EMBARGO: 10: 00 pm EMBARGO: 10: 00 pm
PRIME MINISTER
FOR MEDIA MONDAY, 27 JULY, 1981
ADDRESS TO ROYAL COMMONWEALTH SOCIETY, LONDON
Delivered for the Prime Minister by the
Australian High Commissioner in London,
Mr. Garland
Australians in general Will join me in congratulating his
Royal Highness, Prince Charles, on the occasion of his marriage
to Lady Diana Spencer. We took him to our hearts when he first
came to school at Timbertop in 1966. Happily his visits to us
since have been frequent. He assures us -that he enjoys Australia
and we look forward to welcoming him and his Princess soon.
It is indeed a healthy situation where there is, so clearly, rauch
reciprocal warmth between Australians and their future sovere: Lgnas
indeed there is with the present sovereign. It is however
especially important this week to remember that the Queen is not
just Queen of this country and of Australia, but also Head of
the Commonwealth. The changes that have produced the modern
Commonwealth have largely occurred during her reign and during
this period of change she has stood as a symbol of continuity..
But she has done more than that: she has brought wisdom, charm,
and with the passing of time incomparable experience to her ro~ le.
Indeed, the Queen has shown that the institution of the Monarchy.-
ancient as it is has a capacity to unify peoples and nations in
a way that is un ' ique in the modern world. She has made the
Monarchy an effective and vital symbol of common humanity and
shared values that'link the peoples of the modern * Commonwealth
together. No Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting would be
complete without her presence and we look forward vrery much to
welcoming her at Melbourne. / 2
2-
Mr. President, this is an important year for the Commonwealth.
Two years ago we met at Lusaka and made a major contribution t~ o
resolving a difficult and dangerous problem, one that others had
tried and failed to resolve. As a result, Robert Mugabe will be
attending the Melbourne meeting this year as Prime Minister
of Zimbabwe.
In retrospect the Lusaka meeting stands as one of the Commonwealth's
great successes. But it is worth recalling that before the event
there was much gloom and doom around. Some even prophesised that
the Commonwealth would break on the-rock of the Zimbabwe problem.
Implicit in much of this pessimism was the suggestion that we
should duck the issue, that we should not be " over ambitious"
or have " delusions of grandeur"
We did not heed that advice. We did not duck the issue and we
were abmitious. We set out determined to make a serious contribution
and we made one. As a result the Commonwealth emerged immeasurably
stronger, more confident in itself and with an enhanced reputation
in the eyes of others.
I remind you of this not in order to score points over critics,
but because I believe that the Lusaka experience contains two
important lessons for us on the eve of the Commonwealth's next
meeting at Melbourne. ' The first is that if the Commonwealth is
to thrive, it has no choice but to engage the big issues of our
time. We, its members, must not behave as if it is a side-show,
restricting its efforts to peripheral mnatters. If we behave as
a side-show we will be treated as one.
The second, and complementary, lesson I draw from Lusaka is that
we should not under-estimate the importance of our own will aln1d
determination in thinking about what the Commonwealth can or cannot
do. The scope for Commonwealth action is not pre-determined and
fixed by some objective law. To a very considerable extent it
depends on our own attitudes and commitments. Of course, there
are objective limits to the role we can play, but we should not
allow timidity or exaggerated modesty to circumscribe that role
unnecessarily. Indeed, we should be alert to any opportunity
to expand it.
I make these points not only because I believe that the Commonweal. th
has a future, but because there are urgent issues to be dealt with
and it is important that everyone who can contribute to progress
should do so. The-international community is not so well endowed
with effective instrumentalities that it can afford to do without
the contribution that the Commonwealth is capable of providing.
This is particularly true, I believe, with respect to North-South
issues. Progress on these has been languishing. over the last
year, what is usually described as a dialogue has amounted to
little more than acrimonious manoeuvering for position in terms
of narrowly conceived self-interest. With few exceptions, there
has been an absence of historical vision, of an enlightened
and far-seeing sense of self-interest, of political will. / 3
-3
Yet the kind of world we and our children are going to live in for
the rest of this century and beyond is going to depend crucially
on whether there is success or failure in this area. It is forc
this reason that Australia sets such store on achieving progress
in restoring momentum to the process of global negotiations a
process that is important both in its own right and as evidence
of a positive, constructive attitude to relations between
developed and developing countries.
In contemplating North-South relations, it is usually the economic
aspect 1which is stressed, and this is certainly very important.
If we consider the two largest economies of the industrialised
north, over 40 per cent of the United States' overseas trade and
over 50 per cent of Japan' s is with the South. In these and the
other industrialised countries, hundreds of thousands of jobs
depend on that trade. Moreover, the most rapidly growing economies
of the world those that provide the greatest opportunity for
a rapid increase in trade are in the South. As far-as the
developing countries are concerned, over 70 per cent of their
trade is with the non-Communist industrialised countries, and
they are also very dependent on the capital, technology and
managerial skills of the North. Clearly economic interdependence
is not just a slogan but a reality; and that reality means that
a world divided into rich and-desperately poor countries can never
be a stable, harmonious or morally acceptable world.
If the economic aspect was all that was involved it would make the
future of North-South relations a vitally important topic. But it
is not all that is involved. Indeed, in the not so long run the
political an~ d strategic dimensions of the relationship may be evenmore
important.
The North-South dialogue is really about the business of absorbing
over a hundred new countries, countries which have come into
existence with dramatic suddenness, into the international community.
It is about adjusting existing processes and institutions in such a
way that will accommodate the legitimate needs for status and
influence of these countries, as well as provide them with the
opportunity to further their material interests. It is about
preventing the creation of a permanent and dangerously disaffected
group of nations which feels that it has no stake in the existing
order and no hope for the future.
Nor can the issues be divorced from East-West tensions. The Soviet
Union has a dismal and shameful record in providing development aid
to the South, but strategically and militarily it i~ s constantly
active in attempting to exploit frustration and instability.
Sometimes it succeeds and sometimes it fails. But too much is at
stake for the West to bet on a continuing high ratio of Soviet.
failure. Given the distribution of the world's oil and other
resources, and given also the location of. many of the key strategic
" coepons in the world, a process of incremental gains by the
Soviet Union would not have to go very far before it would alter the
global balance. Fromn my own experience I am confident that most
Third World governments recjard the Soviet Union as an unpalatable
last resort so far as assistance is concerned. But I am also sure
that if the situation appears hopeless and nothing else is
forthcoming, many of them will turn to that last resort. / 4
-4
I know that some think that the notion of a " South" or a*
" Third World" is spurious. I believe that they are wrong. Despite
great hetrogeneity and internal conflict there is a real sense
of common identity and solidarity among these countries. While
a bilateral approach to many problems is sensible, and indeed
indispensable, it is a profound mistake to think that the
whole question of North-South relations can be dissolved away into'
a serious of bilateral issues.
Again, I know that some argue that the solution to the problems
of the South should be left to the operation of market forces and
to the adoption of sound policies by the developing countries
themselves. I believe that these are half truths. Certainly, as
the experience of many of Australia's neighbours has demonstrated
very convincingly, the market can provide many.. developing countries
with the means of making rapid progress always assuming that
the developed countries allow market forces to operate fairly.
Certainly, too, sound domestic policies are an essential
pre-requisite for progress in all cases. But what is essential. is
not always sufficient. Quite clearly, for many developing countries
more is needed if they are to hold together as viable social anid
political units let alone break out of the cycle of poverty Lin
which they are trapped and become active, contributing partners
in the world economy. I
The arcane and technical character which North-South discussions
often assume must not be allowed to obscure the dramatic nature of
what is at stake in the North-South dialogue. We are at a genuine
turning point in modern history and statecraft of a high order is
required to meet the challenge.
I believe that the Commonwealth is capable of making a real
contribution in this respect. At a time when the world is groping
for appropriate processes and institutions to meet the need for
North-South negotiations, the Commonwealth has the advantage
of being already in place. We have already made the transition
from a colonial to a post-colonial. world and our history has enabled
us to learn many of the lessons of North-South dialogue well in
advance of much of the rest of the world.
Comparisons are usually invidious, but when one compares the
atmosphere and procedures of the Commonwealth with those of otherinternational
organisations, when one contemplates the friendly,
informal and unpole mical way in which its affairs proceed, that
over-worked word " unique" does not seem inappropriate.
We shall be meeting in Melbourne at a time when the dialogue has
been stalemated, but when some significant efforts to restore
momentum and create a more positive atmosphere are under way. It
seems to me that the words of the Declaration of the Ottawa Summit
do represent a commitment in principle by the nations concernEd to
participation in global negotiations, and-that is a significant
step forward. The Mexican Summit at Cancun, which will follow
immediately after the Melbourne meeting, represents another important
effort to re-focus attention on North-South issues.
In these circumstances, and always bearing in mind the gravity
and urgency of the issues, I believe it is incumbent upon-us
to translate the Commonwealth's capacity into an effective
contribution. As I see it we can do this in two ways. First, we
can take such practical steps as are within our means to make
progress on particular problems. It is true that there are somne areas
where progress depends on action by the very large Western economifts.
But it is also true that everything need not wait on their decision,
that limited but significant steps can be taken by others. It is"
not for me to pre-empt the deliberations of the Melbourne conference,
but I hope that we shall explore the possibilities in this respect
in a vigorous and positive spirit and that practical measures
will result.
Secondly, and in my mind of at least equal'importance, I think
that the countries gathered at Melbourne who will, after all,
represent a quarter of the world's population should find a way
of declaring in the clearest and most forceful terms their
conviction and determination that it is imperative that momentum
be restored to the North-South dialogue. Some will call this
rhetoric. Let them do so. Those who belittle the importance of
rhetoric which embodies the serious purpose and conviction of
countries understand little of politics. The Gettysburg Address
was rhetoric. So was the Atlantic Charter and Churchill's
wartime speeches. If we find the right words and if those words
are an expression of real will, such a declaration will not be
without effect.
Mr. President, there are other important issues which will be
discussed at Melbourne. One of those will certainly be the futureof
Namibia. Commonwealth Governments recognise that responsibility for
Namibia rests with the United Nations. In recent years, the Western
members of the Security Council the members of the contact group
have made a sustained effort, based on Security Council Resolution 435,
to break the deadlock and bring Namibia to independence and full
membership of the international community. That resolution, which
remains the cornerstone of international efforts to resolve the
crisis, has been accepted by all parties to the dispute. Yet after
nearly three years of close consultation it remains on the
drawing board.
The blame for the delay in the implementation of the United Nation's
plan lies fairly and squarely with the South African Government,
which has temporised and procrastinated. I do not claim to be
an authority on its motives, but fears have been expressed that
an independent Namibia would come under direct or indirect Soviet
influence. It is very relevant therefore to recall similar fears
about Zimbabwe before it achieved its independence, and to contrast
them with what has actually happened there since. The clear evidence
in the case of Zimbabwe and elsewhere is that the rapid achievement
of independence, by a process of negotiation that frustrates the
intrusion of Soviet military force into th~ e situation, is the best
way of preventing a country coming under Russian influence. Conversely,
the longer the delay and the more the issue is allowed to fester,
the more likely it is that the Soviet Union Will Succeed in gaining
a IJu* r chase on the situa tion. I v~ ould, therefore, urge those
Countries which have any inf]. uenCe on the Government of South Africa
to bring homeo to it that its own self -inter-2sts Would be best served
by rapid movement. / 6
-6-
I certainly hope that the contact group will have achieved such
movement ' between now and October. If it has not, however, I think it
will be appropriate for the Commonwealth make clear its willingness
to offer what assistance it can. The Commonwealth has, after all, a
clear and substantial interest in the outcome. An independent
Namibia would be eligible for membership of the Commonwealth and
would be welcomed as such. All the African states most closely
involved, apart from South Africa itself and Angola, are
Commonwealth members. Two of the members of the contact group
the United Kingdom and* Canada are also Commonwealth members.
Given these circumstances, an offer to help in the face of
continuing stalemate could not be construed as " meddling", but
would be a clear expression of legitimate interest and concernL.
Let me now turn to sporting contacts with South Africa. The
Commonwealth's collective attitude has been clear on this question
and its actions over recent years have been among its greatest:
successes. It is important to understand the logic of the Commonwealth
position. opposition to racial oppression is a fundamental
Commonwealth principle, embodied clearly in the Declaration of'
Commonwealth Principles adopted at the Heads of Government Meeting
in 1971. Opposition td apartheid in South Africa clearly follows
from a commitment to that principle. One of the areas afflicted by
apartheid in South Africa is sport. Sport is important to
South Africans. By denying the opportunity to participate in
international sport, we affect them.
It has therefore properly been a Commonwealth aim to sever
sporting links with South Africa, an aim that was given explicit
expressio~ n In the Gleneagles Declaration at the Commonwealth [ leads
, of Government meeting in London in 1977.
It is against this background that the current Springbok tour
of New Zealand must be seen. Consistent with its adherence
to the Gl. eneagles Declaration, the Government of New Zealand has
expressed opposition to the tour. As the Government of a country
with an honourable record on race relations it has made clear its
abhorrence of apartheid.
In the light of this episode, Commonwealth Heads of Government
cannot avoid discussion of the spirit and interpretation of
Gleneagles at Melbourne. The issue of apartheid in sport is an
emotive one. But precisely because of this, it is of the utmost
importance that the matter be discussed dispassionately with the
ultimate objective kept clearly in mind. That objective is to end
the vile practice of apartheid in South Africa. It is an objective
which will best be served by preservation of the Comnonwealth's
great achievements in this area.
The present tour is not a success for apartheid in sport. Ort
the contrary it serves merely to emphasise how untenable and
unacceptable it is. The only way in which apartheid could belatedly
gain any benefit froin the current situiation would be for the tour to
result in a damaging of the Commonealth, the organisation which is
pi rhaps its m-tost effective enecmy. I.. e must not play into its handls by
giving it such a victory. ./ 7
7
The Commonwealth has shown in the past, when potentially
damaging issues have arisen that it can act with discretion and
commonsense in ways that enhance the Commonwealth rather than
weaken it.
The Gleneagles Agreement itself was a consensus statement of
vital Commonwealth principles, drawn up in private session with a
real feeling of concern for the sensitivities of particular
Commonwealth countries. There is no reason to believe that the
Commonwealth will not approach the current issues with the same
degree of sensitivity and concern and so enhance the common cause
of mankind, to which we are all committed.
Mr. President, a week after the royal wedding I shall be leaving
for Vanuatu to attend the Annual South Pacific Forum Meeting, the
third that I will have attended in the last four years. Australia
attaches great importance to its near neighbours in the South West
Pacific. My Government has increased Australian links with the
region, and aid to it, very substantially.
We are particularly pleased that all members of the Forum are
also members of the Commonwealth, and that, in the form of the
Regional Meetings of the Commonwealth Heads of Government that
were initiated in 1978, there now exists an additional forum in
which they can meet other Commonwealth colleagues and discuss their
problems. It is easy for larger and more established countries to
forget the particular difficulties facing countries which are both
very small and very new. But I can assure them that they will not be
forgotten in Melbourne, and I think'that special attention should
be given there to the particular problems of the isolated island
states.
Mr. President, from the issues I have covered and I have not
attempted to be exhaustive it is clear that we shall not be short
on important questions to discuss in October. Indeed, I am sure that
there will be those who will be concerned to caution that we should
not bite off more than we can chew, that we must be realistic.
Well, I have no problem with a call for realism as long as its
spiritual home is not the last ditch; as long as it does not amount
to dismissing as unimportant what cannot be quantified or costed;
and as long as it does not amount to another way of saying, " w: hat
I have, I hold".
True realism is as concerned with intangibles as with the
tangibles with the aspirations and. ideals of people as well as
their material needs, with what is changing and coming into existence
as well as what is established. If the term is understood in this
way then by all means let us approach Melbourne in a spirit
of realism.
In a talk he gave in Canberra during his recent visit, Secretary
General Ramphal observed that this new Commonwealth we have all
helped to fashion is at a high point of confidence. He spoke of
its potential as a pace-setter of a new, modern and wholly
respectable relationship; of its special relevance to the era
of negotiations we have now entered. I endorse his words and I hope
and believe that the Melbourne meeting will strengthen that: confidence
still further and will consolidate the Commonwealth's claims to be
an organisation which is not only valuable to its members, but which
has an important contr. ibution to make to the progress of human
society as a whole. / 8
I 8
Mr. President, in closing I should like to acknowledge a fact
that all too frequently goes unacknowledged: that is that what
the Commonwealth is today, and the potential it has, owes an
enormous amount to Britain. This is true but in the sense that the
wisdom of this country in adapting to the end of the age of
imperialism made the successful evolution of the Commonwealth
possible and in the sense that Britain's contribution to the
contemporary Commonwealth is indispensable. Indeed, your role
in world politics generally remains a very important one, and.
I trust that you will continue to play it confidently and
energetically. Mr. President, Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, may I
ask you to join me in a toast to the Queen, to Prince Charles and
his bride, and to the Commonwealth. 000---