STRISCRI PRI-: INlSTER S fRESS CO'FERENCE WITir AUSTr lUlS: JCjRLI S
TUVALU 2.30 P. M. 28 August 1984
E O E PROOF O:; LY
we have a difficulty that we haven't got the draft communique
available yet. I think you understand we're going to send it
on to you aren't we when it's available Well I think we
should say quite honestly that before coming to Tuvalu there
had been so: me cn. estion mark about how. a forum meeting would
go here because it was known that the facilites were rather
limited but I must say that not only speaking for myself, but
I would think for all participants, it has been an excellent
decision to have the forum meeting here. It gives you a very
insight to the nature of and the problems confronting the smaller
island states in the Pacific. And they certainly cannot in any
respect be faulted for the organisation, the enthusiasm and
the hospitality which has been evident in the preparation and
the conduct of this meeting. I certainly convey to the Prine
Minister and the Government of Tuvalu our gratitude for the
way in which the Forum has been conducted. If I could give a
general overview of the meeting it's really fallen I guess
into two parts. On the first day we were concerned with two
broad political issues if you like the question of decolonisation
and the developments in New Caledonia in that respect on the one
hand and the question of a nuclear free zone concept on the
other. I believe that the communique will reflect substantially
useful discussions on both those areas. On the question of
New Caledonia there was I think general agreement on these
points. Firstly, of the integrity of the French Government in
its desire to progress the negotiations towards independence.
Associated with this, however, was the view that given the
way in which tension is rising in New Caledonia acceptance of
the desirability of trying to accelerate the referendum which
is on current French planning set down for 1989. And while
there was not agreement to the proposal that the question of
New Caledonia should be reinscribed on the agenda of the
Committee of 24 of the United Nations, nevertheless a number
of Forum members will refer to this issue in their contributions
in the debate in the General Assembly later on this year.
We recognised also at a later stage in the Forum the reality
that there is a very limited number of Kanaks in New Caledonia
who have had the opportunity as a result of the neglect of
previous French administrations to be trained professionally
and technically. And the point was made at the latter stage
of the Forum meeting that it would make a lot of sense for
individual Forum members who had the capacity, such as Australia,
to try and offer opportunities to these people to increase the
number of professionally and technically trained people. So much
for New Caledonia. On the question of the nuclear free zone
JOUNALIST: Could I just ask you whether Australia was happy
about the resolution on New Caledonia?
Yes. On the ca: estion of a nuclear free zone I think again
it was a very useful discussion and a very large measure of
acreem'ent on the Australian proposals. And what we have done
now-. and it's always useful at the end of a meeting to feel that
2.
P. M. you just haven't talked about it and said
well taat's cood we'e none concretely c. to
establish a wo-kir. c art of officials to cCt as fre c: ently
as possible to address themselves no'. to spcific el1er. ents
of the concept legal questions, questions of the geographical
limits of the zone. And with a view if possible, we don't know
whether it can be done, to the presentazion of a draft treaty
to next year's Forum meeting. And that proposal has been
processed now on the basis of accepting the Australian approach
that there should be agreement by the Forum members of
opposition to nuclear testing in the area, and an expression
of commitment not to acquire, manufacture or store nuclear
weapons, and an expression of opposition to dumping of nuclear
waste products. And secondly, within that concept, the
retention of the rights of sovereign states to make their
own decision as to the visit of nuclear powered or nuclear
armed ships. Now those were the two matters in the first
broad area of discussion in the Forum as I pointed to you
earlier. The second area has more to do with internal
functional matters covering a range of issues of the work
of the Secretariat of the Forum and its manifestation in
trade, education and fishing areas for instance and finally
there was a decision to convene the next meeting of the
Forum which will be in Rarotonga in the Cook Islands on
4 6 August next year.
JOURNALIST: Do you believe that Mr Lange suffered yesterday
by trying to take the Pacific states too quickly on the road
to a nuclear free zone?
I don't think it's a question of suffering. They had
a view as to how to approach it. There came to be an acceptance
that what's been done is the most sensible way of doing it and
I don't believe that New Zealand is unhappy about that.
JOURNALIST: proposal mightn't be approved.
No there had been some discussion at the officials level.
JOURNALIST: Mr Hawke at the risk of dragging you over ground
you've already covered the criticism over the nuclear free
zone, claiming that its a paper tiger, even if it then came
into force how would you defend it to that criticism?
It's manifestly an absurd criticism. I'm not quite
sure why you want me to go through it again.
JOURNALIST: We haven't had it on television.
I see. There are obviously in this world limits to
what one nation or a group of nations at less than the superpower
level are able to do in the field of disarmament, particularly
nuclear disarai:. cnt cuestions. It would be cuite futile to
suggest that you have an unli: mitoed capacity in this area. So
what does make sense to do is to concentrate upon those things
which are within your capacity. It is within the capacity of
_ I
cont th e nations making up the Foru' to make dec sons
as t: o t. o will o rc. r: to the _ r cc
o" : uc ear eaocn-ss . : cw havo arccd that we arc opposed
individually and collectively to doing that to manufacturing,
using or storing nuclear weapons. And so the work that ' ill L: e
done on the preparation of the treaty concept will include that.
Now I believe that it's useful that nations in this area of the
world should tell the rest of the world that that's their
position and that's what they are going to do. It is also useful
that we should collectively as well as individually express our
opposition to the testing of nuclear w. eapons in our region. I
think the fact that we are moving to incorporate that within
a nuclear free zone concept will be useful, not decisive but
useful, in bringing some more pressure on France in that respect.
Also by collectively within such a nuclear free zone concept that
we should express our opposition to dumping of nuclear wastes
in our region. That I believe will add to the possibility of
ensuring that that is not done. Now these are the things that
can be achieved by a nuclear free zone treaty. It would be
an exercise in absurdity to suggest that you could do other
things. For instance, that you could by having a nuclear free
zone conept interfere with the freedom of transit on the high
seas and so we don't pretend that that is involved. Equally
it would be futile to suggest that having a treaty of this kind
which can achieve those very specific objectives to which I have
referred, that you should seek to impose upon individual states
limitations upon their right to make judgements about their own
security relationships and we don't seek to do that.
JOJALIST: On the question of New Caledonia, after the Forum made
clear its position on was there any indication given to the
Forum that the Kanak Independence Front might accept the Forum
position on this and might therefore not go outside the region.
Well the Kanak Independence Front wasn't represented there.
JOURNALIST: I thought there might have been some indication
passed on.
P. M. No.
ENDS