UdIETRSCIT1&, zVFLS
PRESS OFFICE TRANSCRIPT SUNDAY, 24 FEBRUARY, 1980
INTERVIEW WITH RICHARD COLVILLE FOR." SUNDAY REPORT"
Co lviiile
Prime minister, the Olympic boycott, the whole Russ * m
Afghanistan situation, yourself, the American Pres en
obviously very concerned about it. Why is it so ta~~ h. J~.
Can you draw an analogy.
Prime minister LRA 14Y
I think so, yes. I suppose now that it is only t~~ pie
in our community who can remember events in the 19 s. eed,
I was only a child myself. But I was conscious throug. hat
decade of the growing concern of my own parents and obviously
conscious of what was happening at the end of the decade. In
1936 Hitler could have been stopped very,-very easily indeed
when he marched into the Rhineland. Indeed, at that time there
had been a great debate within Germany and the generals had orders
to withdraw if there wa~ s any resistance from France or from
Britain, from anyone. They did not. France at the time had
100 divisions and did nothing. Now, quite plainly, that
particular event encouraged Hitler to believe that France and
Britain would never act, that they were weak, that they were
incompetent, that they were corrupt, that they were decadent.
Therefore, he was encouraged, and Italy was also encouraged
in relation to North African ventures. The invasions, Austria;
Czechoslovakia, within Europe; Ethiopa in North Africa, and
nobody did anything. The old League of Nations was totally
impotent.* So, step by step was set in train a process which
led to the World War and literally tens of millions of young
men and women being killed, a large number of people dying in
camps and under the bombings around the world.
The nearest analogy I can get is that the
Soviets moving into Afghanistan is the same as Germany moving
into the Rhineland. If it does get the appropriate response from
the United States, from the Western Alliance, from France and
Germany and Britain, supported to the extent that we can by
countries such as Australia, recognising the limits of what
14 million people can do, then I believe that terrible process
will not be set in train and we can secure the safety of our
nations, the safety of independent people. Our sons and
daughters will not have to put on uniforms. As I understand it,
that is what President Carter is all about. That is what was
clearly referred to in the Franco-German communique where both
those leaders referred to Afghanistan in terms which said that
they feared that whatever people's motives might be, it would set
in step, in phase, a process which step by step would have the
gravest possible consequences for mankind., That was their way of
describing what could be the first step in other moves that
could really push the human race wver the edge of the cliff.
Now, that really is why we believe it is so important. I am
quite certain that is why President Carter has acted as he has,
why other nations have spoken as they have. It is not because
we believe that a war of that kind is imminent. / 2
JISRngy r-14. L -S
UNEDITED TRANSCRIPT
-2-
Prime minister ( continued)
But we do believe that democracies, independent peoples, need
to have a collective determination, a commitment, to their own
faith, to their own way of life, and be prepared to make some
effort and if you like, some sacrifice to secure it for the
future.
Colville You say that you and Mr. Carter don't necessarily think that
a war may be imminent, but it does sound as if you are saying
that what you are about is staving off, or making sure that
World War Three doesn't happen. Is that going too far?
PrimeMinister-I think that is exactly what the President is about, I really do:
to see that it does not happen, to see that step by step there
is not a chain reaction after Afghanistan which causes that to
happen. Let's again go back to the thirties for a moment. There
was a complete loss of will, loss of determination, loss of
direction by France and Britain, and the United States just
was not concerned with Europe and what was happening. They
thought they could be an island unto themselves, that it was not
really relevant. How sadly they learnt that that was not true
some years later. One of the great difficulties in a democracy. is we~
Are peace-loving people, we do not really like seeing money spent
on armaments. We would much sooner spend it on other things.
There are enormous pressures to believe the world is as we want
it to be and not just as it is. Now, the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan has pulled us all up with a sudden sharp jolt. We
suddenly realise there are dangers in the world, that a people
can be destroyed, that armies can march. What we are about is
seeing that the aggressor is not so encouraged by lack of reaction,
lack of determination.-and the United States supported by many
other nations around the world not so encouraged by a lack of
reaction that they think we can take another step and another,
which would, as happened in the thirties, ultimately brought a
massive reaction'which of course led to World World So
while I don't think anyone says things of that kind are imminent,
because that would be foolish and overstating the issue, if there
is not an appropriate and sustained Western independent,-nation
reaction to Afghanistan, I do indeed have the gravest cause for
concern about the future.
Colville A lot of Australians are now asking why the Olympics. Why not,
if you are going to take a stand like this one, not cut of f
diplomatic relations, expel diplomats. Why the Olympics. What
is so important about the Olympics?
Prime Minister-
Let me deal with the why not and I will come to the Olympics in
just a moment. Nobody is out to humiliate the Soviet Union. That
would not help in establishing that more stable and more peaceful,
* more secure world that we want to. Lines of communication have
to stay open. We need to make sure that the signals that get
to the Soviet Union are clear signals. When I say I mean
principally the United States, but Europe also and to the extent
-that we can, countries like Australia. The signals need to be
clear ones. They need to be ones which say " nobody offers any
./ 3
-3
Prime Minister ( continued)
threat to the Soviet Union. Nobody seeks to encircle the
Soviet Union . Nobody wants to force the Soviet Union to live
apart. But everyone has to comply with certain rules of
international behaviour. The first of those rules is respect
to the integrity and independence of peoples. So, to cut off
all communications, all diplomatic relations, would not help
in getting that message through. It really would not. It might
be a good, emotional reaction if you like, but it would not
assist in the larger and vastly important objective. We need
sustained signals over a long period, maybe over years, to the
Soviet Union which are co-ordinated, consistent, which do not give
them cause for concern or fear but which at the same time let
them know very plainly that the United States and others are
vastly determined, and will not shake in their conviction. Therefore,
if the Soviet Union presses too far there will be a great reaction.
Now, that. is the way to establish security so that, if you like,
why we do not do certain things, why we do not shut off and
isolate the Soviet Union totally.
In trade, our actions are consistent with the United States and
the United Kingdom and other countries. They will remain so.
They have been quite considerable in certain areas. But there is
little point, against the background I have just described, of
Australia taking unilateral action which is not going to be
supported by other countries around the world, which would then
just have an economic consequence for Australia, but which would
have little or no impact on the Soviet Union. Here, I think we
need to understand the trade sanctions can in fact to a
significant extent be hidden from the Soviet people by the
Government of the Soviet -Union. Now, even if they are short of
wheat, and there are difficulties, they can say for example,
crops have failed in America and Canada and Australia and that is
why we cannot get wheat, not letting them know that it is a mark
of extreme disapproval. -But if you come to the Olympic Gamnes,
that is a very public'event. It is very plain. For years all
the people of the Soviet Union have been told that this is going
to be a great event,-with the athletes of the world coming to
Moscow to pay-homage to Moscow'and to the Russian people and to
the first Socialist State of the world. Therefore, they are
expecting the athletes of all nations to go. It is the Soviet
Union that has said it is a great political event, the mark
of approval for the Soviet Union, it is indeed a mark of approval
of the Soviet foreign policy. Now, you do not believe that,
and I do not believe that, but it is what the Soviet people will
be told that counts. So, if Australian athletes go, if American
young men and women go to Moscow, it is quite plain that all the
people of the Soviet Union will be told, especially after recent
events, that the athletes of Australia, the United States and
of other countries are plainly repudiating their own governments
and their own peoples, their own systems and by their presence
in Moscow they are affirming support for the first Socialist State.
That would then bolster the Soviet Government and Soviet people
in the conviction in what they are doing. But if they do not go,
there is something that the Soviet Government then has to
explain. Why is it that the United States, and if it falls that
way, the British, the Germans and the Australians, why is it that
they have not come to Moscow. After the publicity of the last two
or three years, the Government of the Soviet Union I think would have
some difficulty in explaining that to their own people. There
-4
Prime Minister ( continued)
would be questions raised and difficulties caused. That, as
we all believe, those who have studied the Soviet Union, would
be the most effective way of bringing the abhorrence of the
free and independent world over the invasion of Afghanistan home
to the Government of Russia and to all the peoples of Russia.
That is why we have argued this cause so strongly.
Colville You and Mr. Anthony have explained in detail why any trade
bans, overall, not just unilateral, to be effective. But can you
understand the Australian people feeling a little cynical that
athletes have to carry the can while the miners and the farmers
apparently go ahead, export their products, and make their
money. Prime Minister
Well, there are restrictions on grain sales, as you know.
Look ' I can understand that feeling and I have enormous sympathy
for athletes in relation to it, but when you look at the larger
issues, the objective which I indicated the United States and
other countries are trying to achieve for a safer and a more
secure world, I do not believe it is asking those athletes to
give up too much, I really do not. Because if the free nations.
of the world, again the United States in the vanguard as they have
to be because it is only they who have the power, but Australia
and many others in support, if we fail in our objective of
establishing-that more secure world what then happens to the many
young men and women who might ultimately have to put on a uniform.
If, looking back through the pages of near history in four or
five years' time and athletes had gone to Moscow and won a medal
and the Soviets were given their propaganda victory, their
propaganda triumph in relation to their own people, if their own
conviction and their righteousness was thus reinforced, and if
they were thus encouraged to pursue by different ways other
Afghanistans, and if that did lead to a much greater disaster,
I do not believe any of those athletes ever after would really
be able to live with their own conscience in what they had helped
achieve. Colville
What has been your reaction to the way that your Olympic boycott
proposals have been received, I suppose not so much in the
electorate because we know that, but say the Parliament, the
Parliamentary debate on it.
Prime Minister-
I think the debate was, in a large sense, a very disappointing
one, because as I believe anyway, the opposition trivialised the
debate. We have spoken about the great issues that are in front
of us, that we are trying to do something about. The Opposition
to a man while condemning the invasion of Afghanistan then seemed
more concerned to try and demonstrate that my motives were, in
5
Prime Minister ( continued)
condemning the invasion of Afghanistan, were the wrong motives.
Now, I just do not think that they are prepared to condemn
the invasion of Afghanistan. We do, so why cannot it just be
let at that with a bi-partisan approach to a vastly important
matter. In the end, the House passed, really without dissent
on this particular point, a resolution which said that countries
ought to do what they Can separately or in concert to bring home
our great opposition to the Soviet Union. Then, having supported
that section of the resolution, why does the Labor Party seek
to oppose everything that we have done in a practical way that
will bring that message home to the Soviet Union. Mr. Hayden says
that an effective boycott just as I have would bring the
mood of free peoples home to the Soviet Union more effectively
than anything else that we could do. In those circumstances, why
does he do everything he possibly can to see that an effective
boycott is not brought about. It is not good enough to say,
look, there is an effective boycott, I will join it. If you
believe an effective boycott will send the message to the Soviet
Union you have got to work for it. That is what the Government
is doing and that is what the Government will continue to do.
I think the debate, and many of the attitudes that were
expressed unfortunately trivialised a great and fundamental issue.
I think that is regrettable. 000---