Mr Hawke in Moscow

Press, 2 December 1987, Page 20

Mr Hawke in Moscow

The Kremlin must be preoccupied with the visit to Washington next week of the Soviet leader, Mr Gorbachev, not with this week’s visit of the Australian Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, to Moscow. But it would be a mistake to view the Hawke visit as a sideshow. Mr Gorbachev is renowned for his ability to deal with complex issues at the same time and the importance of the United States summit will not force him to miss the opportunity to turn attention to the Pacific. Doubtless the Soviet Union will want to make sure that Mr Hawke understands its position on the nuclear missiles treaty and the wider issues of the summit meeting. But the Australian view of the Soviet role in the South Pacific will be of significant interest to Mr Gorbachev.

Mr Hawke has already intimated an interesting change in the Australian view. When he was in Singapore on his way to Moscow, Mr Hawke said: “For my part, I would welcome a constructive involvement by the U.S.S.R. in political and economic developments in the Asia-Pacific region.” These comments have caused something of a stir in Australia and it remains to be seen how the Soviet Union will react to them.

The opportunity will be available for Mr Hawke to get the Soviet Union to be specific on plans it has for the Pacific. Ever since July, 1986, when Mr Gorbachev made an important speech in Vladivostok about developing ties with the Asia-Pacific region, there has been more than usual interest in how the Soviet Union would develop its interests in the region. In one section of his speech, Mr Gorbachev said: “The Pacific region has not as yet been militarised to the extent that has taken place in Europe. But the potentialities of its militarisation are truly immense, and the consequences are extremely dangerous. A glance at the map will convince one of that. Major nuclear powers are situated here. Powerful land armies, mighty navies and air forces have been developed. The scientific, technological and industrial potential of many countries — from the western to the eastern fringes of the ocean — makes it possible to boost any arms race.”

In the same speech Mr Gorbachev suggested that the region might undergo “the Helsinki process,” by which he was referring to the talks in Finland between the countries of Eastern and Western Europe, the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. The point raised some curiosity in New Zealand and Australia because it

seemed to both countries that the AsiaPacific region was so diverse that a Helsinkitype process would fail. Europeans at least share the same continent and share some aspects of their heritage; the peoples who live in Asia and the Pacific do not have such a basis of unity.

The Soviet Union later began to modify its approach. In a recent interview with the Indonesian magazine “Merdeka,” Mr Gorbachev made more specific suggestions on arms control and confidence-building measures in the Asia-Pacific region and seemed to abandon the Helsinki approach. Commenting on this the Australian Foreign Minister, Mr Hayden, who is with Mr Hawke in Moscow, said that Australia shared the view that the Helsinki process was inappropriate. It is probable, therefore, that Australia in the Moscow talks will not encourage an Asia-Pacific security conference; if it were going to support such a conference, Australia would have discussed this publicly and communicated it to regional friends.

What is beyond dispute is that the Soviet Union wants to expand its relationship with the countries of the region — at Vladivostok Mr Gorbachev named practically every country in the area. Mr Hawke will have the opportunity to hear more detail of this Soviet thinking and form his views of Soviet intentions. How Australia reacts will be important for all the countries of the region and will be of particular importance to New Zealand.

The New Zealand Government has been very cautious towards the Soviet Union, partly because of the A.N.Z.U.S. row. New Zealand, quite properly, wanted to avoid giving the impression that its moves were to be interpreted in any way as showing favour to the Soviet Union. At first the Soviet Union put a biased interpretation on what was happening in New Zealand, but eventually adopted a cooler approach and acknowledged that what was occurring between New Zealand and the United States was their own business.

Because Australia’s ties with the United States are so sound, and because Mr Hawke has been so critical of aspects of the Soviet Union, he will not have the same hesitations as are felt in New Zealand about active involvement with that country. His conclusions about how that involvement should develop will be of importance and he will no doubt share them with the New Zealand Government, in the spirit of his recent co-operative trip here.