AUSTRA1 1A&
PRIME MINISTER
E. O. E. PROOF ONLY
TRANSCRIPT OF PRESS CONFERENCE FOR FOREIGN PRESS AT CHOGM
CONFERENCE CENTRE, NEW DELHI, 29 NOVEMBER 1983
PM: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Just a couple-* of
preliminary comments that I would like before making myself
available for questions. The first is of course that I'm
not available for a general analysis of the conference,
which, as you will appreciate Mrs. Gandhi and Mr. Ramphal
will be conducting such a conference at the end of proceedings
and it is not appropriate for me in any way to attempt to
usurp or appear to usurp that function. I will be available
to talk about any matter particularly concerning Australia
and the second thing I would like to say to the non-Australian
contingent, that we have had many requests for interviews and
I expressed my regrets that because of the pressures of time
and the conference I haven't been able to make myself
available for those individual interviews and I hope that this
may be some sort of substitute for that.
OK, it's over to you.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister Hawke, Australia recently announced
further steps to isolate the South African Government, but
they fall far short of the proposals that have been made by
both SWAPO and for breaking diplomatic ties with
Pretoria and full economic sanctions against South Africa.
Against the background of these calls would you contemplate
stronger action? And, if you would, how do you think it would
affect Australia's substantial trading links with South Africa?
PM: Two or three comments on that. Firstly, the decisions
which we have taken and which I announced in detail yesterday
were unanimously welcomed by the representatives at the conference
and were taken as amongst the strongest positions that have been
adopted by any nation. Secondly, those decisions were taken by
my Government in the context of what was being done elsewhere and
we were going, as I say, as far as, and in many cases further
than what has been done in other countries. This leads me to the
third comment that if, of course, the rest of the Commonwealth
and the world community were prepared to take further action,
then my Government has made it clear that it would be up there
with them, but if you take, for inistarnce, the case of economic
sanctions I had the experience through the decade of the 70s as
/ 2
head of the Australian trade union movement of being at
meetings of the ILO in Geneva when there was a great deal
of enthusiasm and motions being carried calling for
universal economic sanctions against South Africa. But
there was a distinct lack of correlation between the
enthusiasm with which the hands were put up to vote in Geneva
and the action that was in fact taken at home. So Australia
has made it quite clear that if the world is prepared, or
the relevant parts of the world are prepared to act in that
way, Australia will be there. Australia is not going to act,
alone when other countries would simply be filling in
vacuums that might be left by Australia. So I conclude by
saying that what we've done is strong by any standards and
I repeat, it was universally welcomed by my colleagues at the
conference. JOURNALIST: You met Mr. Lee of Singapore here. Could you
please report on that meeting and your relations with ASEAN
on the Cambodian question.
PM: Yes, well the meeting with Mr. Lee the first meeting where
!-hosted a lunch for him last week was extremely cordial and
direct and constructive and that meeting has been continued
throughout. We have spent a good deal of time together at Goa
and subsequently. I would say our relations with Mr. Lee and
Singapore are excellent. There is a directness about Mr. Lee
which I welcomed and indeed at the press conference that we
gave after that luncheon last week at the Australian High
Commission he straightforwardly said any problem that there
was is over, as indeed it is. But he said that between two
countries which are as robust and direct as Australia and
Singapore it is likely that some time in the future there may
be differences. The important thing is that we have
established, I believe, a close, constructive, direct
relationship between the two leaders of the countries and
it is within that framework that I believe any differences that
may arise in the future will be capable of being handled
sensibly and in * the interests of our two countries. Now, going
to the second part of your question in regard to ASEAN. I
said before I left Australia, both inside the Parliament and
outside it, that there had been obviously a tendency to
overstate the differences that appear to have arisen. There
were differences but they were not differences which in my
judgement in any way substantially affected the relationship
and that is because the thrust of Australia and the ASEAN
countries in regard to Kampuchea is basically identical. The
conditions that we see as necessary for the resolution of that
problem are the same as ASEAN. That is the necessity for
the withdrawal of the Vietnamese troops, a creation of a
condition within which there can be a free expression of the will
of the Cambodian people which can lead to free and independent,
non-aligned Kampuchea and within which circumstance there can be
a return to that unfortunate country of refugees from it. Now,
those conditions are Australia's conditions. Those conditions
are the conditions of ASEAN and there had been simply a
difference which had led us not to co-sponsor the ASEAN
resolutionl which basically wient to the cluestion of the emphasis
UIOfl the PO] Pot 0eleent Of th2 coa7l it ion ill Kamp11' UChA Now
those matters are fully understood by our ASEAN friends as
. a result of discussions that I and my Foreign Minister, Bill
Hayden, had in Bangkok and that I followed here and that
Bill Hayden has followed in Indonesia and it is not merely
out of my mouth, it is clearly out of the mouths now of our
friends in Bangkok, Mr. Lee, Dr. Mochtar. It is quite clear
that that row, or whatever you want to call it, is over.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister what do you see as the main
achievement of this particular summit?
PM: Good question. That's getting dangerously close to the
sort of area that I talked about before I really think that
ought to be the province first of all of Mrs Gandhi and
Sonny Ramphal. So I would make one comment in respect of
Australia's position and then one, if you like, other comment.
As far as Australia is concerned the importance of the
Conference for me has been the opportunity to meet directly
the leaders of very many important countries. And when I say
important, I don't want to underestimate the importance of the
smaller countries and meeting with them. I now have a basis
into the future of conducting relations between Australia and
other countries of the Commonwealth from a personal knowledge
of the people concerned and a considerable respect for them.
That's been very important to me.
As far as the Conference itself generally is concerned involving
Australia I think that the inclusion of Australia in the group
of five nations which has been established to work with the
United Nations Secretary-General to try and get a resolution
of the unfortunate situation created by the UDI there in
northern Cyprus. That's important for us. We believe that
we have a real interest because of the large population of
Cypriot origin in Australia and our continuing involvement in
the police contingent in Cyprus, and I believe that we do have
an opportunity of playing a part there.
Without taking the proper area of Mrs Gandhi's and Sonny
Ramphal's responsibility I would observe simply in passing that
I think the way in which a common position was reached on
Grenada was to me remarkable. The initial debate was tough,
hard, divisive. Out of that, however, due to processes which
I think could only uniquely happen in the Commonwealth, a common
position was reached. And speaking for Australia, which is all
I purport to speak for here, I believe that the discussion, the
debate and the analysis of that situation in Grenada will have
been significantly facilitated by what happened here.
JOURNALIST: As a newcomer to the meeting whose views aren't
widely known about the Commonwealth how has the meeting affected
those. / 4
PM: In this way. I answered a question from my own press
grouping in this way that I have never been one to emphasise
the mysticism of the Commonwealth, an element which at times
people tend to wax a bit lyrical about. But what has been
made clear to me is that there is a special quality or capacity
for dialogue within the Commonwealth which I believe you would
not find reflected in any other significant international
grouping. And that was, I believe, most evident in regard
to Grenada.
But picking up your ' new boy' point, when I first heard the
debate I expressed the view that it seemed to me virtually
impossible that you could get common ground. But the readiness
of people with quite strongly divergent, and indeed conflicting
interpretations intially their capacities to listen to one
another, to make some compromise, with a view to looking to the
future to see what we could do constructively in the future
rather than have recriminations about the past, impressed
me very significantly.
I think also, again from Australia's point of view, on tie
Cyprus question there was a concrete example of how this
rather unique group of countries have been able to provide a
working group to operate alongside the United Nations Secretary-
General and as I understand it will be welcomed by the United
Nations officers. Now that's useful.
In the broader area, as I've said in answer to a previous
question, I think it does provide a particular chance to get
to know a range of people aligned, non-aligned, from every
geographical area, from every stage of economic development.
JOURNALIST: From what one has heard in the lobbies you appear
to stand somewhere to the right of Mr Muldoon on economic
support towards Bretton Woods. Would give us some idea of the
area of your disagreement terms of your position on third
world problems.
PM: May I say as-an example of the futility of the facile
application of tags like right and left in complex issues like
this, it may facilitate your journalism, it does nothing for the
understanding of issues.
The fact is that Muldoon, for a considerable period of time,
has had a view about the inadequacy of the existing institutions
which grew out of the Bretton Woods arrangement to deal with the
sorts of problems that are confronting the world economic
community in the 1980' s. Now let's get the points of agreement
and then the different points of emphasis. It's got nothing
to-do in this issue with left or right, or any other tag
of convenience.
The point of agreement between everyone would be that the world
of the 1980' s and as we move towards the end of the twentieth, is
a different more complex world from the uncertainties that
characterised the end of the second world war. I would argue,
and I think the evidence is irrefutable, that those institutions
established at the end of the war h'ave in fact shown a degree
of adaptability. The charter of the IMF has in fact been
amended three times a fact which some people are not aware
of. And not merely in relation to its charter but in the way
those institutions have operated it is self-evident that there
has been a capacity to adjust within the institutions and in
their facilitation with the private sector that has meant
that the problems of the indebted countries have been capable of
being dealt with in a way which would not have been imagined
as possible several years ago. And therefore my view, the view
of others, is that you've got to temper an understanding of
the dimensions of the problems that we ' re talking about with
the realistic objectives of trying to make sure that the major
donor countries, the contributor countries, to these institutions
that they are going to remain co-operative and improve the
operation of the institutions. Those are my views and therefore
I say that what's sensible is to try to ensure that the
existing institutions have their capacities maintained as
a first step, in other words there is the 8th IMF quotas that
have to be finalised, general arrangements to borrow, the
replenishment of the IDA has to be finalised by July of next
year. Now it just seems to me a matter of common sense to
have as a first objective the meeting of those existing
requirements for the institutions. Then if we find, as I
believe we would, that there is a need to add to those
capacities then we should address ourselves to that. In
other words you're more likely to have this marrying of the
meeting of the dimensions of the problems with the involvments
of the major countries who have to provide the facilities for
these things to work. We're likely to marry those things together
effectively if you do it through the approach of trying to
increase the effectiveness of existing institutions.
Within that approach there is room for some preliminary sorbent(?)
approach to a more general review and Mrs Gandhi and Mr Ramphal
will address themselves in talking about the conference to what
the conference has in fact done.
JOURNALIST: The British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had
some figures in making this whole approach to the Interim
Monetary Conference somewhat halting and half-hearted ( inaudible)
PM: It's not appropriate that I should address myself to that
because it is a decision taken yesterday and it will be for
Mrs Gandhi and Mr Ramphal to explain that to you. As I said
at the outset I'm not here to try in any way to pre-empt their
exposition to you of the decision of the conference.
JOURNALIST: Could I take up a new point if I may -your ' new boy'
point. PM: It wasn't mine it was someone else's.
JOURNALIST: You used the phrase yoursel. f, so I hope you don't
mind if I use it.
PM: No, no I don't mind sharing things. / 16
JOURNALIST: It was reported that your first impressions of
the way the mission's organised was that it was at the retreat
that the hard work was done and that the sessions here in Dehli
were perhaps less useful and that perhaps that what might be
more productive in the future would be a four day retreat type
conference. PM: You don't capture exactly what I said because there is no
way in which I would say that the work here hasn't been hard
and in many ways as productive. But you do get to the basic
points. I have a feeling that, I guess it reflects the busyness
that one has at home and the importance of issues there, that
you probably could handle a conference of: this sort in a shorter
period of time. Now I do value the retreat context which in
fact most of it was involved in formal sessions. But it did
provide the opportunity for effective bi-laterals. I would
diffidently make the observation that it would be worth looking
at shorter periods, perhaps with more preparatory work done.
Let me make it clear that's not a criticism of the preparatory
work that's done by the Secretariat with the conference, but
what I'm rather saying is that if in fact we had more
documentation before we arrived, then it may be possible to
have a shorter period of conference and my preference would
be in that case not to shorten but lengthen the retreat
component of it. Now I just make the final observation as
far as the observations of a first attender those are my
impressions and it's the sort of thing I think which could
usefully be thought about and discussed.
JOURNALIST: that Australia was strongly opposed to the
American invasion of Grenada the Commonwealth peace force.
As a result of this conference has Australia ' s view on Grenada
and particularly the American invasion changed?
PM: We expressed the view in the Parliament in Australia that
if we had been consulted, which we were not, before the event
we would have counselled against it. And that is the view that
I would hold now. I think that it is correct to say, speaking
not only for myself but I know in particular the leader of
one African country spoke to me just yesterday he said he
had learnt a great deal from the debate and discussion on
Grenada. And anyone who sat through that debate and didn't
learn a great deal should in fact not be here. And I think
that the communique reflects that learning process. Again
it's for Mrs Gandhi and Mr Ramphal to talk for the conference
about the resolution, but I suggest if you examine it the fact
that it is not recriminating about what's happened but is
directing itself to how the processes of the restoration of
normal government and the facilitating of what we may be able
to do to help, that speaks volumes.
JOURNALIST: We have heard of the action which your Government
proposes to take in regard to South Africa. Can you tell us
what has prompted you to take this action and ( inaudible).
PM: You say what has prompted me. I would. remind you that
I-have a long history of commitment against apartheid, not merely
in words but in actions. I became President of the Australian
trade union movement in 1.970. Very soon after that we had the
prospect of the Springbok rugby tour of Australia and as head of
the trade union movement I led the fight within Australia
against that visit and it wasn't an easy one I can assure.
There were all sorts of threats to us involved, physical
threats, legal threats. And within the International Labor
Organisation the African states were kind enough early in
the 70' s and throughout to recognise the lead that I'd taken
in Australia and the trade union movement under my leadership
had taken. So I came to government with a long history within
Australia and ini the relevant international forums that I was
involved in of expressing the abhorrence which I and the movement
which I led had against that evil system. It's important that
that be understood. I don't come to government having to think
for the first time about this issue. So, as I said, on one
other occasion, privately I think it was, that in this world
there are all sorts of discriminations, favours for people and
disadvantages imposed upon people because of religion, income
and these sorts of things. Now all of that discrimination I
find abhorrent. In respect of some of those things if a person
wants to change his or her religious adherence and wants even
to change his geographical position it's within the capacity
of individuals if they think that the discrimination may have
some basis, it's within the capacity of individuals to change.
If I want to become black I can't become black. If you want
to become white you can't become white. And it just seems
to me intrinsically abhorrent that something which is totally
outside the capacity of a person to-do anything should in any
conceivable circumstance be made a basis of discrimination. That's
something that I have felt deeply all my life and so do my
colleagues within my Government. So what we have done when we
came to Government merely reflected deep convictions that we hold.
And I said in my contribution yesterday that I paid tribute
to my predecessor and indeed it should go back before that to
the previous Labor Government under Mr Whitlam who took a very
strong stand which was respected throughout-the African countries.
Mr Fraser to his credit coming from a more difficult, if you like,
philosophical background maintained the position which had been
initiated by the Whitlam Labor Government and I pay him credit
for that. We felt when we came to office that there was more
that could be done and so we have acted in that way. We've
strengthened the stand in regard to sporting contacts. We
have indicated that there is welcome on our part for the
African National Congress and Swapo to open offices in Australia.
We've started to establish a system of scholarships for those
discriminated against within South Africa to give them the
opportunity of participating in the tertiary education system
which otherwise they would not have. We've made arrangements
deliberately to bring to Australia outstanding opponents of the
apartheid system so that there shall be in Australia the
opportunity for the expressions of that view at least as equally
as in our democracy is provided to the other side. And we
are reviewing the airline policy between ourselves and southern
Africa and we have already cut one South African Airways flight
and we are reviewing the whole. So those things we have done and
we have done it for the reasons that I suggest. We simply find
the system abhorrent and as I said yesterday it's important that
we at this conference express our rejection of the cosmetics with
which the South African government is trying to delude the world
at the moment becaUSe those cosme1tics even more deeply entrench
apartheid into the system...
PM: cont... Now in regard to the contact group I was pleased to
hear yesterday a representative of the African states, Kenneth
Kuanda, and others, praising the members of the contact group
for the approach that they had adopted. Particularly they were
addressing themselves to the British Government and they were
continuing to impress upon the British that they should adhere
to their view and I'm sure they will, the rejection of the concept
of linkage, a concept which we as an Australian government reject.
What has been said by the British Government and has I think been
accepted by the African states that a contact group has done
everything that it can in respect of addressing itself to the
mechanics of the electoral processes what needs to be done to
give effect to the decisions of the United Nations. Those
things have been done. It now remains a question of the
pressure that we put in one way or another upon the South
African regime to allow the final processes of independence
for Namibia to be effected.
JOURNALIST: Can the United States put that type of pressure
on the South African Government.
PM: Well it is within their capacity. I said, and I repeat here,
t hat we reject the concept of linkage and we have a good cordial
relationship with the United States and within that relationship
we will quietly and effectively as we can put that view to them.
JOURNALIST: From your statement you say you are heartened at
Australia's point of view on South Africa banning the
entry of rebel sportsmen into Australia?
PM: That was in the package in which we strengthened the ban
against amateur sportsmen and women. We took the view that all
amateur sportsmen and women wanting to come into Australia shou~ ld
prima facie be regarded as coming with the impramateur of and
being representative of their country. And our southern African
colleagues have recognised that the total package was a strengthening.
-It is true that in respect of those rebels there is a recognition
not only within our country but in a number of the African states
that to give effect to that proposal was complex and unrealistic
and so we'vye said we will not proceed with that. But in every
other respect there was a strengthening, and that was dealing
with a questioning if you like of actual practicalities. I
repeat as far as the African states are concerned their
judgement which was one which I w~ uld think is relevant. They
have acknowledged and welcomed the fact that the package as a
whole is a strengthening of our position in that area.
JOURNALIST: Can I ask a personal question. More than 30 years ago
you first came to India and you converted from religion to socialism.
PM: The premise of your question is wrong so you ' re going to
be in trouble. Can I tell you what happened and then you may
want to reframe your question. I came here to a world conference
of Christian youth as a member of an Australian delegation.
My experiences here started the processes of doubt in my mind
which accelerated and that was a conversion if you like from
faith to agnosticism. It wasn't the sort of conversion you
talk about now. That changing of your premise still leaves
you with a question.
JOURNALIST: What affect has this visit had on you and
do you see any problems ( inaudible)
I see. No. I wouldn't say I'd led a totally aesthetic
few days since I've been here. But it has been a very
disciplined few days and I'm proud of that. The experience
I had thirty years agb was profound upon me and I hope that all
of one's life is a learning process and it has been for me and
this is that of another dimension to the learning process. I
understand again through visiting the country the enormity of
the problems that it confronts. I remind you just in
population terms of the difference. I think when I came here in
1952 the population would have been 300 million odd. Now it's
680 million. The annual increase in the population of India
is about equivalent to the entire Australian population. When
you think about and you see the realities of that here then
it concerns your understanding of the enormity of the problems
confronting Mrs Gandhi, her government and indeed any government.
So that understanding has been strengthened and my commitment,
and not only a personal commitment,. but a commitment of my
Government to try and do within our limited capacity what we
can to help countries and people less privileged than ourselves
has been strengthened.
ENDS.