*~ AU ; r,'. AIA
U I,
FOR MEDIA THURSDAY, 23 AUGUST 1979
STATE'iE'NT TO PARLIA14ENT ON LUSAKA CHOGM
I seek leave to report to this House on the Commonwealth
Heads of Government Meeting held in Lusaka from 1 August
to 7 August.
There can be no legitimate doubt in anyone's mind that this
was a critical conference in the history of the Commonwealth.
The way things turned out should not cause us to forget that.
Befo" re the event responsible and reasonable people wer~ e
expressing serious concern as to whether the Commonwealth
Would survive the conference. There was talk of a break-up.
This was not altogether idle talk. Had the conference gone
badly, tne institution would have been seriously maimed and
culd have !; een destroyed. As it happened the conference
did not co bad l, it went extremely well, and far from
breaking up, the Comrmonwealth has emerged a stronger, more
vital and -ore cohesive body.
'-. o-one who has followed events in Lusaka and certainly
nio-one who was present there can doubt that the Commonwealth
is an institution which has relevance, and a distinctive
function to perform, in the contemporary world.
It has sometimes been asserted and even oftener been implied
that this is a romantic and exaggerated view, that the
Commonwealth is merely the ghost of a vanished empire, a
talking-shop, a dealer in my,, ths and illusions. I believe
it is now clear that it is those who hold this view who are
the real romantics pessimistic romantics who refuse to
come to terms with a changing world and the changing forms
of influence and power.
The old Commonwealth could never have achieved what was achieved
at Lusaka. For at this conference, the Commonwealth took on
one of the most serious and sensitive issues in international
affairs today, an issue which has resisted prolonged efforts
made by major powers, acting alone, to find a solution.
In a matter of days, real and substantial progress was made.
It seems perverse, therefore, to persist in the defeatist and
negatiive view that this institution does not have the potential
for a continuing valuable and constructive role in world affairs.
/ 2
-2-
The issue I refer to is, of course, the future of Zimbabwe.
As anticipated, this issue was inevitably the central
preoccupation of the conference. It was approached with a
minimum of polemics, and with a determination to find a
fair settlement acceptable to all parties.
In my response to President Kaunda's opening speech on the
first day I appealed, as I have done on previous occasions,
for a spirt of principled moderation and compromise which
would make it possible to bridge different positions.
In the event that soirit turned out to be the distinguishing mark
of the conference. It was the spirit of Lusaka.
That it was so was due, in particular, to the attitude
of three of the participants: our host President Kaunda;
President Nyerere of Tanzania; and the British Prime Minister,
Mrs. Thatcher.
I would like to take this opportunity to express my personal
admiration for the courage and vision of these three leaders.
In a situation where there were pressures on each to be
intransigent, to ask others to yield while remaining inflexible
themselves, all three rejected that path and chose the one
leading to genuine accommodation. It is greatly to their
credit and represented statesmanship of a high order.
The British Prime Minister, for her part, reaffirmed the
unqualified coimmitment of her Government to the goal of genuine
black majority rule in Rhodesia. Much more importantly,
in her speech of 3 August, she recognised the validity of
the criti-sms made of the present constitution, of the
bloc:-ng poowers enjoyed by the white minority, and of the
power vested in the various Service Commissions, which
together make it impossible for the Government of Bishop Muzorewa
to have adequate control over the country's affairs.
So long as these criticisms could be made of the Constitution
one could not assert that genuine black majority rule exists
in Rhodesia. Such powers, which have not been included in
any constitution resulting from a legal transference of power
by Britain, deny Government powers which are fundamental to
a democracy or indeed to any responsible Government.
A Government which cannot control appointments in key areas,
or the activities of its armed forces, is not master of
its own house.
Mrs. Thatcher also accepted the responsibility of the British
Government to bring the country to legal independence on
a basis which the Commonwealth and the international community
as a whole will find acceptable. She undertook to present
proposals as quickly as possible to all the parties.
The leaders of the front line states showed an equally
admirable willingness to approach the issue constructively.
In his speech on the Zimbabwe debate, President Nyerere
recognised that an advance had been made in recent months. / 3
3
While rejecting the validity of existing constitutional
arrangements which allow a white minority to control the
levers of power, he accepted that a democratic constitution
was not incompatible with special provisions for the white
minority in the form of reserved seats " even out of
proportion to the numbers involved". He recognised that
a cease-fire was a precondition for free and fair elections.
Beyond this, President Kaunda and President Nyerere showed
a restraint and patience, and a confidence in the
British Government which were an essential element in creating
the trust necessary for agreement and progress. They were not
in the business of confrontation and point-scoring.
Let me say something about the part Australia played in the
negotiaticn of the Zimbabwe issue. In the period leading up
to the conference and during it, we had extensive contacts
both directly and by letter with the principal parties.
Shortly before the conference I had talks with Mrs. Thatcher
here in Canberra, and immediately before going to Lusaka I
visited Nigeria a key African state to talk with
General Obasanjo, the leader of the Federal military government.
The Foreign Minister had separate talks with the British
and with representatives of the Muzorewa Government and
subseauently with leaders of the Tanzanian and Kenyan
Governments. During the conference of course, we had extensive discussions
with all the parties present and the Patriotic Front.
In all these talks we expressed the view that, whatever else,
the April elections had broken a log-jam and created conditions
for movement. We maintained that further constitutional
changes in the direction of greater Africanisation were
essential.
We emphasised that a precondition for a successful
settlement was that it should be acceptable to a significant
number of African states. We stressed the need to bring
the war to an end.
The invitation to give the first response to President Kaunda's
opening address gave me the opportunity to put Australia's
views to the conference very early. I stressed the need to
bear in mind the positive elements of agreement which existed
among those present, the fact that we essentially agreed on
ends and differed only on means.
I stressed also that recent events had created an opportunity
for advance by introducing a new element of flexibility and
movement. And, as I have said, I made as strong a plea as
I could for moderation and compromise.
During the weekend of 4-5 August, and following the opening
of the debate on the Rhodesia issue on Friday, 3 August,
a small consulting group of six Heads of Government was set
up to try to reach an agreement. / 4
4
Australia was a member of that group. The group reached
agreement and drew up a communique on Southern Africa, which
was subsequently accepted by other Heads of Government.
The communique made nine points: The Heads of Government
confirmed that they were wholly committed to genuine
black majority rule for the people of Zimbabwe;
recognised, in this context, that the internal
settlement constitution is defective in certain important
aspects; fully accepted that it is the Constitutional responsibility
of the British Government to grant legal independence to
Zimbabwe on the basis of majority rule;
recognised that the search for a lasting settlement must
involve all parties to the conflict;
were deeply conscious of the urgent need to achieve such
a settlement and bring peace to the people of Zimbabwe
and their neighbours;
accepted that independence on the basis of majority
rule requires the adoption of a democratic constitution
including appropriate safeguards for minorities;
acknowledged that the government formed under such
an indeoendence constitution must be chosen through
free n fair elections, properly supervised under
British Government authority, and with Commonwealth
observers; welcomed the British Government's indication that an
appropriate procedure for advancing towards these
objectives would be for them to call a Constitutional
conference to which all parties would be invited; and
consequently, accepted that it must be a major objective
to bring about a cessation of hostilities, and an end
to sanctions as part of the process of implementation
of a lasting settlement.
These nine points do not amount to a settlement of the Zimbabwe
situation. Neither the Muzorewa government nor the Patriotic
Front ZANU and ZAPU were parties to the discussion, and a
settlement will require their agreement.
Much hard work and delicate negotiating remains to be done.
But the significance of what has been achieved is enormous.
To appreciate this it is necessary to contemplate what the
position would na. qbe, had there been a failure to reach
agreement. Both Southern Africa and the Commonwealth would be
facing bleak prospects. The momentum for change would have
been lost.
As it is, a very formidable and diverse body of opinion has
been mobilised and unified, in favour of a particular process
of settlement. Given its nature, that body of opinion will
require a serious response both from Salisbury and from the
Patriotic Front.
5
Before the conference, the opinion prevailed in each of these
centres that time was on their side, that they could afford
to wait and to resist change. It will be difficult for them
to maintain that view now. It is very important that, for the
first time in many years the initiative has been seized by the
forces of moderation and peaceful settlement, and that has been
done within the framework of the Commonwealth, that often
derided institution which continues to confound its critics
by proving its relevance.
The settlement nrocess that is envisaged can bring peace and
allow Zimbabwe to take its place in the community of nations.
It allows for genuine majority rule, for a return to legality,
for prctection of the white minority, and for the ending of
war and sanctions. If achieved, it will be acceptable to
leading African states, it will remove a festering sore which
has threatened to infect Southern Africa with both the poison
of racial war and great power conflict.
There is no guarantee that these things will happen, that the
process will succeed. But I believe that there are reasonable
prospects for success. I believe this for two reasons, first
because the terms of settlement it envisages are essentially
right in the-selves in that they are based on the principles
that the people of Zimbabwe all the people have the right
to choose who shall govern them, and that the government so
elected should have real control over the affairs of the country.
Seco-ndl, I believe the chances of success are good because
such a settlement is in the rational self interest of the parties
concerned. It is the only way in which the suffering and
bloodshed endured by the people of Zimbabwe can be ended.
If the settlement does rot succeed, the prospect is for an
intensification of the war, a greater resort to Communist
arms, and greater turmoul for the whole of Southern Africa.
As far as the white community of that country is concerned,
it can hope for a stable and peaceful existence, only as part
of a cenuine multi-racial society. Continuing warfare will
lead to its disintegration anr exodus. The Patriotic Front
can only hope to participate in the governing of the country
on the basis of such a settlement.
The Front-line states have an interest in ending the state of
war which forces them to accept sacrifices and threatens to
involve them directly in other people's conflicts. Britain
has an interest in ending a situation which has perhaps caused
it more international embarrassment than any other over the
last decade.
The international community at large can only benefit fiom
removing a potential source of conflagration and great power
rivalry. Australia, as a member of the international
community shares this concern for peace and stability in
Southern Africa, and, as a member of the Commonwealth, we
have a concern with preserving its integrity, and with the
Commonwealth proving itself as a constructive and relevant
institution. / 6
-6
Th1. e Lusaka conference has set a process in train. What other
international body could have achieved this? It is our sincere
hope that the process is continued to a successful conclusion.
If the Rhodesia issue occupied the centre of the stage at the
conference, it certainly did not monopolise attention. A good
deal else was done besides, and for the information of
Honourable Members, I table the final communique.
one of tne major initiatives was in the economic field, where
Australia proposed a Commonwealth group of experts to make a
conmcrehensive study of factors restraining growth. We put
the proposal forward in the context of the historic changes
that have moulded the world's economy over the past few decades.
In the quarter century after the Second World War the world
experienced a period of unprecedonted economic growth. The
Great Depression, followed by the war, had created a huge
pent-up demand for consumer goods. That, together with the
Marshall Plan, the widespread adoption of Keynesian policies
and the rapid introduction of new technology, led to a
sustained upsurge in economic growth and real income in the
developing countries as well as in the industrialised world.
In tnose years, the material conditions of the mass of people
in Western societies was transformed. But the very success
of that process meant that by the mid-1960' s conditions were
chnargi. ng and by the early 1970' s the consumer boom was clearly
ru" m'ic: down.
At the same time, there emerged increasing impediments to
enterprise and investment. High inflation was becoming built
into the major economies; further moves to protection were
buil1di ng greater restraints to trade. Governments conditioned
to believing that Keynesian policies were the answer to all
problems stubbornly continued to pursue those policies, despite
the onset of inflation, encouraged by electorates increasingly
accustomed to believing that governments could provide for all
needs. The extraordinary growth of the period came to be taken for
granted. Increasingly, unrealistic demands were made on worl~ d
economies, particularly by trade union movements which came to
exercise unprecedented power, and it became fashionable to
decry growth and to place impediments in its path.
An increasingly formidable system of statutory road blocks
were placed in the way of development and investment. Very
demanding environmental laws, harsh trade practices legislation,
prices justification regulations, and the development and
investment policies pursued by many countries have acted as
impediments to economic growth. Many investment opportunities
which had been highly attractive twenty years ago now became
uneconomic. The result of all this is that in recent years the growth in
world trade has fallen to half of what it was in previous
decades, from eight percent to four percent. A further constraint
to growth is slow rates of development in a number of developing
countries. / 7
7
Australia's experience with the newly industrialising countries
has shown us that as soon as they take-off economically, trade
both ways grows very rapidly. During the 1970' s, however,
instead of accepting the challenge and opportunity of greater trade
with newly industrialising countries, many major developed nations
became fearful and turned to greater protectionism.
We see examples of this in the $ 25 billion spent by Western
industrial countries on wage and export subsidies, the use of
voluntary restraint agreements and the contemplation of
selective safeguards. This is not only selfish and wrong,
but foolish and short sighted economics, for the growth of
markets in developing countries could well be one of the keys
to reducing the rate of unemployment being experienced by
Western developed nations in the last quarter of the twentieth
century. It is clear that the conditions which generated and fuelled the
great surge of growth in the last quarter century have now largely
disappeared, and recent assessments by international organisations
for the medium term outlook are for a continuation of slow growth
or even a further deterioration in growth prospects.
At Lusaka, Heads of Government recognised that a continuation of
slow growth in the global economy would further damage the
prospects of increasing living standards in both developed and
developing countries, and could have adverse effects in their
political and social structures.
They agreed that there would be considerable advantage in a
study by independent Commonwealth experts that focusses on the
constraints to economic growth and structural change in developed
and developing nations, and identifies specific measures
necessary to reduce these constraints.
The group is to report in time to assist Commonwealth governments
in their preparation for the special session of the U. N. General
Assembly in 1980, and the Government has indicated to the
Coirc.-a 1. ealth S; cretary-Gciera! that a prominent Australian acKade. ic:
economist is expected to be available to serve on the group.
I believe that Australia has already set an example in some areas
of the way that constraints on growth can be broken down. We have
reduced inflation, and we will maintain our strong anti-inflationary
policy. We have increased company profitability, improved
Australia's competitive position, and strengthened the dollar.
Under our foreign investment policy administered by the Foreign
Investment Review Board, last year's private foreign investment
was the highest since 1971-72, and in the June quarter, $ 1.4 billion
prospective expenditure was approved.
All these help to reduce the impediments to our national development,
but there are many other barriers to growth within the global
economy. I hope that the report will address itself to these
constraints and recommend practical policies that can be pursued
in order to promote growth of the world economy. / 8
8
The discussion of the Australian economic initiative aqain
made it clear Heads of Government realised that in confronting
the problems we face, we need a fusion of realism, imacination
and boldness, and a willingness to listen and understand one
another.
The eyes of the world were on the Commonwealth at Lusaka.
It faced a harsh test. It passed that test and in doing so
proved that it has the capacity to make a major contribution
in international affairs through the rest of this century.
One of the results of what happened in Lusaka is that the
members of the Commonwealth will share a new confidence and
assurance of what we can collectively achieve, and I am sure
that Australians will warmly welcome the fact that the next
Commonw,, ealth Heads of Government conference will be held in
this country.