PF 2 MMEE MINISTER
. TscrkP FORUM C NO' UGUST 1984.1
FUNAFUTI PRIME MINISTER: Well ladies and gentlemen, the Forum having
quickly disposed of certain procedural matters went first to
the decolonisation issue which, of course, specifically involves
developments in New Caledonia. Without identifying contributions
individually I would attempt to spell out and sum up for you
the nature of the discussion. And I would preface that by saying
that we concluded the discussion just prior to lunch when I
introcuced the nuclear free zone concept. I'll come to that in
a r--ant. No resolution was passed on this matter of New
Caledonia, but that will come to be reflected in the final
communique. I think these tbings can be said as reflecting
general views in the Forum discussions. Firstly there was, as
of course will be no surprise to you, a unanimous view as to the
desirability of independence for New Caledonia. _ But I think what
should be stressed is that while in some quarters there has
been a tendency to stress the question of indepence for the
Kanaks it was the very general view that what we're talking
about is independence for New Caledonians. There was reference
to the multi-ethnicity of the population and that all people there
including, of course, the Kanaks-have the right to independence.
Within that view there was again I think a fairly general
attitude that there should be an acceleration of the move by
the French. We were talking about, as you know, a referendum
date of 1989 and without there being a resolution on this a
number of speakers felt that there should be an attempt to be
thinking of perhaps as early as 1986 for a referendum in these
terms.. There was a ceneral recognition I believe of the
progress that has been made under the 1K-tterand Government since
its accession to power in 1981. Indeed, I think there is an
acceptance generally of the integrity of the French Government
in its attempts to come to a peaceable resolution of this issue.
There was reference to some of those particular developments and
I refer not merely to the passage of the statute recently in the
French Parliament, but earlier to the plan for legislation which
was instituted by decree from France in 1982. And that was
subsequent to the visit to France by a Forum delegation headed
by Prime Minister Ratu Mara of Fiji. On the specific question
of the suggestion that there should be a move to support
reinscription of the issue of New Caledonia on the agenda of
the Committee of 24 of the United Nations I think it is fair
to say that there was a general, not unanimous, but a general
view that reinscription on the agenda of the Committee of 24
would not be helpful to the aspirations of New Caledonia for
independence which, as I say, the Forum unanimously supported
that as such reinscription itself would not add anything but
properly considered may in fact create more difficulties within
France, where after all the decisions of substance have to be made.
And there has to be a consciousness of the fact that there are
elections in France in 1986 and that is relevant for the present
Government and indeed looking at the political continuum in France
there is the judgement generally made, I think, by Forum members
that the decisions taken now by us in respect of how we would
attempt to press or not. to press for reinscription on the
P. M. cont...: Committee of 24 would be relevant to that internal
French context. A final point I'd make in regard to-the discussions
Sis this, and I think its a very important one, that there are
suggestions from the independence frcnt'or at least elements
of it that this is a critical point for the iorum as to their
attitude and that if in fact we were not to take-a particular
position, for instance in regard to inscription, that this coul. d
be regarded as providing a situation, or creating-a situation,'
where they would-no longer be able to look to the Forum and would
have to look outside the region. Now very'specifically some of us
referred to. that issue and we made it. qlear that one.. of.. the.
great advantages of our region, the forum region, is that the
processes of force, armed revolution and . terrorism have been
c;.. t. ic tly absent from the way in which affairs have evolved in
this country. And I think there was a fairly general agreement
with the attitude expressed by some of us that the evidence
that exists of some embryonic move by elements of the Independence
Front to seek support from quarters which advocate the processes
of terrorism should be condemned. So ladies and gentlemen I think
that that essentially covers ithe essence of the discussion and
I believe that those views will come to be reflected in the
final communique.
I introduced in the last stage of this session the next item
on the agenda which is the nuclear free zone and in a brief
introduction I made the points that Australia welcomed the
developments that had taken place since the Canberra meeting
in 1983 that there had been discussions bilaterally between
countries in the Forum, the basis of a draft set of proposals.
I indicated that different countries gave perhaps different
emphasis to different aspects of this. issue. For some the
question of the testing of nuclear devices in our region was
the most important. For others the question of the possible
dumping of nuclear waste products assumed perhaps more importance
than other aspects. For some the more general question of trying
to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weaponry was another
matter. But I indicated that there did seem to be an emerging
consensus that we in this region should try and move to a position
of some ' sort of nuclear free zone concept. I pointed out that
there are particular matters, technical matters, that need to be
addressed in some detail. Without being exhaustive, that includes
the question for instance of the geographical limits of the zone,
it includes the question of at what stage would we as a Forum
wish to take the matter'into other international forums in general
of the nuclear weapons states in particular. And so I stressed that
in Australia's judgement what we needed to do was to have this
. general discussion now and address these matters in a productive
working group. I also made the point which I think is of particular1
relevance at this time to say that from the moment when I
introduced the concept last year it had been an intrinsic part
of Australia's proposal that the question of the visit or. non-visit
to the ports of members of nuclear-armed or nuclear-powered ships
had always been seen from the outset and was built into our
proposals that that was a matter for decision by individual
countries of the Forum. I've made that clear in Canberra. I
reiterated it today and that that right of individual countries
was, of course, not only consistent v'ith but important to the
concept of a nuclear free zone. I made the observation fhata fron
P. M. cant Australia's point of: view, because of our alliance
relationship with the Unitedl State!;, Australia had made the
judgement that such visits would be per-mitted to Australia.
But in saying that again re-emphasised that this was a matter
for decision by particular states.
So ladies and gentlemen that is the end of the report that I would
" ma-ke t cu,
JOURNALIST: Just a point of clarification on decolonicationyou
didn't mention French Polynesia, did that come into it at all..
No it didn't come into the discussion at all this morning.
TAhl. t doesn't mean that it may not be picked up later. But it
w~ n~ 2 2 ~'~ dto this morning. Except let me say this that one
6peaker did make the general point, but really in addressing
himself to New Caledonia, that there was no further reason for
a French Presence in the area.
JOURNALIST: You say there's no resolution to bring forward
the referendum date to 19856. What were the arguments that.
Were-there arguments that that was too soon.
-No there were not specific arguments against. it'and
think that in the communique you will see reference to, you'Ill
certainly I believe, see reference to the desire of the Forum
countries for a bringing forward of the date. There may be
reference to 1986 but'I think you'll see there'll be a view
put that we are all saying to the French that it is evident that
very considerable tensions are building up. You've got the
decision of the Independence Front to boycott the up-coming
elections, to withdraw co-operation. There is evidence that the
situation is deteriorating and it's in that context that we
are sa ying that the French should try move more quickly towards
the concept of a referendum embracing the independence of
New Caledonia.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister was there specific mention of
elements of the Independence Front approaching Libya.
Yes there was
JOURNALIST: Was it that that you condemned.
Oh it was certai'nly condemned by those ' of us who referred
to it and, of course, its not exclusive that's the evidence
of that approach at present, but the concept of buying outside
* the region and making an appeal to the force of arms and the
terrorist technique to be introduced was something which I think
was very generally deplored.
JOURNALIST: What you are saying, Mr Hawke, is that you wiant
by the French Government before the next election.
L
j e eIt Pa1 V; 4. 43 n
ll the next Parliame. ntary electicn, of course, is 198;.
It's a five year term. The Presidential election is a seven
year term, so it's 1988. But really the concept of mentioning
a date was not specifically related to the date of the elections
in France. There was a view expressed that under the Mittorand
Government there had been progress, some perhaps thought it could
have been faster, but there has been identifiable progress
And there was a vie' that' nthing should be done'which would
complicate the capacity of the French Government to move tocwards
independence. But let me say there was also the view expressed
that even should there be a change of Government that there was
a more general attitude beyond this Government in France to
recognise the aspirations of the people of New Caledonia. But
I repeat the concept of bringing forward a date was not specifically
to: the timing of elections in France.
JOURNALIST: Were you among those who believed that the date
should be brought forward.
Yes, I believe that if it's possible it should be brought
forward because we recognise the building up of tension. But
speaking of myself I am one who has consistently said, following
my discussions with President Mitterand in Paris last year, that
I do recognise the integrity of the Government of France on this
issue. They have, as I've put it, no political or economic
imperatives to remain there any longer than is necessary. But*
they do have a recognition of the very large and potentially
explosive difficulties that exist there because of the composition
of the population and the quite dispirate training of the elements
of the population the Kanaks are lacking in physical and armed(?)
resources, that's one thing. But in terms of professional and
technical training because of h generation of inadequate approach
by previous French. administrations there is at this stage a
relative lack of trained people amongst the Kanaks and the
French Government is conscious of all these elements.
JOURNALIST: Were there any discussion of any possible
initiative that the Forum could take to persuade France to
move faster on the timetable for the referendum.
These elements were alluded to by various speakers.
One, while I think as I've said, there was a general view against
the concept of reinscription and the Committee of 24, I think
acceptance that in their speeches to the United Nations General
Assembly that Forum members could make the point about the need
for acceleration. Secondly, that individual members of the Forum
in their relations with and their bilateral relations with France
-should press the view. And thirdly, I would expect the communique
will probably be again an attempt by the Forum as a Forum to press
the view upon France.
JOUP-NALIST: Will there be any mention last year's decision to
ask France to invite a Ministerial group to visit New Caledonia.
7..
Well we didn't specifically adadress ourselves to that, but
it's possible that we iray make that attempt: again.
JOURNALIST: Did the New Zealand Prime Minister make any attempt
to explain New Zealand's position on the visits of nuclear ships.
. No. because,, as I. pointed out, -it arcige -just' -in: the ast
few minutes. I merely made the introduction and after my
introduction we closed the session.
JOURNALIST: Vrno put the proposal for reinscription.
Oh well that's in the paper that's been circulated by
Vanuatu and it was advanced by the spokesman for Vanuatu. He
wiai cr-i. Lely unsupported.
JOURNALIST: Who was supportive.
Well I've made the point that I don't want to go to
individual points although it was appropriate to respond that
way to Mr Steketee because in fact that was a matter of knowledge
that they had distributed that paper.
JOURNALIST: What was the flavour of the debates. Was there
sharp differences or differences of emphasis or how would you
characterise it?
No difference8 of emphasis. It was a very Pacific
discussion. JOURNALIST: Does the lack of a resolution, Mr Hawke, reflect
It reflects the fact that there won't be any communique
until-' the end and I would believe that on all the issues that
we discussed, it's unlikely that there be specific resolutions
emerging until the end. That may not be the case but that's
the way I put it.
JOURNALIST: Is the-debate then, Sir, finished on the nuclear
issue an6 also on New Caledonia.
No, for the third time I repeat that in the last few
minutes before the conclusion of the session I introduced the
nuclear issue. That means by definition that the debate hasn't
started. I
JOURNALIST: Do you expect the debate on the nuclear issue to be
. a long one. What's your reaction to how the island delegates will
guage the Australian proposal.
Well by definition there hasn't been any opportunity In
the forrm-al meetings to get the response. But my impression from
w~ hat has happened up to this stage is that there is a growing
support for the concept.
JOUR-NALIST: Were there any other countries who were mentioned
as possible sources of outside assistance to New Caledonia.
Libya was the only one that got a guernsey.
JOURNALIST: ? ri: 2 Minster you said at you'r press confZrence
yesterday that the zone proposal, Australia's zone prcpocal,
would be consistent with your treaty obligations. And in 1975
Mr Whitlam seemed to think that it wouldn't'be consistent, or
at least New Zealand's proposal then, wouldn't be consistent
with our treaty obligations. I'r just wondering what's changed,.
I don't want to make too much of the point; But there's
a great deal of difference in 1984 between the Governments that
are operating and in times past. We deal with the issues now
in terms of our assessment of the present.