CHECK ACAINST DELIVERY EMBARGOED UNTIL DELIVERY
SPEECH BY THE PRIME MINISTER
3RD INDIRA GANDHI MEMORIAL LECTURE
NEW DELHI 10 FEBRUARY 19a9
-Indira Gandhi was a leader of indomitable tenacity and
* courage. I had the privilege of knowing her, wocking with her
indeed, even enjoyinq some differences of emphasis with her
here in this city at the 1983 Commonwealth Heads of
Government Meeting.
Tonight I salute her as a Leader who left an indelible
imprint on the political, economic and social life of T ndia,
and ensured that India's voice was heard with force and
clarity in world affairs.
So to deliver a lecture in memory of ndi; ra Gandhi and to
deliver it in the capital of the India which she loved so
dearly is an honour which I greatly appreciate.
Just as today you Mr Prime Minister derive strength from the
achievements of your predecessors,. so Indira Gandhi drew on
e rich heritage of leadership bequeathed by her father
UJawaharlal Nehru and before him, by Mahatma Gandhi.
Part of the greatness of these J1eaders was that their ideas
and their policies and their actions had a resonance and a
relevance that went far beyond the borders of their own
country. Mahatma Gandhi gave us the noble doctrine of non-violent
struggle in the face of oppression, the belief that human
dignity should not be demeaned by violence even. An mobilisin~ g
the masses to overthrow colonial rule.
His visionary campaign against racial discrimination has
become an international crusade. Australia, India and other
nations have come together in particular to bring pressure to
bear on the South African authorities to rid that country of
the tuoliness and inhumanity that is apartheid.
Nehru, the centenary of whose birth we mark this year,
bequeathed a different and equally rich heritage of political
leadership. Nehru forged a nation with his unyielding
adherence to principles of humanism, secularism, democracy
and equity.
The forty years after the Second World War have been among
the most turbulent, certainly the most dynamic, in human
history. Massive social, economic, political, and scientific
upheaval has transformed our world.
In all these turbulent times, there has been one constant
which has dominated the world scene the East/ West
Oconfrontation. The influence of East/ West tension has been felt everywhere.
The extraordinary achievement of decolonisation became
entangled in it. Regional conflicts were fought as
surrogates of the wider confrontation.
The United Nations, founded with high hopes and with a sober
consciousness of the need for nations to work together to
avoid the scourge of war, and to seek some common ideals of
justice and equity, became to some degree another
battleground for what was seen as a bigger dispute. It was
unable to play as full a role in international security as
was envisaged by its founders.
The best efforts of the international community to cope with
poverty, hunger, human rights, economic growth, refugees
were, to a greater or lesser extent, diminished by the
injection of the East/ West rivalry. Even the Non-Aligned
* Movement, founded precisely as a reaction to this crude
divide, has itself not been free of internal disputes over
the relative merits of East and West.
What is remarkable is that so much was achieved in that
period in decolonisation, in the UN system, and elsewhere.
But that so much less was accomplished than should have been
accomplished was due in no small part to the all-pervasive
nature of East/ West hostility.
And, most ominously of all, inherent in the East-West
confrontation was the danger of nuclear war, of global
annihilation. Mrs Gandhi saw these problems, and as a leader of one of the
great nations of the world, she worked to help overcome them.
But even a leader as far-sighted as Mrs Gandhi would have
shared with us a sense of astonishment at how remarkably the
world has changed in the four years since her tragic and
untimely death.
In arms control and disarmament, the superpowers have forged
the INF agreement, the first arms control agreement to cut
the number of nuclear weapons, rather than to mandate a
stipulated level of increase.
Although much remains to be done, much has already been done
towards the conclusion of an agreement to cut by about
the number of strategic nuclear warheads.
Almost as spectacular has been progress in resolving regional
conflicts. During the seventies and early eighties we heard
much of an arc of instability. We see now, if not an arc of
peace, then at least an arc of peace-making, stretching from
Southern Africa, through the Persian Gulf, through
Afghanistan and South Asia and on to Indochina.
The United Nations is being revitalised and is playing an
indispensable part in resolving regional conflicts.
This transformation in the world scene has taken place in
breathtakingly short time. What has brought it about?
The answer in large measure is a change in attitude, a
reassessment of interests, a response to new realities by
East and West.
Speaking as the leader of a Western alliance country
unalterably committed to the system of liberal democracy, I
consider that it is very important to recognise that the gap
between the political values and social and economic systems
of the US and the Soviet Union remains profound.
Nonetheless, I believe it is already clear that the
superpowers no longer see their competition as having only
one possible outcome to be victor or vanquished, winner or
loser.
The relationship is today a far cry from that of two cold
warriors. Rivalry yes, competition yes, differences yes; but
not implacable hostility, to be played out to check mate on
some global political chess board.
To understand why this transformation has occurred, clearly
one half of the equation is what is happening in the policies
of the Soviet Union.
Soon after General-Secretary Gorbachev took office, he began
a process of root and branch change in the economic, social,
political and cultural life of his nation. In international
affairs, Australia will judge by deeds, not just words. But
I do acknowledge this there have been deeds, including in
arms control, regional conflicts and human rights. I draw
encouragement from this.
of course there have been premature declarations in the past
that the Cold War is over not least at the beginning of the
last decade. But there is good analytical reason, not just
hope, that what we are seeing now will not prove to be
another false dawn.
My view, informed by my own conversations with Mr Gorbachev
and his colleagues, is that what we are seeing in Soviet
developments is far more fundamental than earlier efforts at
Soviet reform.
Mr Gorbachev has said and there is reason in Soviet
behaviour to believe he means it that the Soviet Union's
world view is no longer dictated by conceptions of
international class war and the inevitable defeat of
capitalism. Above all, it is absolutely clear that highly centralised
command economies can no longer compete in the international.
economy. As you fully recognise, Mr Prime Minister, modern economies,
to be viable, must place a premium on adaptability, on free
flows of information, on entreneurship, on dissent and
* debate, on unfettered scientific research and technological
change.
These in turn require the freeing up of political
institutions and economic and social controls.
Without these, the Soviet Union will, as Mr Gorbachev has
himself said repeatedly, inevitably decline.
So it is for these more objective reasons that I am perhaps
more confident than many that the course on which the Soviet
Union has embarked is one which it is likely to stay on for
the foreseeable future.
The indispensible other half of the equation in explaining
the improvement in superpower relations lies with the United
States.
Paradoxically, President Reagan, deeply conservative in so
many of his attitudes, showed himself capable of finding
common ground with his Soviet counterpart, of establishing a
basis of trust with him on important areas of mutual concern,
and of taking a truly radical path on arms control.
From what I know of President Bush and his colleagues, I am
absolutely confident that a continuation of the new approach
from Moscow will find a co-operative spirit of good will in
the United States.
In devoting this amount of time to East-West relations as the
dominant factor in world affairs now and for many years to
come, I do not want to ignore other developments which are
also driving forces for change.
China's modernisation program is entering its second decade.
From Australia's perspective, it has had an enormously
favourable impact on the Asia-Pacific region.
" Perestroika" is much newer. The economic problems facing
China and the Soviet Union are far from identical. But the
fact that both countries are giving priority to the urgent
agenda of economic reform over the pursuit of strategic and
idealogical rivalry goes a long way to explain the current
improvement in their relations. At the same time, the dynamic
economic performance of the newly industrialised economies
has shattered many prejudices about the developing world in
general and about Asia in particular.
The spectacular economic successes of countries such as the
Republic of Korea, and, now, countries like Thailand, are
illustrating as I have seen again only last week that the
Asia-Pacific region has become the most important focal point
of international economic dynamism.
Its impressive growth strategies are being studied and
emulated, and it is being courted by prospective investors,
joint venturers and exporters from all. corners of the globe.
Increasingly, its growth is becoming more self sustaining and
less dependent on access to affluent Western markets.
And with economic success comes greater political self
assurance. Indeed it could be said that where we were, in the Cold War
years, used to assessing the clout of a nation by its
political or strategic significance, nations can now exercise
great influence based solely on their economic strength. We
see in Japan an example of a new phenomenon an economic
superpower.
So all these developments would surely have surprised and
gratified Indira Gandhi.
But as the leader of a great democracy, she would perhaps
have been encouraged by nothing so much as by the wider
spread throughout the world of democratic rule.
This has its roots in a number of different factors.
In Latin America, in South-East Asia, and most recently next
door to you in Pakistan, authoritarian regimes have
discredited themselves and have been replaced by democratic
leaders governing with popular consent.
Elsewhere in the world and particularly in Asian economies
such as the Republic of Korea the rising living standards
that are the fruit of dynamic economic growth are being
accompanied by a liberalisation of political structures.
And perhaps most encouraging of all, we see even in China,
the Soviet Union, and parts of Eastern Europe, the efforts of
a new generation of leaders who understand that for their
efforts to be successful a simple, old-fashioned reliance an.
authoritarian command is no longer sufficient. They realise
that for positive economic change to succeed, political self~
respect is an essential precondition.
That is a fact that Australians and Indians, proudly and
unshakeably democrats, know to be a profound and undeniable
truth.
Ladies and gentlemen.
To review as I have done all these welcome trends the rapid
transformation of relations between the superpowers; the
economic dynamism of countries that were once only limited
players in the world economy; the spread of democracy
provides sufficient evidence for the conclusion that we are
on the verge of a new era in world affairs.
My judgement is that this will be an era in which the
rhetoric of the Cold War will-be out of date and misleading;
an era in which building prosperity and peace must be our
prime task, not building the arsenals of war; an era in which
we may, at long last, begin to balance what is today a
puzzling asymmetry between the seemingly boundless
technological skills of humanity and our much less developed
social skills of feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless
and protecting the natural environment of the planet we
share.
In speaking in this optimistic way I do not seek to pretend
that all is well in the world today or that we can afford to
be complacent as we enter this new era.
For all that we have reason for'satisfaction with the
progress that has been made across all the areas I have
outlined, our confidence for the future must be conditional
on the performance of four critical tasks.
They are these:
We must achieve greater flexibility in the organisation and
operation both of our domestic economies and of the global
economy. We must achieve further cuts in the levels of nuclear and
conventional arms.
We must strengthen the practice and institutions of
multilateralism. And underpinning all those tasks, we must see the
entrenchment and the futher spread of democracy, tolerance,
individual liberties, and respect for human rights.
It is no accident that I put at the head of my list economic
factors in both their international and domestic dimensions.
Increasingly, the economic process has a global base.
Capital has a worldwide mobility, as increasingly do skills,
entrepreneurship and the adaptation of technology.
O These are major changes, and they are already having a
profound impact on the behaviour and inter-relation of
states. These changes mean that domestic economic policy
making can no longer proceed for any country in isolation
from that global base.
Ultimately, the poverty or prosperity of any one nation
depends on the poverty or prosperity of us all just as,
ultimately, the physical security of each nation is enhanced
by an environment in which all nations feels secure.
Even the superpowers are having to alter their domestic
economic policies in order to maintain their standing in the
world and to keep up with the pace of change. I have already
mentioned Mr Gorbachev's reforms. In the United States,
President Bush faces twin budget and balance of trade
deficits which, if not addressed effectively, could call into
question its past position as the overwhelmingly dominant
economic power and its capacity to sustain long-standing
global political and strategic policies.
Likewise, a major area of activity for us in Australia, and
for you in India, has been the restructuring of our domestic
economies to adapt to the changing global environment.
But at a time when international financial markets and
exchange rates are being freed up, and at a time when
individual nations, be they capitalist or socialist, are
making efforts to improve their efficiency and
competitiveness, one fundamentally important area is being
pushed in the opposite direction.
International trade, which if it too were liberalised on a
multilateral basis would provide a massive boost to
* prosperity everywhere, is increasingly being subjected to
ever more restrictive and inefficient measures.
Here on the one hand is a growing recognition by nations of
the need for economic adjustment and on the other hand
their refusal to apply that insight to an area of central
importance to the wellbeing of us all.
Thus we are witness to the major paradox of our time.
Precisely at the point when the world has greater cause for
optimism arising from the increasingly intelligent political
relations between the superpowers, the realisable vision of a
saner world, using its resources more productively for the
betterment of mankind, is being put at risk by the
intransigence and shortsightedness now characterising the
relations of the most powerful market-based economies on this
issue of international trade.
Economies which have built their prosperity on co-operative
Wfree trade now put that principle in jeopardy, while
superpowers which had become accustomed to the habits of
their dangerous rivalry now adjust to the challenges of
constructive rapprochement.
If history teaches us anything, it teaches us that where
economic deprivation and injustice go, instability and even
hostility tend to follow, whether within countries or between
them. So a fair and open international trading regime is vital not
only to prosperity but to sound and harmonious relations
between nations.
Australia, as a nation whose exporting capacity has
traditionally relied heavily on agricultural commodities, has
sought, and continues to seek, positive and constructive
outcomes in the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade
negotiations.
The benefits of success in this endeavour will not of course
be limited solely to agricultural exporters.
They will be shared by the consumers within those heavily
subsidising developed economies, the European Community, the
United States and Japan.
Agricultural trade liberalisation would bring particular
benefits to developing countries.
Freer world trade would provide a means whereby they can
directly benefit from the prosperity of dore fortunate
countries. It would also encourage developing countries to integrate
themselves more with the world economy. They cannot prosper
while their price structures do not reflect those prevailing
internationally.
In this sense the alleviation of world poverty requires
policy flexibility both internationally and in the developing
countries themselves.
It is vital that this alleviation occur, not just for the
humanitarian benefit to those currently living in poverty
although this is certainly sufficient reason but also
because the world will never be stable and secure while we
have intolerably stark contrasts in national living
standards.
And may I add how galling it must be for developing
Sountries, as it is for Australia, to hear the leading
industrial nations preach to others the virtues, indeed the
necessity, of practising policy discipline and budgetary
restraint, which they give little indication of following
themselves.
The second key area in which there must be progress as we
enter this new era is arms control and disarmament.
Certainly there has been unexpected progress, and more may be
in prospect.
But, even if the START talks bear fruit, I do not think it
churlish to say, " Good. We want more. And quickly". Even
with both the INF and START agreements in place, the Soviet
Union and the United States will still possess at least
12,000 strategic warheads, to say nothing of the thousands of
tactical weapons not covered by agreements, and the nuclear
weapons of the United Kingdom, France and China.
To me, then, while these present and prospective agreements
are enormously welcome, they should not lull us into
complacency about the nuclear danger.
Nuclear deterrence, vital though it is while nuclear weapons
exist, is unacceptable as a permanent feature of our world.
The consequence of this is that the goal of arms control must
be nuclear disarmament.
It is true that this path will be a long and difficult one
but it is the path we must deliberately and consciously
tread. I would not accept any view that declares the elimination of
nuclear weapons to be ultimately pointless because of the
impossibility of locking up again the secret of nuclear
weapons manufacture.
Many countries have the technological and industrial base for
developing nuclear weapons, if they so chose.
Many have security interests which they consider to be just
as important as the security interests of the existing
nuclear weapons states. They have rejected the nuclear
option. No matter how pressing immediate political or military
considerations may seem, no matter how understandable may be
frustration at the pace of progress towards nuclear
disarmament, no matter how galling may be the existence of
nuclear weapons exclusivity, it is supremely in the interest
of the survival of our world that no other countries acquire
nuclear weapons. Once the nuclear taboo is broken once the
dike of nuclear proliferation is breached the odds that
someday, somewhere nuclear weapons will be used rise
dramatically. It is for this reason that we consider the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty to be the most important single arms
control agreement in existence. I know, of course, that
India has criticisms of the Treaty. I understand India's
view but I must say that Australia does not agree. Whatever
criticisms may be levelled against the Treaty cannot begin to
warrant putting it in jeopardy.
We cannot let the best, which is the goal of nuclear
disarmament, become the enemy of the good, which is the NPT.
India is the one non-nuclear weapon state which has
demonstrated a nuclear explosive capability. I frankly wish
that capability had not been developed, but given the reality
I urge that you continue firmly to reject the production of
nuclear weapons.
Without any reservation we enco.. rage India to support the
maintenance of the NPT regime.
Against this background, we welcome as a positive step the
recent agreement between India and Pakistan prohibiting
attacks against each other's nuclear installations. We very
much hope that further practical confidence-building measures
exemplified by this agreement will lead to the ultimate
accession to the NPT and-acceptance of the full scope of
International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards by India and
Pakistan. The nuclear weapons states, who have a vital interest in the
NPT, must play their part in its maintenance by fulfilling
the obligations they have undertaken under Article VI of the
Treaty to move towards nuclear disarmament. Specifically
and you know Australia and India are fully in agreement on
this they must move towards the conclusion of a
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty as a matter of urgency.
It will be apparent from all that I have said so far that
many crucial international economic and security issues by
their nature are susceptible to resolution only through the
multilateral process.
As we move into the next decade, we will have to cope with
new problems such as the scourge of narcotics, other
international forms of crime including terrorism, as well as
other non-military threats to. security. These problems
require global solutions, and frankly we have been slow to
mobilise to meet them.
The third point then to which we will need to devote time and
effort over the coming years is the revitalisation of
existing multilateral institutions and, where necessary, the
creation of new ones.
Our commitment to multilateralism is based on our belief in
the importance of establishing and enforcing acceptable norms
of international behaviour. As international law extends.
beyond traditional land boundaries to cover first the sea and
now outer space as well, we are concerned to seek that the
totality of interests of humanity are well protected.
12.
AiiStralia and India, this will be a welcome task, because
we have been among the most prominent multilateralists in the
international community.
The multilateral dialogue between India and Australia in
diverse fields arms control, decolonisation, economic arid
trade issues, apartheid and human rights represents a
substantial component in the sum of contacts between our two
countries. Our differences on some key issues make this
dialogue all the more important, not less.
Among the problems requiring urgent multilateral action
perhaps the most serious is the growing threat to our natural
environment. Greatly increased emission of greenhouse gases
ithreatening to bring about potentially cataclysmic global
climatic change. Tropical forests are being destroyed at a
disastrous rate. The ozone layer is thinning from the
release of large quantities of chlorofluorocarbons into the
atmosphere. With the threat of nuclear holocaust diminishing as arms
control negotiations continue, the equally potent but more
insidious threat of environmental disaster is quite rightly
generating growing community concern around the world..
Likewise, the negotiated reductions of the nuclear arsenals
prove that, with good will and mutual trust, mankind can
consciously enhance the prospects for environmental
protection. At a time when economic growth is so vital to raising living
standards, especially in less developed nations, there is a
genuine and growing belief sometimes bordering on fear and
despair that economic growth is jeopardising our capacity
to bequeath to our children their rightful heritage: the
irreplaceable beauty and value of the forests and jungles,
the rivers and oceans, even the air we breathe.
I reject the doctrine of despair that the twin goals of
economic growth and environmental security are incompatible.
But I recognise resolution of the dilemma will require
co-ordinated action of the most careful, and yet the most
decisive, nature by governments and individuals.
For Australia's part, we have these issues firmly on my
Government's policy agenda. Last year I initiated work by my
Ministers to develop Australia's strategy to contribute to
international environmental action.
13.
I-believe we are seeing a greater responsiveness, a greater
preparedness to act, throughout the world, and that political
commitment to environmental protection will intensify during
the year.
I-am also pleased that the environment will be a major theme
at our next Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting.
Ladies and gentlemen,
As we prepare to enter the 1990s and to face the three tasks
I have outlined so far, the network of friendly international
relations, such as exists between Australia and India, will
continue to be a great asset.
India and Australia have always been friends.
Now it is time to consolidate our relationship.
It is my belief that, in this changing world of growing
economic interdependence, we are going to need each other
more. Australia and India must do more to exploit the great
potential of our economic relationship. I am delighted that
in our talks over the past two days, Prime Minister Gandhi
and I have agreed on steps to accomplish this.
Closer links between Australia and india will serve not only
the interests of our two countries, important though that is.
They will also make a contribution to the stability and
wellbeing of the region and to our' ability to work together
in helping shape the international environment.
Ladies and gentlemen,
There is one other important bond between India and Australia
and it should not be overlooked in this attempt of mine to
review the opportunities and challenges faced by the
international community in the decade leading to the 21st
century. I said before that there were four essential tasks for the
future. So far I have only given you three.
The fourth is the keystone to them all: the need to preserve
and expand the practices of democracy.
In the capital city of the world's largest democracy, I can
say with conviction and pride that Australians, like Indians,
place absolute confidence in the abiding qualities of a
democratic society: individual liberty, the just rule oflaw,
tolerance of diversity and free and fair participation
' in the machinery of representative government.
You know as well as I do, Prime Minister, the occasional
frustrations of democratic leadership. But robust debate and
time consuming negotiations are essential elements of
democratic government and provide the best way towards the
formulation and implementation of effective policy.
It was your grandfather who put it this way: " Democracy i s
good. I say this because other systems are worse."
our peoples are fortunate indeed to be entering the 1990s
equipped in the best possible way for the tasks ahead
equipped with the knowledge, based on our deepest experience,
that those societies built an the principles and practices of
democracy will be the most successful and will foster the
greatest good for its people.
I feel profoundly privileged to have been given the
opportunity of leadership of a democratic nation at this time
of immense global change, of breathtaking opportunity, of
profound challenge.
We are here to celebrate Mrs Gandhi her memory and her
achievements. Hers were harsh and dangerous times times
when the nuclear danger seemed to grow almost with a life of
its own, despite the best efforts' and intentions of men and
women of good will times when great concepts of liberty,
justice, and equality, manifested in the struggle for
decolonisation and against racism, became snared in the
entangling web of the East/ West conflict times when the
scientific and technological fruits of man's labours did far
less than they could to overcome the poverty and suffering of
millions.
We who have come after her are privileged to live in a
different time, a new era. We can do no better for her
memory than to seize these new hopes and new possibilities
with the same largeness of heart, generosity of spirit, and
single-minded determination which she showed throughout her
life and work. * ft*