugees.
Where do we stand now on the question of accepting adult refugees
from Vietnam?
Mr. Whitlam : The situation has changed quite clearly from the
time when we set out together from Australia because at that time
there was still a Government in office in South Vietnam and whatever
one did in those circumstances had to be done with the concurrence
of that Government. % Well the Government i~ s now defunct and -there
are tens of thousands of refugees who have fled from the country,
so there's obviously a different situation now.
Question : That means we will be accepting them given some
international programme?
Mr. Whitlam : Yes. There has been, for many years of course,
the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees organisationan
experienced, a respected body-and we have in all our programmes
for refugees active through that body and that is the sensible,
the humane, the effective way -to work now. We were among the first
to invite the UNHCR to come into this question and we have already
this financial year contributed millions of dollars to his programmes.
Question : When will we work out just how many we are going to
take?
Mr. Whitlam : This will be a matter of international arrangement
clearly. It might be some weeks before one could make any responsible
estiwa. te of such matters.
Question How quickly would you like to see these refugees
catered for? In other words, how quickly do you think we might
see them in Australia?
Mr. Whitlam : Well, obviously, the sooner the better, as long 1
as it can be done effectively or humanely. You want to upset
people as little as possible, you want to settle them down as
quickly as possible.
Question: Would you expect any sort of backlash for this
idea of allowing adult refugees into Australia?
Mr. Whitlam : I don't think we can overlook the fact that
there will be some resentment about people coming into Australia
at a time of unemployment and also people from a very different
way of life, many of them not speaking English for instance.
Now obviously there will be doubts or even resentment among
Australians in this respect and I suppose it was a bit disappointing
that Australians didn't contribute more generously to the fund
which was set up for these matters. But nevertheless, Governments
have to do the right thing whether it's popular or not, so we
will be taking a fair share of refugees under the auspices of
the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees the body
which has most experience in this matter, the body which has
done the job best.
Question Do you think that perhaps your whole visit has been
overshadowed by domestic events? Does that disappoint you?
Mr. Whitlam I wouldn't think so. I don't know what you can
suggest. I naturally think that what I was doing was of greatest
importance to the country. The Commonwealth of Nations is an
important body. There are three-dozen of us almost in it and
there is no organisation where the countries of the Indian Ocean
can get together as they can in the Commonwealth and it is also
a valuable body for the countries of the South Pacific. Australia,
really through the Commonwealth, has better assocations with her
neighbours to west and east than through any other organisation.
Then, of course, there was the very timely opportunity to have
an exchange of views with the United States Administration and
Congress at a time when there have been some very big changes
in the world.
Question: You go back to Australia happy with the past two
weeks with no qualms about the coming fortnight?
Mr. Whitlam Of course not. I'm quite content with what we
have been able to do while we have been away.