Uv A U S T R A L I A N

^ > > > > > ^ < Â« < < ^

PRIME MINISTER

E. & O.E. - PRQOF ONLY

TRANSCRIPT OF PRESS CONFERENCE, AUSTRALIAN HIGH COMMISSION,   NEW DELHI - 8,30 A.M.,  28 NOVEMBER 1983

JOURNALIST:  Prime Minister, how would you assess the concept Of Pierre Trudeau going to China now, given the fact that   America and the Soviet Union have virtually cut off relations,   particularly over the NIF?

PM: They haven't cut off relations. In respect of one area of discussions there has been a walk out on the NIF talks and   that specifically related to the decision in regard to the   Pershing and Cruise missiles.  I think it's a good initiative. The heads of Commonwealth Governments have welcomed it. I

think any attempt to open up discussions between the five nuclear   powers makes sense and I see in this morning’s press that the   Soviets have indicated a preparedness to talk with him and he   now has the support of the Commonwealth Heads of Government.

If there is anything we can do to assist in that process, we will.

JOURNALIST:  Has it taken on a greater importance in the last couple of days? Earlier on you described it as very ambitious.

PM: Well it is still ambitious and Pierre recognises himself   that it is ambitious. He is not saying that it will succeed. We will take the view that when you look at the issue involved -   that is the question of whether we are going to have nuclear   war or not - the possible destruction of human civilisation as   we know it - then I think any. effort is worthwhile.

JOURNALIST:  Mr. Hawke,  the Goa declaration - is that just mere platitudes,  or what can it achieve?

PM: Well, may I say just before, going to the Goa declaration -specifically the actual Goa declaration dealing with international   security matters generally is only one of the elements of the   meeting at Goa and I guess in some senses you could say the

least productive because it is a very general sort of statement. My main area of disappointment with the Goa declaration is the   very passing, and by implication,  reference to horizontal   proliferation. There is an emphasis upon the issues of vertical

proliferation by the major powers like the nuclear powers and I   believe not sufficient attention is given to the - at least in   my judgement - equal problem of the spread of nuclear weapons,   but in the other areas of Cyprus and Grenada I think the Goa   weekend has been particularly productive.

/ 2  . . .

JOURNALIST:  .... send weapons to other Heads of Government and if so which ones,  Mr. Hawke?

PM: I made it in the discussions.  When we were trying to finalise the communique I made the point there - and I was  joined in it by Pierre Trudeau in particular - that there  wasn't sufficient spelling out of the question of horizontal

proliferation and the dangers involved in that.  What is there  is as far as we were able to go.

JOURNALIST:  Prime Minister,  why did you sign the document if you were so disappointed in it. |

PM: I think it is an overstatement to say I am disappointed  IE it. What you've got to realize

JOURNALIST:  They were your words,  Sir.

PM: Well, disappointed about one particular issue,  I said. I didn't talk about the document as a whole.  You've got to   understand that you are dealing with a range of people that   cover aligned and non-aligned countries,  developed and   developing countries and from all the regions. Now, you are

rather unreal if you start off in a context like that thinking   that you're going to get great unanimity on every issue and I   tend to think that given the composition of the meeting it   went just about as far as it could go. My particular   disappointment, however,  as I say, is that I think there could   with some degree of realism be more reference to the dangers   posed to the future of the world by the possibility of the   wider spread of nuclear weapons and I said that at the meeting   and I repeat it now.

JOURNALIST:  Mr. Hawke,  this meeting has involved a heck of a lot of time and a heck of a lot of money.  Are these meetings

really worth it?

PM: I think so, but I think there is an argument for reducing   the period of the meetings. I believe that if more preparations   were done before the meeting - that is with documents being   circulated - more specific documents being circulated. See,   we had no specific documents before we got here. I think if

that sort of thing were done,  you could concertina the period. I believe that the meetings are worthwhile in two or three   direct ways. Let me make it clear. The opportunity - this is   particularly so for me on the first occasion -of getting to know   personally and quite intimately a range of leaders from all over   the world is very useful. You can conduct sensible discussions   with them in an environment like this which would be difficult   elsewhere and in matters of particular importance to   Australia.  Secondly,  I think on particular issues this meeting   has been very useful and I cite Grenada. I don't think before   you got here you would have expected,  given the divergent views,

from within the Caribbean states and certainly given the strength   in the views of the African countries against the action that   took place,  that you would have expected to get a joint   communique in such mild terms as far as the past was concerned   and constructive as far as the future.  Secondly,  in regard to

3  .

Cyprus, I think the establishment of the working group of   five nations including Australia,  to work in association with   the United Nations,  does add some hope to the resolution of   that issue, which of course is of particular interest to so   many of us in Australia.  So y e s ,  I'm sorry for the length of the

answer, but I think in those general terms and in regard to   specific issues with which we've dealt,  the meeting has been   worthwhile.  It has demonstrated the utility of the Commonwealth   as an institution and of meetings within it. I repeat I think

there is a case for shortening the meetings and a way of doing   that is by more intensive preparatory work.

JOURNALIST;  Mr. Hawke, have you been informed of the Victori-an   conference decision on uranium and do you believe that this is   likely to undermine your own Government's uranium stance?

PM: I'm not going to talk about those domestic issues here. I   have read the cables.

JQURANLIST:  What was your response after you read them?

PM: Well I say I'll wait till I get back to Australia to   discuss these, but I think you can see by my demeanour that   I'm not terribly upset.

JOURNALIST:  Y o u ’re still fairly relaxed about uranium then.

PM: I don't think one should ever be relaxed about an issue   like this. I repeat. You can see I don't look to be shedding   any weight or sweating at the forehead or anything like that.

JOURNALIST:  Inaudible .

PM: Come on, I'm not going into any detailed discussion about ' that. I can assure you that when I'm back in Australia I'll   be prepared to talk about it.

JOURNALIST:  Mr. Hawke, which countries resisted being more specific on horizontal proliferation and what were the main   reasons they gave?

PM: Well, thereÂ·were not reasons spelt o ut.  I think it's fair to say that India has a fairly strong position about this and   about the NPT, but I don't think it's useful to go into   specifics further than that about individual countries.

JOURNALIST:  Do you think there might be a slight touch of hypocrisy about some of the Commonwealth nations that have   come to the nuclear issue - that is they want the super powersÃ¢ÂÂ    to scale down nuclear proliferation yet they want to retain

their own right to develop nuclear arms?

PM: Well, I'm not using the word hypocrisy, but if you look at the NPT it is based - as they put it - on a contract. The

contract is that the powers that have a nuclear capacity will   not proceed with further development and on that basis the   non-possessors will not seek to acquire and the argument of   the non-possessors is that those who have got it haven't kept

to their part of the bargain, therefore,  they are entitled not   to keep to theirs. Now, putting it in simpler terms that is .

1 4  .

the exposition. Now, I think it is inadequate to approach   it in that w a y .  I simply make the point that while we've   had an extraordinarily troubled world for the- last nearly   40 years when the world experienced the use of an atomic   weapon, the balances that operate between the powers that

have nuclear capacity and weaponry has operated to prevent   its use. I am hopeful that the considerations involved in   that would continue to produce that result.  N o w , I am much   more apprehensive for the future of the world where more   powers had nuclear weaponry.  Now I don't need to name the   powers involved, but I would think that the considerations   which have operated, produced an absence of nuclear war

between the majors, that those considerations are far less   likely to apply when you do have a spread of nuclear weaponry   and that is why I took the view and continue to hold the   view that we should be at least as concerned about that issue.

JOURNALIST:  Sir, bearing in mind your preference for shorter CHOGMs,  do you think there is a need for the regional meeting?

PM: Well, Australia has expressed some doubt about those. It looks as though - the matter is still to be discussed - but,   as I understand it, Michael Somare is going to be opening his   new Parliament House next year and everyone who would be going

to CH0GRM where it was supposed to be in New Guinea, would be   there for that and I think there may be some attempt to bring   the two things together - have the people.gathered together

there for the opening and a short meeting in regard to CHOGRM.   N o w , that may make sense on this occasion, but I think we ought   to direct attention to the question of the necessity or   otherwise for the sort of regularity into the future.  I have   my doubts about that.

JOURNALIST:  Prime Minister, how would you describe the state of play now between the Soviet Union and the United States? Would you describe it as dangerous or getting more dangerous?

PM: Well, I think it is fair to say that there has been an   escalation of dangerous rhetoric and y es,  I think it is fair to   say that.the position between the two major super powers is   potentially more dangerous than it has been for some time,  but

I don't want to exaggerate that. The first Soviet indicated   that if the United States, in cooperation with its European   allies, went ahead by the end of.1983 with the station of   the Cruise and Pershing missiles, then that they would withdraw.   Now, having said so consistently and frequently that they would   do that,  it seemed to me inevitable that they would do it. I have the view that after a period of time the talks will

resume.  There is no suggestion that they are going to cut out   communication and dialogue in other areas and so it is a pity tha the breakdown in the NIF talks has taken place,  but I don't despair about that.

JOURNALIST:  Mr. Hawke what was your talks with Mr. Trudeau about yesterday?

PM: Well, there is a matter of this group of parliamentarians -   I don't know what they were actually called - some groups from   the United States came to see me earlier in the year and they've

got some concept about parliamentarians for international  peace - I don't think that is the exact title of it - and  he was asking me all about that and we had a fairly  common view about it - that the concept sounded OK, but  perhaps there were more immediate and practical things that  we should be concerned with,  but we weren't trying to

completely douse them with cold water.

JOURNALIST;  Did you talk about Peking?

PM: Yes, I did have a talk with Mr .Trudeau about his visit  to Peking. I wished him well and asked him to convey my  best wishes to Premier Zhao,  who I will be meeting myself  within a matter of a few weeks.

* * * * *

