CHECK AGAINST DELIVE40A. STA,', EMBARGOED UNTIL DELIVERY
PRIME -MINISTER
Statement to the Parliament by the Prime Minister: Arms
* 1 Control, Disarmament and Australia -6 June 1984
Mr Speaker
On this day 40 years ago, allied forces landed on the
.4beaches of Normandy to launch the final phase of the
destruction of Nazism. Within a year, those forces, Soviet
forces to the East, and the resistance movements in the
occupied countries had liberated the people of Europe and
brought peace to a devastated continent.
Shortly afterwards, the allies went on to achieve victory in
the Pacific and so brought an end to the carnage of the
Second World War. But that end was only achieved after the
victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had opened humanity's eyes
to the existence of a new and uniquely destructive
instrument of war -the nuclear weapon.
Since the end of the Second World War, we have witnessed
great changes in intednational a fairs t'he -no'stpositivebo
which has been the virtu end of colonialism and the
emergence to independenc Uand nationhood of hundreds of
millions of people, many of them in the Asia-Pacific region.
Certain essentials of the post-war system, however, continue
to form the basis of the present world order. The United
States and the USSR, the two powers which emerged
pre-eminent from the war, have gone on to achieve
unchallenged status as superpowers. Moreover, the system
has managed for four decades to avoid a further outbreak of
global conflict or open warfare between -the major powers.
We can all be thankful that since 1945 nuclear weapons have
not again been fired in war.
But if the peace has been kept between East and West, the
4East-West relationship has been at the best of times uneasy
and difficult, and frequently tense and dangerous.
Stability in Europe has not been matched in many parts of
the developing world, where local wars have caused great
misery to millions of people. Repression and the denial of
human rights persist in many countries. And for forty years
the peoples of the world have lived with the nightmare of
nuclear weapons, whose number and destructive power have
grown enormously.
East-West relations at present are at a very low ebb. Arms
control negotiations between the super powers are in great
difficulty. Their relationship is pcrmeatcd with suspicion.
The rhetoric surrounding it is potentially very dangerous.
At the same time, the international arrms race is proceeding
apace at the staggering cost of some 700 billion dollars
annually or well over a million dollars a minute.
This represents a scandalous waste of resources and human
ingenuity. None of us needs to be told how the world,
particularly the poorer countries, could benefit from a
redirection of this military expenditure into peaceful and
productive development.
Some 80 per cent of the expenditure on arms is * on
conventional weapons. In the thermonuclear age, we can
easily overlook the horrifying destruct-ive power which now
hides behind that anodyne term. The bloodshed in the Gulf
War and the destruction of sophisticated modern warships in
the Falklands war should remind us of its sinister
implications. But above all, it is the rapid technological development and
build-up of nuclear weapons which, combined with the
deterioration in East-West relations, has quite
understandably created the current mood of anxiety and anger
among ordinary men and women around the world as well as
here in Australia.
On Palm Sunday, a few weeks ago, some 250,000 Australians
marched in our cities to support the cause of peace,
disarmament and a'rms control. They marched to express the
increasing concern felt about the threat of nuclear war.
Those who marched kiA# Australia joined the countless others
who have marched recentl in Western Europe and the United
. J States. There is also 46d oubt that, if the Governments in
the USSR and Eastern Europe permitted genuine freedom of
expression, there would be millions on the streets there, as
well. The concern of the marchers for peace, the strength of their
feelings, and the very weight of their numbers must be takeninto
account by all Governments.
I have made it clear that we see a very sharp distinction
between nuclear weapons, which we abhor, and nuclear energy
for' ' peaceful purposes, which we support, and I shall return
to this theme in the course of this stetement.
But we certainly understand and identify with the
aspirations of the Australian people for peace and
disarmament and these aspirations inspire our policies.
Academician Andrei Sakharov, a key figure in the development
of Soviet nuclear weapons, whose present plight was the
subject of an important motion passed unanimously by this
House last week, is an outspoken advocate of the need for
arms control agreement between the superpowers.
Pointing out that thermonuclear war cannot be considered a
continuationg , fpoilt ics by other means, according to the
Clausewitz +_" but rather a means of nuclear suicide,
Dr Sakharov has identified the consequences of nuclear
conflict in stark terms which will move concerned people on
both sides of the ideological divide, as follows:
" 1A complete destruction o f c it iesa, industry,
transport and systems of education, a, poisoning of
fields, water and air by radioactivity, a physical
destruction of the larger part of mankind, poverty,
barbarism, a return to savagery, and a genetic
degeneracy of the survivors under the impact of
radiation, a destruction of the material and
information basis of civilisation".
Although Australia might appear remote from the areas of the
globe where any nuclear war might mainly be fought, it would
be unrealistic to suppose that Australia would not be
profoundly affected by such a conflict.
The Government believes that it is therefore in Australia's
vital interests, as a country which wants both to survive
and to be a constructive member of the international
community, to do allV & e can do to minimise the'-prospects for
nuclear conflict. i
We have a modest and realistic evaluation of our influence
on the super-powers and the other major powers but we will
use it whenever we can. The recent overseas visit by the
Minister for Foreign Affairs, who will speak in this debate,
is an effective example of what we are about.
The nuclear weapons states alone do not have the right to
determine the destiny of mankind. The fact that their
calculations or indeed their miscalculations could have
terrible consequences for the rest of us gives us the
responsibility before our people to be heard on these
fundamental issues.
In approaching this responsibility, the Government
unequivocally rejects the attractive but unrealistic idea
that unilateral disarmament would be an effective, way to
bring about an end to the arms race.
We proceed from the fact that Australia is an aligned nationand
that our security is supported by co-operative measures
under the auspices of ANZUS. The Labor Party takes pride in
the fact that the foundations of our alliance wth the United
States were laid by the great John Curtini, when this country
faced the gravest threat to its survival in 1941.
As an-independent ally of the United States, Aust ajiat
year init iated a thorough and successful review o r AriiUt
We are satisfied that the Treaty continues to support our
fundamental security interests, without absolving Australia
from the primary obligation to provide for our own national
defence. Honourable Members will recall that Secretary of
State Shultz commented that the review had been an excellent
idea and most worthwhile.
Our membership of the alliance in no way inhibits us from
pursuing the issues of arms control and disarmament. On the
contrary, as-my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs,
said on 18 January 1984:
" We work unabashedly through international fora for
arms control and disarmament, n u cle ar and
conventional. Our involvement with the United
States gives u s much greater claim to be heard on
these matters internationally.
There is much greater weight behind o u r
declarations on this subject precisely because we
are sensible enough to support the only effective
nuclear restraint system at the moment, deterrence,
but intelligent enough to worry about the
escalation, the excessive armouries, to want
something better and to work for it openly and
energetically."
We intend to continue to pursue these issues vigorously with.
both super powers. ,4f allies of the U. itdSaesd o
to press their concerns ab t arms control on the USSR, the
Soviet Leaders may be t pted to sit back and permit
one-sided pressure to build up in Washington. Mr Hayden's
vigorous advocacy of these issues in Moscow and the response
he was given by Mr Gromyko demonstrate that our alliance
with the United States is no barrier to Australia's voice
being heard in the Soviet Union.
r and senior Ministers of the Government have held
discussions on these matters with President Reagan and other
leading members of the Administration. We will take these
discussions further with Secretary of State Shultz when he
visits Canberra next month.
Arms control was a major item on the agenda ofmy
discussions with Premier Zhao in Peking in February. I have
raised the matter with President Mitterrand and Mr Hayden
has done the same in his recent talks with French Foreign
Minister Cheysson.
Since coming to power, this Government has given a priority
to arms control and disarmament issues unmatched by any of'
its predecessors. We have done this, a8 I have indicated,
because of our concern at the level of international tension
in recent years, our appreciation of the difficulties
bedevilling relations between the superpowers and our
recognition of the very legitimate anxieties which these
developments have aroused among the Australian people.
The Government believes that we should not allow ourselves
to be overwhelmed by a sense of global pessimism or imminent
disaster. We are aware that the issues posed by the politics and
technology of arms control and disarmament are,
extraordinarily complex. There are no ' quick fixes'
available. Arms control and disarmament cannot be imposed
on any nation, let alone the nuclear powers. Progress can
only be achieved through agreement between the countries
concerned. The Government believes that what is required are realistic,
concrete and balanced measures that have at their heart a
recognition of the national security interests involved.
We are guided by three basic principles:
security for all states at thE! lowest possible
level of armament
-stability ,~ the nuclear* balance; an~
adequate verifdlation arrangements.
As a member of every global disarmament body, Australia is
promoting treaties to end nuclear testing and to ban
chemical weapons, and measures to prevent an arms race in
outer space. We are also doing what we can do to strengthen
measures against-the spread of nuclear weapons.
For countries such as Australia, there is no substitute for
the hard slog of multilateral diplomacy designed to engage
the interests and support of the superpowers. The
appointment of Australia's first Ambassador for Disarmament
has significantly improved the effectiveness of our efforts
in this regard.
The Government's policy framework was laid down on 22
November 1983 when Cabinet took the following policy
decisions on arms control and disarmament:
to promote measures to halt and reverse the nuclear
arms race;
( ii) to uphold the international nuclear
non-proliferation treaty;
( iii) to promote a comprehensive and verifiable ban on
nuclear testing;
( iv) to develop the concept of a nuclear free zone in
the South Pacific;
to support the achievement of an agreement to ban
chemical weapons;
( vi) to support the process of negotiation and the
achievement of balanced and verifiable arms control
agreements;
( vii) to take an active role in pursuing arms control and
disarmament measures wherever possible;
( viii) to affirm Austrnilia's readiness to join a consensus
to hold an inte,.-national conference on the Indian
ocean zone of pr.-ace question.
Since coming to office t'r~ e Government has taken steps to
strengthen Australia's public and private institutional
capacity, to ensure that its commitment to peace and
disarmament will be backed by a high degree of professional
competence. I have mentioned our appointment of an Ambassador for
Disarmament, whose t~ l1e is to represent Australia in
international forum6", especially the Conference on
Disarmament in Geneva. gilithin the Department of Foreign
Affairs there has been a major strengthening of capacity to
handle disarmament issues through the deployment of
additional personnel to the Disarmament and Arms Control and
the Nuclear Policy areas.
The Government attaches great importance to the analytical
and creative role of academic institutions.
Mr Hayden announced in March 1984 that decisions had been
taken to provide funds on a seven year basis to enable a
peace research centre to be established at the Australian
National University.
Its purpose will be to provide a nucleus for serious and
scholarly research into the whole field of peace,
disarmament and arms control. Australia has also
contributed financially to the United Nations Institute for
Disarmament Research ( UNIDIR) which aims to raise the level
of research into disarmament and arms control problems.
7.
In addition the Government has made a voluntary contribution
to the World Disarmament Campaign, the purpose of which is
to inform, educate and to generate public understanding and
support for the objectives of the United nations in the area
of disarmament.
In 1986, which has been designated by the United Nations as
the International Year of Peace, the Government intends to
S: commemorate the Year with a program of appropriate
activities. Of the many -initiatives we have taken in the field of arms
control, I draw particular attention to our efforts on
behalf of the Non-proliferation Treaty and a comprehensive
. test ban treaty.
I stress again, as I did when tabling the ASTEC Report, the
Sparticular and fundamental significance which the Government
attaches to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. We regard the NF'T
as the most important multilateral non-proliferation and
arms control agreement in existence. We will continue to do
everything in our power to strengthen international
; i adherence to the Treaty.
In the House on 31 May, I drew attention to the ASTEC
Report's findings that, if international tensions are to be
reduced and the prospects of a peaceful global environment
enhanced, the importance of national and international
energy security cannot be overemphasised. The Report noted
Fi that disruptions in the supply of resources of any sort have
been a cause of into? national tension aind, through human
history, have led to war. The Inquiry concluded that
Australia, through bein ta reliable, long-term supplier of
uranium, is in a position to contribute significantly to
international energy security.
iThe Report expressed the concern that we must all share that
the prevention of nuclear war is of the greatest importance
to all humanity. It also pointed out that should a country
decide to embark on a nuclear weapons program, it was most
unlikely to use a civil reactor to do so for technical and
economic reasons.
i. It concluded that Australia would best be able to make a
significant contribution to non-proliferation and world
peace if it were actively involved in the nuclear fuel
cycle.
In this context, let me recall for Honourable Members what
academician Sakharov, whose credentials as an advocate for
arms control and disarmament are, as I have said, exemplary,
said in 1977 about the civil use of nuclear power:
" It is difficult to explain to a nonspecialist
( although it is actually true) that the nuclear
reactor of a nuclear power station is nothing like
an atomic bomb The development of nuclear
technology has proceeded with much greater
attention to the problems of safety techniques and
pre-servation of the environment than th e
development of such branches of technology as
metallurgy, coke chemistry, m in in g, c he m ical1
industry, coal power stations modern
transportation, chemicalization of agriculture.,
etc. Therefore, the present situation in nuclear
power is relatively good from the point of view of
safety and possible effect on the environment " 1
The House may recall that, when the great debate took place
in this country at the beginning of the last decade on
whether Australia should subscribe to the Nuclear
Non-proliferation Treaty, opponents of the Treaty argued
that we would need a nuclear weapons capacity to repel the
survivors of an atomic war in the Northern hemisphere.
To the great credit and benefit of this country, that
argument did not prevail. The Coalition Government signed
the Treaty in 1970 and the previous Labor Government moved
-rapidly-to ratify i, ,, in-January 1973.
I now reiterate that thAt Labor Government categorically
rejects any nuclear weapons option for Australia.
Another of Australia's primary objectives in contributing to
curbing the nuclear arms race has been to promote a
comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty ( CTB) which would
outlaw all nuclear tasting by all states in all environments
for all time.
Australia has been active on this issue both in the United
Nations and in the Conference on Disarmament, and in
bilateral discussions with the nuclear weapons states.
The conclusion of a comprehensive nuclear te~ st ban treaty
would help to put strong pressure on France to cease its
testing program in the Pacific. A universally adhered-to
treaty would also help inhibit the spread of nuclear weapons
by making it impossible to test nuclear explosive devices
including the so-called peaceful nuclear explosions. it
would also help to limit the development of new nuclear
weapons and the improvement of existing nuclear weapons.
Y4
In addition to advocating the test ban in international
meetings and in bilateral exchanges with other governments,
Australia has played a major role in aeeking to solve
procedural obstacles to the re-convening of a committee of
the Conference on Disarmament on this issue.
To this end Australia and New Zealand sponsored a resolution
at the United Nations General Assembly in 1983 with the ain
of promoting a formulation for a mandate for the committee,
that would receive general agreement. This resolution
achieved a large measure of support and, unlike competing
resolutions on the same topic by Mexico and the Soviet
Union, it attracted no negative votes.
Our efforts had some influence in the encouraging
development that the United States abstained on this
resolution, after voting against a similar resolution the
: 4 year before.
Notwithstanding a number of major difficulties which have to
date prevented agreement, we are continuing patiently and
assiduously to pursue this objective and to seek to build on
the modest progress already achieved.
In further support of the test ban objective, an Australian
expert from the Bureau of Mineral Resources is participating
in the Group of Seismic Experts which is considering
questions relevant to a global scientific network to monitor
a test ban. Australia's geographic situation means we have
an important potential role in such a qiobal network.
A major purpose of eour efforts in the multilateral
disarmament field is to/ tiring influence to bear on the
bilateral relationship of the United States and the USSR.
Australia has consistently urged the United States and the
Soviet Union to seek agreements to limit and reduce their
nuclear stockpiles and has supported their negotiations to
this end: the Strategic Arms Reduction talks ( START) and the
talks on intermediate-range Nuclear Forces ( INF). It was a
great disappointment to the Government when these
negotiations were suspended by the Soviet Union and the
Government has expressed on many occasions its hope that
they-will be resumed as soon as possible. Australia is not
of course a party to these negotiations but the Government
is doing what it can to encourage resumption-of these
negotiations and to break down the barriers of mistrust and
suspicion. In the Government's view, adequate and effective provision
for verification is a crucial precondition for progress in
arms control negotiations. Another fundamental requirement
is the maintenance of effective and stable deterrence
between the superpowers and the contribution which that
makes to a climate of confidence. Without this there can be
no progress.
There are special reasons why our role in this is and will
remain something more than modest. We contribute positively
to verification and stable and effective deterrence. Our
standing in these matters derives not only from our policy
commitments and objectives but From the presence of, and the
important role played by, the Australian-United States Joint
Defence Facilities on our soil.
At its highest levels, the United States Administration has
been consulted on and has acceded to issuance of the
following statement:
Australia-United States Joint Defence Facilities
Since coming to office the Government has
determined to act upon its undertaking to provide
the public with a statement on the general purpose
and functions of the defence facilities we operate
jointly with oi-t American ally.
Successive Governments have maintained secrecy
about the facilities at Pine Gap and Nurrungar.
this sometimes arouses concern about the sorts of
activities we might be becoming involved in, and
about possible dangers to our security. Our
Pa rt y'Is Platform, therefore, C allIs on th e
Government to make known to the public the general
purpose and functions of the f a c iIi t ies and any
change to these.
When the Mg isters ' for Def enc.. and Foreign Af fairs
were in Wa ' shing on in July last year they took the
opportuni ty tcoV raise these matters with the U
Secretary of Defence, Mr Weinberger, and relevant
authorities in the Pentagon.
We are concerned that such a statement should not
damage our own and our allies' interests and
accordingly the Government does not intend to act
unilaterally and in disregard of international
assurances about preservation of secrecy given by
our predecessors for over a decade. Nevertheless,
there is a good deal that can be said to provide
reassurance to the Australian people.
The facilities are not military b. a-ses. There are
no combat personnel or combat equipments there, no
military stores or workshops, no plant or machinery
or laboratories for research, development,
production or maintenance of any weapons or combat
systems of any type.
Timely knowledge of developments that have military
significance is very important and can be critical
for the security o f the US and its allies,
including Australia. Effective deterrence and
hence avoidance o f c o n fIic t depend o n th is
S im il1a rly effective measures f or m ili t a ry
restraint and for the control and reduction of
armaments depend upon reliable assessments of
military developments. Arms limitation
arrangements between the United States and the
Soviet Union specifically provide for verification.
The-general purpose of the facilities that we
operate a t Nurrungar and P in e Gap w it h th e
Americans i s t o contribute t o all o f these
objectives. Among the functions performed are the provision of
early warning by receiving from space satellite: 3
information ab o ut m iss ilIe launches, and th e
provision of information about the occurrence of
nuclear explosions, which assists in nuclear test
ban monitoring and supports nuclear
non-proliferation measures. Disclosures of other
technical functions of the classified facilites
would involve damage to both US and Australian
interests and cannot be justified.
The purpose and functions of the joint defence,
facility at North West Cape have already been made!
public. It is a communicaticons relay station for
-ships and p~ imarines of the United States-Navy andV
the Royal" Australian Navy and serves as a key
element in atc omplex system of communications
supporting the global balance. As indicated in the
statement which the Minister for Defence tabled in
Parliament o n 3 November 1983, agreement wa s
reached with the United States Government on new
arrangements to ensure that the Australian
Government would be able to make timely judgements
about the significance for national interest of
developments involving North West Cape.
These new arrangements are now in force. The
Government is sa t is f ied that Australia's
sovereignty in the operation of the joint defence
facility at North West Cape is now adequately
protected. 11.
12.
Some people express concern about possible risks to
our security from those facilitea. The Government
takes the view that the joint facilities directly
contribute to the security that we enjoy every day
and that this tangible -benef it outweighs the
possibility that risks might arise at some future
time from our hosting the facilities. For many
years our intelligence and defence authorities have
assessed the risk of nuclear war as remote and
improbable, provided effective deterrence is
maintained. Australians cannot claim the full protection of
that deterrence without being willing to make some
contribution to its effectiveness. I t is important
to support stability in the strategic relationship
between the superpowers and our co-operation in the
joint facilities at North West Cape, Pine Gap and
Nurrungar does this.
As to the specific risk of nuclear attack on theso
facilities in the event of nuclear war it is not;
possible to be categoric; we cannot enter the minds
of possibly hostile foreign military planners. The
Government believes that hosting the facilitiev
does bring with it some degree of added -risk of'
nuclear attack. But the maintenance of effective
deterrence including through early. warning has as
its' purpose the avoidance of ' war between the
nuclear powers. Such * a war would inevitably affect.
all natio, I2 including Australia, and itsavinc
is' edsentfal for the security of-* the Australian
people.-The -preservation of, peace between the nuclear
powers has-for ' many. years been dependent upon a
situation * of* * stable deterrence.-Maintaining, and
where-possible enhancing, the stability;* of that
de terrent relationship-is the objective of this
Government in these matters. Deterrence can be
pursued through any means of convincing's potential
aggressor that he would face unacccoptable costs,
but stability requires discrimination and
restraint. We do not believe there can be a winning side in a
nuclear war. The notion of a nuclear first strike
designed to disarm an adversary would be
destabilizing were it to gain credence.
Nor can there be any assurance that nuclear
conflict between the super-powers could be limited.
This Government's voice on su~ ch matters will be
directed towards supporting doc * trines which eschew
moving beyond the requirements of stable deterrence
towards postures more appropriate to waging nuclear
war in some limited and controlled way.
13.
While we recognise that in present global.
circumstances a unilateral move away from a policy
of maintaining stable deter'rence is not a realistic:
option, the Australian Government is committed to
working for measures to stabilize the strategic
balance, on which stable deterrence depends, and tc
curb arms competition. Through equitable and
verifiable measures for arms control and reduction,
we seek to limit qualitative improvements in arms
and to reduce the-forces involved.
The -Government does not intend to comment further
upon speculation or assertions about the joint
facilities at Pine Gap and Nurrungar. Enough has
been said, however, to correct some serious
misunderstandings and to provide the reassurance
that people properly seek.
Finally, let me emphasise again that these
facilites are jointly managed and operated by the
Australian and American Governments. All functions
and activities require, and have, the full
knowledge and concurrence of the Australian
Government. Vle monitor this and we are satisfied
that the operations of the facilities in no -way
derogate from Australian sovereignty.
Mr Speaker, as I have indicated, the United States
Administration has been consulted on the statement I have
just made and has acceded to its issuance. The Government'. s
wish to make this st-E' ement met with understanding and
co-operation from the UI. jS. Administratia.
This has enabled me to make today to this parliament the
most comprehensive public statement on the facilities yet
made by an Australian Prime Minister or Minister.
The lack of public-information until now on the purposes of
the facilities has not assisted public understanding of the
vital issues involved. It is to be regretted that the
previous Government did not make the necessary effort to see
that the Australian people viere properly informed. This has
helped build up an unwarranted mystique about them and
encouraged a tendency in certain sections of the media and
elsewhere to discuss Nurrungar and Pine gap in a speculative
and provocative manner.
Some Australian groups and individuals call for the closing
of the joint defence facilities. The Government recognises
many of such calls as being sincerely made. We regard them
as misguided but not hostile in intent.
14.
I do not expect that such calls will now cease. But I ask
those making them to consider very seriously the
implications of what they are demanding. As I havo
indicated, the removal of the joint facilities would hinder
U. S. efforts to maintain effective and atable deterrence and
would damage the capacity of the United States for
monitoring and verification, so striking a very serious blow
at the prospect of arms control agreements between the
super-powers. Such a development would dash the hopes of
ordinary men and women around the world for peace and
disarmament. Moreover, I draw particular attention to the early warning
function mentioned in the statement I have just made, and to
the significance of that function for the avoida* ence of
nuclear war. In an uncertain and suspicious international
climate, no action should be taken which would reduce
stability or increase the risk of war through
miscalculation. Mr Speaker,
As we contemplate the momeintous events of 40 years ago, we
can be profoundly thankful for the efforts and sacrifices of
those who participated in D-Day. They fought for a cause
which was incontrovertibly-right. They helped creato a
world which has managed since to avoid the horror of global
conflict.. We might also think for a moment of those who had fought
with equal bravery in. rrhe Great War, believing that that
would prove to be thi'war to end wars. The bloodshed at
Gallipoli, in particulargsi4ias left an indelible impression
on the Australian national consciousness.
Vie may also recall the indignation and pity which the
horrors of that war aroused among the young men who went to
fight on the Western Front. The great English poet, Wilfred
Owen, notwithstanding his winning the Military Cross a month
before he died in battle in 1918 at the age of 25, was a
passionate opponent of viar. The title of one of his poems,
" Anthem for Doomed Youth", sums up the tragedy of that
generation. In letters to his family early in 1917, Owen wrote that " No
Man's Land is pockmarked like a body of foulest disease and
its odour is the breath of cancer No Man's Land under
snow is like the face of the moon, chaotic, crater-ridden,
uninhabitable, awful, the abode of madness". He described
" the universal pervasion of ugliness. Hideous landscapes,
vile noises everything unnatural, broken, blasted;
the distortion of the dead, whose unburiable bodies sit
outside the dug-outs all day, all night, the most execrable
sights on earth".
I,
That was one poet's vision of the First World War. Should
there be a nuclear war, the whole world will be a No Man's
Land. There will be no ao to sing the anthem for our young
generations, if vie are unable to prevent global conflict.
Such a conflict, which. God forbid, would indeed be a war to
end war -it would threaten the extinction of humanity.
It is precisely to prevent such a catastrophe that so many
Australian people have taken up the cause of peace and
disarmament. And it is precisely to achieve the same end
that the Government has, from its perspective, developed its
policies on arms control and disarmament to which it will
continue to devote its highest priority.