P R I M E  M I N I S T E R

FOR MEDIA .  Â·  Ã¢ÂÂ   '  SUNDAY, MAY 25 1980

ELECTORATE TALK

The executive of the Australian Olympic Federation, against  the strongest possible advice of the Government,  has decided  by a 6 to 5 vote to send an Olympic team to Moscow.

The executive is plainly uneasy about its own decision. The way Mr Grange announced the decision pointed to a conflict  of interest - duty to Australia against duty to the Olympics.

It is plain that that 6 who voted for Moscow placed their Â·  .   duty to the Olympics above their duty to Australia. The  Government had said it was a matter of the highest national  importance - one that touched the national interest and the

future security of this nation. '

The decision is wrong. It remains wrong..  ;  .

It fills me with great sadness because it is a decision taken  for today regardless of its impact on tomorrow,  next year and  the years beyond. It is a decision in the interests of a small  band of Olympic athletes. It is a decision contrary to the interests  hundreds of thousands of young Australian men and women - and of  all other Australians - who will not be going to Moscirw.

There were "many of those who competed in the Berlin Olympics  of 1936, who paid the supreme sacrifice after the World War  began in 19 39. In that war,  tens o'f millions of people were  killed. It could so easily have been stopped in the middle

!30s if Britain, France and the United States had understood  what it was all about.

Now, the United States and major countries of Europe are trying  to avoid making the same tragic mistakes in the early part of  the 1980s that were made jin the latter part of the 1930s.

Determination and support of their own people, courage in the  face of difficultly, and a clear and direct understanding of  what it is all about is essential to the leadership of free  nations. It is essential if the world is to tread a peaceful

path through the;international dangers that lie ahead.

The Australian Olympic Committee could have contributed to this  overall purpose.  They could have said to themselves:"What does  playing games in Moscow really mean?".

2

1  we have stated repeatedly how the Soviets will use the decision,  i  Those nations who compete in Moscow will be regarded as not firmly opposed to Soviet expansion.  What athletes and officials think  of that is irrelevant. That is how the Soviets will depict it.

They will therefore be enboldened. They will be encouraged to  say:"We invaded Afghanistan. We moved our armies into that  non-aligned, inoffensive country,  and the Western World has not  exacted a price". .

How a majority of. the 11 men of the executive of the Olympic  movement could place games in Moscow above this vast and large  national interest,  I cannot understand. I fail totally to  comprehend how 11 good Australians,  as they are, can take such

a short term view of life, of their future,. of their obligations  to this nation.

Perhaps the issues became confused in Australia because Mr Hayden  started supporting an effective boycott and then opposed it. The governments of the nations of our region, of New Zealand -  supported by the Labor opposition in New Zealand - were all  strongly in support of the boycott.

It needs to be clearly understood that there is an effective .   boycott in place. A boycott must be measured, not by the  numbers of nations who attend, or by the numbers who stay .away, .  .   but by the sporting strength of those athletes who attend,  or  who stay away. .

The Â·  great sporting nations - the United States,  Canada, Germany and Japan are staying away. They are supported by other countries  such as Kenya, of notable athletic prowess, a number of others  from Africa and the Islamic world, and by nearly every other nation from  .  our part of the world - China, Japan,  South Korea, Thailand, Hong Kong

Singapore, Indonesia,  Malaysia, Pakistan and Fiji. That beyond  doubt, constitutes an effective boycott.  v

Medals won in Moscow will be devalued medals. But again, the  tragedy may be that even those who win medals,Â· a short time  after the event, may well wish that they had not attended, may  well wish that they, had not won. They will not carry the mark

of pride, excellence, normally associated with the Olympics. They will be the "1980 medals", which will carry a connotation  all of their own.  .

Some people have said the L if tbs Government feels so st-rongly  why does it not direct the Olympic Federation. If we had the  formal power to do sc - if it had been our responsibility -  of course we would have. But Olympic Federations have been Ã¢ÂÂ  established independent of government. They have been busy  asserting their independence. In Australia, by that very  assertion, they themselves carry that responsibility to act  not only as Olympic administrators,  but Also as Australians.

They have told Australia which they put first. It is a sad  and tragic decision.  Young athletes do not remember of course,   what happened in the 1930s, it was before their time. That cannot  be said of the majority of the Olympic Federation executive -  most of whom lived thorough that time.Â·

. . ./3

/

I

3

Â»

I think we all know that the views I have had of Soviet  expansionism are not new. My concerns and fears about the use towhich

have been expressed many times over many years.  They were often  stated when it was.an unpopular view. I regret they have all too  tragically been proved right. That gives me no pleasure at all. .

Let me make the point strongly. Australia is not an insignificant  nation. If members of that Olympic executive thought that an  Australian decision did not matter in the wider equation, then , they are wrong. Australia is not only a great sporting nation,   we are a middle ranking power. Â·

We have a]ways been a firm ally of tho.se great nations fighting  for world freedom and independence. In this instance,  our history  and our future placed obligations upon us which should have demanded  a certain decision of the Olympic executive.

That they forgot their history and denied Australia's future,   that they forgot Australia's role,  in the taking of this decision  compounds the tragedy, because I know they are all good Australians.

While an acceptance had to be lodged with the Soviets by 24 May,  the Olympic Executive could still reverse that decision any Â· time until shortly before the Games begin.  I would not be  surprised to see the position of additional European sporting  bodies move at a later date to non-attendance in Moscow. -

In a number of countries,  there is a good deal of disquiet about  the decisions to attend.

In Australia, the passage of time has not diminished the strength  of the Government's view. We never thought we were embarking  on a popular path, trying to persuade a great sporting nation ,

like Australia to stay away from the Olympic Games.

It was bound to have opponents,  but we were .impelledvto take  our stand because we believe it to be right - because we believe  it to be necessary in the discharge of our responsibilities to  every Australian. ' Ã¢ÂÂ

Let me ask one final question. How many lives is a medal worth? How many people have to be killed by Soviet armies before we will  have total unity in this country on whether or not to compete in  Moscow.

The Government puts Australia before the Olympics. I ask_ all  Australians to do just that. There is still time. Â·

- — 0 O 0 ---

ÃÂ

4

