Mr Hawke’s repairs in Asia

Press, 23 November 1983, Page 16

Mr Hawke’s repairs in Asia

The visit of the Australian Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, to Thailand may have done much to heal a growing rift between Australia and the Association of South-East Asian Nations over Kampuchea. Indeed, after meetings in Bangkok, it has been denied that there is a rift at all. These things are a matter of definition and there is no denying the dismay in A.S.E.A.N. about certain Australian actions, or lack of actions, over Kampuchea and Vietnam. The official A.S.E.A.N.-Australia dialogue was cancelled. There is no reason to believe that, until Mr Hawke’s visit to Bangkok there was a reconciliation of any kind. What A.S.E'A.N. initially objected to was the fact that Australia refused to co-sponsor a resolution in the United Nations about Kampuchea, though it supported the motion. This does not seem to be sufficient reason for a great dissension, but A.S.E.A.N. was further upset because, in his. speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations, the Australian Foreign Minister, Mr Hayden, did not condemn the Vietnamese invasion of Kampuchea or the continued occupation of Kampuchea by 180,000 Vietnamese troops. Much, possibly too much, was read into all this. Singapore made, some comments that appeared to Australia to lay down conditions for Mr Hawke’s visit to Thailand. Singapore and Australia engaged in a heated exchange on the subject and an emergency debate was held in the Australian Parliament. The United States has been accused of encouraging A.S.E.A.N. countries into making their criticism of Australia. Mr Hawke has officially discounted that view. Mr Hayden accompanied Mr Hawke on the visit to Thailand. This was probably a sound idea because A.S.E.A.N. has tended to interpret Australia’s attitude as arising out of Left-wing influence in the Australian Labour Party, and identified Mr Hayden with this wing of the party. It is true that A.L.P. policy was that

Australia should reinstate aid to Vietnam, but it is too simple a view to believe that Mr Hawke and Mr Hayden are bending to accommodate party pressure. The differences between A.S.E.A.N. and Australia are not, after all, very great. Mr Hawke has made it very clear while in Thailand that Australia is strongly opposed to Vietnamese occupation of Kampuchea and has spelled out in as many words that Australia is not making a choice between Vietnam and the countries of A.S.E.A.N. — Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines. If the A.S.E.A.N. countries needed reassuring, they should have been reassured by what he said.

Australia is retaining the right to make its own decisions on how Vietnam should be treated and on what Australia’s interests are in the region. The aid that Australia plans to give Vietnam for flood relief is through the United Nations. Australia is planning to give Kampuchea some aid both through the refugee camps on the border of Kampuchea and Thailand and through Phnom Penh. The inclusion of the Khmer Rouge in the coalition of Democratic Kampuchea is wholly unacceptable to Austrlaia. This is one of the sorest points of difference with the countries of A.S.E.A.N.; but both Australia and A.S.E.A.N. will have to live with the difference of views on this.

The Australian attitude on the position of Vietnam in. South-East Asia is that continued isolation of Vietnam causes Vietnam to become more dependent on the Soviet Union and this dependence means that there is more greatPower influence in the whole region. This is the point of view that has been argued by New Zealand on occasions. Whatever policies Australia follows, however, it has undertaken to keep A.S.E.A.N. informed about them. Such an undertaking is a clearer signal of Australia’s attitudes to A.S.E.A.N. than others that A.S.E.A.N. has been reading.