INTERVIEW WITH NEWSWEEK 31 JANUARY, 1980
( WASHINGTON)
QUESTION: You did cover in the press conference before, but I would
just like to get it on the record about how Australia can
help the U. S. in the event of military action in the Indian
Ocean. Are you making any plans?
PRIME MINISTER:
Some weeks ago we offered to provide increased patrols and
surveillance in the Indian Ocean. Our navy operates in the
Indian Ocean now. Obviously we do have the capacity to
increase our effort and that will be happening. Our respective
Defence Departments and forces need to consult together about
the best way of integrating in a greater Australian effort.
QUESTION: Do you have any specifics? What sort of things could it involve?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it could involve increased patrolling by ships, a variety
of ships in our own forces, submarines and maritime surveillance.
Now some of our own papers have said there is a decision to send
a carrier task force into the Indian Ocean. W~ ell, you know,
that is only one of the possibilities. Our defence people
haven't put their options to me or to the government yet.
Patrolling, on the sea, air surveillance where our aircraft
have fitted in very well with the United States because they
are basically the same aircraft. Other than that, similar
equipments. These are matters for them to sort out and put
to governments to finally agree.
QUESTION: Well, your armed forces have been plagued like ours was with
budget cuts and to what extent are you prepared to increase
defence spending and is it going to come from the windfall oil
tax levy or are people going to get a tax cut themselves?
PRIME MINISTER:
We have already announced a review of our strategic position
as a result of Afghanistan and the changing environment that
creates and I expect to have put on my desk from the Defence
Minister shortly after I get back from this visit proposals,
options for a greater defence effort on Australia's part. Some
of those options might be only short term. Others involve
additions to our equipments material and may be long term.
In the order of things it takes some time, obviously to be
delivered. There has been some slightly misleading publicity
in Australia in the last three or four years because every
year we have provided more in real terms for defence. Our
defence effort, year by year has expanded from the base when
we took over government at the end of 1975. But we were
originally a little more optimistic about the rate of recovery
in the economy and had hoped that we could provide for even
greater increase than we did, and this was where the mythology
about budget cuts camne in. Tt was cuts in expectation, not
-2-
cuts in real terms because there was an expansion in real
terms. I believe in the current environment that it is
inevitable that we do more. How much more I can't say.
QUESTION: Where is it going to come from?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it will have to come from the general revenue available
to the government. We don't predicate one particular source
of revenue for one particular purpose. But we have said in
Australia that any increase in requirement for defence will
have to be given priority on the tax cuts for example.
QUESTION: Are you planning to get involved in an economic and military
consortium for Pakistan?
PRIME MINISTER:
We have indicated a willingness to provide civil aid and aid
for refugees. That indeed has already been announced. We
are not planning any other activities of note although I expect
that we will be continuing aid requirements, continuing
assistance for refugees. The defence aid we do provide has
really been concentrated in countries much closer to us
Indonesia, Singapore, Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand.
QUESTION: There is some -talk that this kind of aid towards Pakistan would
in turn, turn India more toward the Soviets?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that is a danger and it needs watching. My Foreign Minister
has recently been in India discussing these matters with both
India and Pakistan and clearly each has a concern of the actions
and motives of the other. I think we've all got a role to try
and make sure -that things are seen as they are and a role of
trying to do what can be done to reduce the regional tensions
which might divert all our attention from t%. he main danger which
is the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and the consequences
to detente.
QUESTION: The Australian Wheat Board and Wool Corporation are apparently
predicting that the boycott would be catastrophic to them. How
far are you willing to go in terms of
-3-
PRIME MINISTER:
We've made decisions to support the United States position
and I don't see that changing. I don't think there is any
real evidence at this point that a boycott is going to be
catastrophic for the grain industry.
QUESTION: Have th ey complained to you?
PRIME MINISTER:
They are concerned. It's possible. I understand their concern.
As in the United States, many Australian farmers produce grain
and that is their total income. So it's natural, they believe,
that if there is to be an economic sanction it ought to be
fairly shared in terms of its impact on the people, and you
know, that is a view we all have to support. But, by and large,
the Australian people, as I believe, strongly support the
position of the United States, strongly support the position
the Australian Government has taken.
QUESTION: We get from our reporter in Australia that there have been some
charges that your strong anti-Soviet stance is an election year
ploy. Now Carter is also taking those same charges, now I
wonder how you react to them.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think that is nonsense and I haven't felt the need to
answer them up to this point myself, they are so absurd.
Nearly everyone is very concerned at what the Soviet Union has
done and I have been on record over a long period of being
somewhat sceptical about Soviet actions in -the world. I would
have been delighted if it had been proved entirely and utterly
wrong but unfortunately events in Afghanistan tended to prove
that my fears and concerns were much more right than wrong.
I think what Afghanistan has done is to make it possible for
many people to see the Soviet Union in clear and plain terms,
where before the pursuit of detente sometimes enabled the
Soviet Union to hide its real intentions. The meaning that they
attach to that word was never the meaning that the United States
or we attached to it. They still pursued competition,
exploited opportunity.-You only have to look at what they have
been doing in Africa.-Cubans, Soviets, all the rest, trying to
stir up trouble wherever they could. If they really believe in
detente they would support settlements and peace instead of
supporting revolution.
4-
QUESTION: Do you sense a change in the President here and that Carter,
would you say that he was naive? He made a statement here
that his perception of the Soviets had changed more in the
two to three days after the invasion than it had in the two
or three years he had during detente.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well let me answer that question this way. I think his State
of the Union speech is realistic. I believe it was needed.
I think it was a courageous soeech and one which I hope the
United States people and people in as many independently minded
nations as possible will support because ' I think it is only
the collective determination of the United States and many
others including Australia, thlat will really deter the Soviet
Union from further adventures, and the dangers of a further
Soviet move into Iran the circumstances for that could so
easily be promoted if the Soviets wanted to. The dangers
would then be horrific. If th e world has been facing a
dangerous circumstance over the last few w-. eeks as a result
of the invasion of Afghanistan, we would be half pushed over
the cliff if the Soviet Union goes further. As I interpret it,
the President's speech was sa.. ing that very clearly and very
plainly and that's why my government supports it so strongly
and supports the United StateS position and wants to do what
it can to assist because we believe the United States is right.
Some of our own people some of the critics in Australia -say
why don't you wait until 40 other countries have agreed to
boycott the Olympic Games, until 40 other countries have agreed
to join in this or show their disappr oval of the Soviet Union
in more positive ways. Well if everyone is going to sit back
and wait until everyone else . as moved first, nothing will be
done. The United States will be left relatively isolated. and
alone and I believe this is very much a time when not only
the President of the United States but the United States people
need to feel that other peoples, other countries around the world
feel and know that the United States is right and support what
the President is doing in the name of the United States people.
QUESTION: Is this a different President Carter?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't really think I can pursue that. You can ask the
American Senate that sort of cuestion. T am just speaking
of the President as I find hi~ i today. I think he has always
been a very determined person. I also believe that he is
enormously idealistic and well meaning. And they are good
things in a political leader, they really are.
4
QUESTION:
What do you expect to gain from your visit to London?
PRIME MINISTER
Well a perception of the United Kingdom's view. You have
to read the cables but it's never the same thing. You speak to
people and you learn things which can never be put on paper.
I think it is particularly important to get the European view
land-based European France and Germany as well as the United
Kingdom because in the past if events haven't immediately
touched Europe, Europe has tended to say, these events aren't
of great concern. Well, if the Soviet Union starts to get
control over oil suipplies it is European nations who would
feel the damage'and the destruction of that before the United
States and before Australia. Both of which they don't have
enough, but they have reserves of energy of different kinds
which would enable them the United States and ourselves, to
get through some way or another. But a number of countries
in Europe without Middle East oil would be totally destroyed.
And I would have thought they must be aware of it. But I
look forward to hearing from them directly in the course of
the next few days.
QUESTION: Prime Minister Ohira has been promoting the idea of a Pacific
economic community. What do you think of that?
PRIME MINISTER:
I believe the idea is a good one, but at the moment it is an
idea, it needs to be given some bones, and then the flesh has
got to be put on the bones. We've agreed, if other regional
countries want it, to sponsor a seminar to discuss it at the
Australian National University in Canberra to see what emerges
from that. The idea of closer Pacific cooperation is one that
ought to be pursued and I believe pursued with vigor. But the
difficulties come because of the diversity of the nations in the
Pacific. We have got some industrial nations, and just to stick
to the western Pacific Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Australia, New
Zealand, industrializing countries, Malaysia; Singapore is an
industrial country. But then you've got others with very
different economies, Papua New Guinea, you've got the very small
island states of the Pacific. How do you fit all of these into
some kind of integrated concept? And also it needs emphasizing
that in Prime Minister Ohira's mind the concept would not in any
way impinge upon the strength and viability of the ASEAN group
of nations. There are sentitivities there that need to be
understood. It is a new organization between nations which has
grown in cohesion and strength. Something that you and we
support very strongly and they obviously don't want anything to
impede the growth of that organization. And they wouldn't want
something that might divert attention from it. But that again
is something that would have to be accommodated within the
Pacific community concept. But at the moment,) we have a great
idea, and that's valuable. Whether we can put flesh and bones
on it, well that's the challenge ahead of all of us.
-6-
QUESTION: I want to ask you one last question, a sort of a general
question about what the 1980' s are going to bring for
Australia. Some are predicting an economic boom. Talk a
little about that and foreign investment particularly.
PRIME MINISTER:
I believe economically we car do better than many. For a
number of reasons. Inflation is too high, but it is lower
than many, it is lower than the OECD average, lower than it
presently is in this country. Our secondary industries which
couldn't sell overseas when we came into office are now
expanding their exports quite rapidly because they are
competitive across a wide range, even some things which are
labour intensive. There is a specialised capacity in
Australia. And they are selling some things in the Asian
markets against Asian competition. So we do have a capacity
to compete, and that's in manufactures. Now it is our
intention to try and keep inflation under that of a number
of our major trading partners. So that's one bull point for
the Australian economy. But then, political stability;
possession of very large mineral reserves, but perhaps more
important, possession of significant energy reserves. We
have a shortage of oil, we are about 70 per cent self sufficient,
but we export vast quantities of coal, natural gas; and are
potentially large exporters oE uranium. Having the energy
resources and mineral reserves in Australia provides a great
opportunity to bring the two together in greater processing
in Australia. Now this is happeningin the aluminum industry,
with four billion dollars being spent on processing, smelting
operations, exp) ansions, right at this moment. I think it is
likely to happen with other minerals because as oil costs rise
there is no prospect that OPEC countries are going to change
their practices. As they rise, shipping costs are going to
get greater and the economics of finishing or exporting our
processed or semi-processed product will probably' be greater
than exporting bulk commodities and the coal to provide the
energy. This does open up options and opportunities for
Australia which aren't present in a number of other countries,
so in short terms the ingredients are an economy wvith a more
favourable inflation rate than in many countries.......
QUESTION: What is it now?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it's 10 per cent. It's too high but oil has had its impact
on us as its had on everyone. But the relatively favourable
economy, a comp) etitive econony.,., then foreign investment policies
and guidelines tvhich encourage foreign investment and couple that
with mineral reserves and energy reserves and the wqhole package
can be put together and undoubtedly make a relatively optimistic
decade for Australia in spite of world wide economic difficulties
of quite an acute kind.