SPEECh BY THE PRIME MINISTER, THE RT HON.
WILLIAM McMAHON, IN THE HOUSE O1 REPRESENTATIVES
FOREIGN POLICY
23 AUGUST 1971
The speech on foreign policy by my colleague stands out in
complete contrast to the superficial approach of the Opposition.
To my mind, the Minister for Foreign Affairs has set out,
in a responsible way, the Government's record and its attitude on the vital
issues before us in the international scene. I commend him for what he has
said in his first report to the House in his new portfolio.
There are one or two objectives of policy I want to stress.
The first is to emphasise very clearly and very simply that our foreign
policy is based on the fact that our own national interest must be of paramount
importance at all times.
We are not going to be run around the place by anybody. We are
an independent country. We will never be a satellite of any power, close though
our relationships with others might be. But we must face realities.
We are not a great power and we cannot play a decisive role in
resolving the big issues between East and West. Nevertheless, we have a
role which we play, both in the region of South-East Asia and the Pacific, and
in the wider international community as well. It is up to us to play that role
responsibly. Keeping in mind at all times that we have a long and honourable
record for honest dealing in international affairs and that we want to live in
peaceful and profitable co-existence with all. We want to achieve this
objective no matter how different the political philosophies of other countries
might be from ours.
I believe we are achieving that objective. And I believe those who
ahrtse us, our foreign affairs officers have a mature and sophisticated
approach to their duties which serves Australia well.
These observations need to be made because we are all conscious
that this is a period of considerable change sometimes very rapid change
and we must be alert to the consequences and flexible in our responses. e e / 2
-2
But we must not be pushed or panicked into new postures or
adventures with unpredictable consequences smart though they may have
appeared to be at the time. To the contrary, we must move forward
deliberately after careful consideration of every step we take. And for
good reason. Foreign policy cannot be made by a series of unthought out
adventures. It must evolve from the passage of events and our own
appreciation of the trends of the future and our relationships with others.
We live in a world of interdependence. This goes for
countries great and small. Our identification with the international
world is * Our membership of the United Nations,*
* Our membership of the Commonwealth of Nations
* Our treaties with friendly powers and
* Our association in a variety of international and
regional arrangements for security, trade and
economic aid.
In this complex of relationships we have made some important
advances in recent months as the Foreign Minister has pointed out. They have
been dealt with fully and effectively. I will not go over the ground again.
But there is a second matter I want to raise in the context
of a foreign p olicy debate. This is the wa we conduct our foreign
policy. No medium power like Australia can negotiate effectively
in sensitive areas of international relations in the full glare of the
spotlights. The pursuit of our foreign relations depends on frank and
confidential exchanges with many countries. We have to respect their
confidences as we expect them to respect ours. We do not peddle the
gossip of the diplomatic cocktail rounds in the capitals of the world.
The credibility of a government in its international dealings
depends heavily on the sanctity of its undertakings and the security of the
confidences given to it by others. No considerations of party politics must
be allowed to compromise this credibility. The conventions for
international conduct must be high and responsible.
I deplore the failure of the Opposition to respect these
conventions. I deplore the recent antics of the Leader of the Opposition
when he led a delegation to some of the countries of Asia, notably to the
People's Republic of China. / 3
-3-
I remind Honourable Members that the Leader of the opposition went to China
to play politics with wheat. He fou-d himself declaring, on behalf of his Party, a
foreign policy for Australia that was not withiin-his power to implement. It was not the
policy of the elected Government of Australia. It is a policy in conflict with our
national interest. And very much so very much in line with the policy of the greatest
communist power in Asia.
I do not complain about the action of the Chinese Leaders. They, too, have
a national interest to promote and have obviously done so.
wit meBut what I do call into question and I believe a majority of Australians agree
wit me-is that, at a time when the Governmeat was in contact with the Chinese seeking
to open up a dialogue, a full surrender to Peking's point of view was made publicly by
the Leader of the Opposition.
The Leader of the Opposition did not come back with any assurance of future
wheat sales. He didn't come back with anything except defensive responses and
evasive answers to those who criticised
His conduct
The concessions he volunteered in Peking and
The gratuitous advice he offered to other countries.
He did, of course, come out of China saying that the Chinese Government was
quite willing to participate in any renewed Geneva Conference.
Chou En-Lai has just made a categorical denial, saying there is no question of
such a conference. The official Chinese press has also described talk about a new
Geneva conference as " a sheer fraud which is ridiculous and absurd."
This surely tests the credibility of the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Speaker, we are seeking as a Government to establish better relations with
the People's Republic of China. In concert with our friends we hope she will join in
the efforts of the countries of our region and the broader international community to
promote peace and prosperity for all peoples in accordance with the Bandung principle
to which Chou En-Lai himself has publicly subscribed.
We want to see this happen. And we will make our contribution where we can.
We will do so without sacrificing one single part of our national interest. And we will
try to achieve this objective while retaining an honourable position with our friends
and allies. I remind the House again that there is no sudden short cut to normal relations
with China as history so clearly shows, particularly Soviet and Chinese history.
Patience and hard-headed negotiation are needed.
The process is not one that will require, on our part, spectacular public
gestures or instant decisions. / 4
And this problem must be considered in the total context it is important, I
think, to see our own position clearly against the background of the forthcoming
meeting of the United Nations and the planned visit to Peking by President Nixon before
May of next year.
The Government's policy on representation in the United Nations of the People's
Republic of China and of Taiwan has already been stated in this IHouse during the
course of thi 3 debate.
I have said it was inevitable and right that China should be a member of the
United Nations and should hold the permanent seat in the Security Council. I have also
said that we believed the Republic of China Taiwan should be given the chance of
maintaining its membership if it so desired.
In the final result these are matters for collective decision by the United
Nations. There has been a lot of talk about there being only one China and that Taiwan
is a Province of China. But when the Leader of the Opposition states this proposition
he evades the fact that there are two Governments each controlling a certain area with
a certain population and each claiming to be the Government of the whole of China.
And he would put a seal of legality on the forceful takeover of 14 million people
by a Government they do not want. He obviously does not understand that acceptance
of the idea that Taiwan is a province of China implies that force can be used to restor e
control by China without invoking United Nations assistance.
The de facto situation is that neither the P. R. C. nor the R. 0. C. exercises
administrative control over all the territories they claim. While this situation exists
where two Governments are in political and jurisdictional conflict third countries are
free to recognise whichever Government they choose.
Australia has for many years recognised the Taiwan Government the Republic
of China and in 1966 completed the formalities by establishing an embassy there.
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has alleged publicly that the decision
to send an Australian Ambassador to Taipeh was arranged by the late Mr. Holt as
Prime Minister without the knowledge of his Foreign Minister of the day then Mr.-
now Sir Paul Hasluck.
This is utterly untrue. This is the second test of the Leader of the Opposition's
credibility. The decision was made by the Cabinet of the day. It is on record and beyond
dispute. This then is our position.
I believe it is in our national interest first to have a collective decision by the
United Nations on the admission of the People's Republic of China and the status of the
Republic of China of Taiwan.
When representation in the United Nations is clarified we shall be better placed
to examine the problems of recognition and diplomatic relations with Peking.
In his various public statements the Leader of the Opposition has endeavoured
to suggest that the whole of South-East Asia is about to go or should go cap in
hiand to Peking. The truth is that South-East Asian countries are moving with caution
as we are., They realise the desirability of adjusting to changing circumstances in Asia
and the likely entry this year or next of Peking into the United Nations.
The Leader of the Opposition has said the Canadian formula is the one his
Party would adopt for immediate recognition of China. This doesn't make sense because
the espousal of any formula now would prejudge events yet to take place in the
United Nations. And in any case only a naive person would set out what he would finally
accept as his first position in any negotiation.
The Canadian formula " notes" China's claim to Taiwan. In his statement on
the subject the Canadian Minister of State for External Affairs ( Mr. Mitchell Sharp)
said Canada had made it clear to the Chinese from the start of their negotiations " that
the Canadian Government does not consider it appropriate either to endorse or to
challenge the Chinese Government' s position on the status of Taiwan.
But Mr. Whitlam, while adopting the Canadian formula as his own, also concedes
Taiwan to China. And, as I have said, by so doing does not exclude the use of force in
the resolution of this issue by the Chinese.
For reasons I have mentioned there is no need to rush into recognition.
Mr. Whitlam has said " we must accept the view of President Nixon that
diplomatic relations must be normalised as speedily as possible. I have no knowledge
that the President or his Administration have said that at all. This is the third test
of credibility. They, like us, have declared their attitude on China's admission to the United
Nations. And they, like us, are seeking a dialogue in their bilateral relationship.
The Leader of the Opposition, on his recent ill-starred journey, not only
dismissed the future fate of the people of Taiwan in a most casual manner. He also
took upon himself the role of publicly declaring the policy Japan should adopt about her
treaty with Taiwan.
I quote his own words at the National Press Club here in Canberra.
" We should be the first to point out to Japan that she is not in
honour or reason irrevocably tied to a treaty forced on her
when she was weak and dependent... we should say to her that
she is now entitled to pursue her own interests which require
a restoration of relations with China.
That is the Leader of the Opposition brashly telling one of the great powers
of Asia and one that is likely to be, in the foreseeable future, a dominant power
what it should do. Japan, I emphasise, is a very great trading partner of ours and
one with whom we are associated in many regional activities.
This kind of advice disregards~ Australia's -interest by assuming at once that it
is to our advantage for China and Japan to m-ve into a close relationship. It also
racks of interference in the internal affairs of Japan. Who are we to say " Japan is
now entitled to pursue her own interests?"
In fact it looks precisely the kind of negotiating position China herself could
take up towards Japan. In short, the Leader of the Opposition urges Japan to tear up
her treaty with Taiwan and do business with China.
That any Member of this Parliament should seriously advocate such action is
utterly deplorable in the context of our national interest. It displays either ignorance
of international relations or a cynical opportunism towards international agreements.
It implies that international agreements such as A. N. Z. U. S. which is the
corner-stone of our security are expendable scraps of paper.
This is the first time in Australia's history that a Leader of the Opposition
has been the total advocate of another country's cause. It is a dangerous policy to
this country. Let me quote some editorial comment from a leading newspaper in Asia.
The Singapore edition of " The Straits Times" on 14 July said this and I quote
" The Australian Government is ready to discuss diplomatic relations with
Peking and though recognition may be a long way off ( Mr. McMahon's
phrase) the intention is sincere and the endeavour is not assisted by
the Labor Party mission'is extraordinary behaviour . it is one thing
for Mr. Whitlam to campaign in Australia for radical policy changes,
but quite another to play Party politics openly in Peking. This is
irresponsibility of a high order.
Mr. Speaker, a great deal has happened since then.
The fact that President Nixon and Premier Chou En-Lai have agreed to meet
in Peking some time before May of next year has added a new dirnens ion to the
international debate on China.
The United Nations will meet next month, and in our contacts with China there
has been some clarification of each other's viewpoints. I have no dramatic forecasts
to make on what the future holds. It is difficult to see how Australia can have more than
a marginal influence on American-Chinese relations.
Because America is a super-power and China a great power I think it may be
inevitable that they will treat on a bilateral basis on the big issues. [ I saying this I
do not intend to suggest that we expect to have no exchanges of views with America
on all issues of common interest.
It is part of the practice of our diplomacy to keep in close, continuing touch
with America and our other friends, particularly in the Asian and Pacific region. This
they encourage and this we will continue to do.
-7-
And I emphasise what I said when I began. We will base our action on two
principles Australia's national interest comes first at all times.
And our diplomatic conduct accords with the highest
conventions of honourable dealing and respect for
the rights of others.
A clear understanding of the Leader of the Opposition's actions during . his
Peking visit makes it extremely difficult to reconcile them with these principles.
L