^ 3

V _ * '  EMBARGOED AGAINST DELIVERY FRIDAY 8 MARCH 1985 AT 1 PM

Deputy Leader of the Opposition NEWS RELEASE BY JOHN HOWARD MP D27/85

ADDRESS TO BRADFIELD FORUM LUNCHEON, KILLARA GOLF CLUB,  556 PACIFIC HIGHWAY, KILLARA, FRIDAY 8 MARCH 1985 AT 1 PM

MR HAWKE AND THE AMERICAN ALLIANCE

The Prime Minister is receiving plaudits for putting his  job on the line over the Australian-American alliance.

This praise is quite undeserved.

Mr Hawke should have put his job on the line over the MX  Missile. This he failed to do. Instead he caved in.

The time to be tough is when issues are being decided - not  after they have been conceded.

Last Tuesday Mr Hawke publicly proclaimed that he would not  be "a Prime Minister of a country ... where issues of central  continuing importance to our security are at risk". He  specifically referred to "the hosting of the joint facilities

in Australia" and "visits of American ships to our ports".

Mr Hawke conveniently overlooked the fact that he has already  sold out to the Socialist Left by effectively declaring  Australia's opposition to President Reagan's strategic  initiatives - i.e ., the MX Missile and the Strategic Defence

Initiative.

The Australian public is entitled to regard Mr Hawke's,  decision to get tough only after he had backed down as  little more than a theatrical gesture,

Mr Hawke's surrender gave the Socialist Left (which he once  described as a "canker" and a "telephone box minority") its  greatest political victory in living memory.  There is no  reason to expect that Mr Gerry Hand and his cronies will  seek further concessions in the short term.  The Socialist  Left is patient. It is prepared to wait before it strikes  again.

The Prime Minister has been fortunate in that his cave-in  to the Left has been overshadowed by the antics of Mr Lange  and the New Zealand Labor Government and by the serious  deterioration in the ANZUS alliance.

In the current debate on ANZUS and New Zealand one central  fact has been obscured.

On the MX Missile and the Strategic Defence Initiative, the  Hawke Government has effectively lined up with the Soviet  Union and against the United States. ,

.  .  / 2

2.

This is a deeply disturbing development - especially in view  of the ever increasing build-up of Soviet military force in  South East Asia. .

MX Missile -

The USSR has a massive superiority in Inter-Continental  Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs).

The MX Missile was an initiative of the Carter Administration  designed to overcome the Soviet Union's awesome preponderance  in long range nuclear weapons.

It is an uncontestable fact that the USA's long range nuclear  weapons are becoming obsolescent:

.  the Titans are over 20 years old - by 1986 they  will be scrapped;

.  the Minuteman Ills are,  on average, 15 years old. They were designed for a 15 year life span. They  are, ironically,  the United States' most modern  land-based missiles;  .

.  the Minuteman IIs were first deployed in 1965 - and are already 5 years beyond their planned life.

The US Administration plans to have one hundred MX missiles -  with a total of 1000 warheads.

The Soviet Union already has over 600 long range nuclear  missiles (SS18 and SS19) that are the size of the MX or  larger - with a total of 5000 warheads.

Viewed in this light it is completely false to label the  MX a "first strike" weapon - as many in the Socialist Left  do.

It is obvious why Moscow is fervently opposed to any further  development of the MX Missile program.

But it is far from clear why the Hawke Government is unwilling  to allow United States planes monitoring an unarmed MX  missile splash-down to be serviced from Australian airfields.

The Prime Minister's claim last Tuesday that his cave-in on  the MX was a "minor, passing thing" does not stand up to  serious analysis.

Strategic Defence Initiative

The SDI is a research program the aim of which is to intercept  and destroy launched missiles before they reach designated  targets.  ,

The SDI should be supported by any Australian government.

.  .  / 3

3 .

The SDI is designed to be a defensive, not offensive,  weapon. Even if only partly successful, it could lead  to a substantial downgrading in the role and importance  of offensive nuclear weapons.  The aim of the SDI is to

shift deterrence from mutual assured destruction to  mutual assured security by means of non-nuclear defences.

If we assume that the United States and the Soviet Union  will remain rivals for some years, it appears that the  development of strategic defences offers the only possible  path to a process of nuclear disarmament suitable to both

countries.

In the short term, a space-based defensive system is the  only known means by which the United States could counter  a first strike launched from Soviet land-based ICBMs.

Moreover, an SDI type defensive system would provide  protection against any accidental launch of a missile. Also it could offer protection against small, but  militarily aggressive, nuclear powers.

Opponents of President Reagan's Strategic Defence Initiative  conveniently overlook the fact that the USSR is currently  developing its own strategic defences. At the moment the  world's only anti-ballistic missile system is deployed

around Moscow.  And the Soviet has constructed a large  radar installation in Siberia designed to facilitate the  interception of ballistic missiles.

The Institute for European Defence and Strategic Studies  has offered a coherent defence for President Reagan's  Strategic Defence Initiative:

"The question to which Western strategists should  now be addressing themselves is clear and direct:   is the free world to acquire a system of strategic  defence before the Soviet Union, or will it accept

the immense risks and uncertainties posed by those  who would prefer to take the Soviets at their word?

If the democracies are to gain superiority in the  field of strategic defence the danger of war would  be reduced accordingly.  But should this superiority  pass to the Soviet Union, the risk of nuclear

blackmail would be acute."

The Prime Minister, in his effort to appease the Socialist  Left faction,  has completely run for cover on the SDI.

On 19 February Mr Hawke went straight from a Labor Caucus  meeting to a press conference and openly declared that  Australia "could not support the SDI initiative" and that  the USA-Australian joint facilities will "not be involved

in such research".

Ã¢ÂÂ¢  ./4

4 .

The Prime Minister proclaimed that in his opposition to the  SDI he had been "clearer" and "less equivocal" than "any  other western leader". .

In other words, Mr Hawke has informed the United States that  Australia will have nothing to do with present or future  research into the development of a non-nuclear defensive  weapon system. This contrasts with Prime Minister Thatcher  who has given total support to the SDI and Chancellor Kohl  who has favoured the continuation of the present research  program.

At no stage has Mr Hawke explained why he is opposed to  the Strategic Defence Initiative.

Less than nine months ago the Foreign Minister, Mr Hayden,  publicly declared:

"President Reagan has asked that research be  undertaken on the possibility of developing a  US capability to intercept all incoming  ballistic missiles. The purpose behind this

is a highly moral one. It is to seek to replace  the doctrine of assured destruction, based on .  attack with a morally much more acceptable concept  of assured defence."

I call on the Prime Minister to fully explain precisely  why Australia has backed away from any involvement in the  SDI research program.

Why is it that a research program - described by Mr Hayden  as having a "highly moral" purpose, and by Professor  Brzezinski (a one-time adviser to President Carter) as  "enhancing to deterrence and even helpful to arms control" -  should be classified by the Hawke Government as beyond the  pale?

It is obvious why Moscow is opposed to the United States  developing an effective anti-missile defence system.

But it is far from clear why Australia should effectively  line up against the United States on this issue.

The USSR, Australia and South East Asia

The Prime Minister’s cave-in on the MX missile, combined  with his decision to throw in the towel on the SDI even  before the internal party faction fight had started,  underlines the Hawke Government's essential weakness on

foreign policy.

Senior Ministers have indicated the Government's intention  to improve relations with the USSR.

.  .  / 5

5 .

In January 1984 Mr Hayden stated that the Government had  decided that Australia's "relationship with the Soviet  Union would ... be conducted on a more mutually conducive  basis". One month later Mr Keating said that Australian-  USSR relations should be "more useful and productive".

Mr Keating had previously given some idea of his attitude  to the Soviet Union when shortly after the brutal invasion  of Afghanistan he declared:

"Afghanistan is ... far away from our area of interest  and Australia is not threatened ... It is extremely  unlikely that the Soviet Union will attack Pakistan  or Iran.  After all, who would want Pakistan? For

that matter who would want Afghanistan?"

Mr Keating's Neville Chamberlain style rhetorical question  has been answered by the continuing presence of over  100,000 Soviet troops in Afghanistan who are actively  torturing, massacring and starving the local population

into submission, exile or early graves.

When Mr Hayden had discussions with Soviet Foreign Minister  Gromyko in Moscow in June 1984 he refrained from specifically  condemning Soviet actions in Afghanistan.

The Australian Foreign Minister,  however, has been anything  but reluctant to pass up opportunities to publicly criticise  the United States and France - both of which are part of  the Western alliance.

In August 1984 Mr Hayden threatened the United States that  its bases in Australia would be at risk unless Washington  adopted our policies on nuclear disarmament. Some months  later he rebuked the French Government for its alleged  colonialism in New Caledonia.

But Mr Hayden has been the soul of discretion in his  attitude to Soviet colonialism in Afghanistan and  Vietnamese colonialism in South East Asia.

The attitude of key Hawke Government Ministers to the USSR  is certainly not a matter of mere academic interest.

The Soviet Union is rapidly becoming the preponderant  military power in our region - due to its massive military  build up at its Cam-Ranh Bay and Da Nang bases in Vietnam.

The USSR naval and air forces in Vietnam are growing at an  alarming rate and supplement the Vietnamese Army - which  is now the third largest in the world.

About one third of the USSR's SS20 warheads are deployed  in the Soviet Far East and are targeted on East Asia and  the Pacific. If the USSR decides to base its nuclear

.  ./6

6 .

capable Backfire and Bear long range strike aircraft in  Vietnam, several Australian capital cities will be in  reach of the Soviet’s nuclear strike capacity. An even  more serious situation would develop if the USSR relocated

some of its SS20 missiles in Vietnam.

Viewed in this light, the Hawke Government’s proposal for  a nuclear free zone in the South Pacific makes little  sense since it would not affect Soviet nuclear capability  in Vietnam. Rather the Soviet nuclear build-up in East  Asia underlines the necessity of the United States deterrent

in our region. .

Again, it is not surprising that the Soviet Union supports  the nuclear free South Pacific proposal.

But ordinary Australians are entitled to ask why the Hawke  Government is pursuing this initiative and for what reason -  i.e., apart from placating the Socialist Left.

The Lange Factor Not An Isolated Phenomenon

Regrettably the Lange phenomenon is prevalent in the  Australian Labor Party - and not only in the Socialist Left.

In October 1984 ACTU President Cliff Dolan suggested that  ANZUS should be scrapped and something different put in its,.,  place.

Last month Senator Susan Ryan, a senior Minister, openly  queried the value of ANZUS. In doing so she breached  the Prime Minister's instructions that Ministers should  not publicly comment on matters outside their portfolios

in circumstances which involve disagreement with established  Government policy.

But Senator Ryan has yet to be publicly rebuked or disciplined  by the Prime Minister for querying what is proclaimed to be  a cornerstone of Australia's foreign policy. It seems that  Mr Hawke is now prepared to resign over ANZUS but does not

expect Ministers who publicly question the validity of the  alliance to do likewise.

Senator Ryan and Mr Dolan appear to adopt the Lange view  on ANZUS - i.e., an ally is entitled to take all of the  benefits but pay none of the costs of an alliance.

Prime Minister Lange epitomised this view in his recent  performance at the Oxford Union debate.

According to Mr Lange, New Zealand is entitled to deny to  the United States port facilities for its warships. That's democracy.

But the USA is not entitled to respond by refusing to pass  on to New Zealand its intelligence information. According  to Mr Lange, that's totalitarianism.

.  ./7

7 .

It is little wonder that the United States has railed at  this one-sided interpretation of treaty commitments by  an ally that spends even less on defence than Australia.

The Peace Movement Is An Anti-Defence Movement

This year, we remember the fortieth anniversary of the end  of World War II. "

The Second War came about after the Western allies had  variously declared themselves for disarmament, peace,   appeasement and neutrality.  The end result was the most  atrocious war in human history.

Those who today declare their faith in the USSR's willingness  to disarm would do well to remember that World War II started  immediately after the signing of the Nazi-Soviet Pact by  means of which the two totalitarian dictatorships divided

up Eastern Europe between 1939 and 1941. It is also worth  remembering that whilst Hitler and the Nazis were defeated  in 1945, Stalin's heirs still rule in Moscow.

I totally reject the view repeatedly advanced by Senator  Chipp and Peter Garrett,  and on occasions by Mr Hayden,   that democratically elected governments in the United States  are somehow equally responsible for the arms race as the  totalitarian Soviet Union.  Â· ' Â· Â· . . Â· ’

The current nuclear deployments are such that only the USSR  has, or is likely to develop in the short term, a first  strike capacity.

Those who advocate unilateral nuclear disarmament should  ask themselves one central question: is it likely that an atom bomb would have been dropped on Japan in 1945,  if the Japanese had possessed nuclear weapons themselves  and the capacity to retaliate?

If the answer to this question is in the negative (and. I  sincerely believe it is) then this demonstrates that the  possession of nuclear weapons may well be the best means  of preventing a nuclear war - short of there being an

effective disarmament agreement in existence.

What is termed the "peace movement" is really an "antiÂ­  defence movement". All rational and decent people believe  in peace. The crucial question is whether peace is best  achieved through strength or through unilateral acts of  disarmament.

The United States Government is of the view that peace  will best be achieved through strength - not weakness. This is an attitude which I completely share.

.  .  / 8

8 .

The Reagan Administration's tough line on defence and  security is working. This may be an unfashionable comment -  but it is true nevertheless.

The Soviet Union decided to return to the negotiating table  in Geneva only after Moscow became convinced that the  Reagan Administration was determined to proceed with its  Strategic Defence Initiative research program and with

further development of the MX Missile.

In other words, the SDI and the MX have facilitated talks  between the Super Powers aimed at mutual arms reductions.

And yet the Hawke Government has totally dissociated  Australia from the MX and from any participation whatsoever  in the SDI research program.

The cost of appeasing the Socialist Left and humouring the  Centre Left is high indeed - especially when the defence  of the joint facilities in Australia depends on the effectiveness  of the capacity of the United States to deter unprovoked  military attacks.

The Prime Minister should have placed his job on the line  when the MX crisis first arose.  Such a move would have  been strategically correct and politically popular.  But  the Prime Minister chose the relatively easy tactic of

surrender.  Ã¢ÂÂ   -

Mr Hawke's weakness in the face of the Socialist Left has  done long-term harm to Australia's security.

-0 O0 -

