Ambassador to UN from Australia

Seymour N. Siegel is the host. Ambassador Patrick Shaw is questioned by Maurice Adams of the Sydney Morning Herald, Peter MacVoy, a freelance political writer and Ed Edwin, a political writer.

Adams: Seems obvious we are moving to a new era in South East Asia. The United Kingdom is out of Singapore, and a settlement of the Vietnam war is possibly in the future. What do you see as a defensive role of nations of South East Asia and Australia's role for the 1970s?

Shaw: This harks back to WWII and our alliance with US and Britain. Since then we are more aware of our position in the world as a middle ranking power in the Pacific. We don't think of ourselves as taking over for Britain. We are not a colonial power. We are seeking a new partnership with our friends in South East Asia. Defense along these lines is to preserve peace and security.

Edwin: What about the trade side? What role is Australia and trade for the last third of the 20th century?

Shaw: There are new patterns in the Pacific region. Japan has already replaced the U.K. for our exports and most of our imports. The Pacific region is our focus along with the United States. We see a triangular relationship. We also don't want just to be a quarry and farm, but we are now a manufacturer. We also look to Indonesia for investment and help. China? Our experience is that you can trade with Communist China and have a good relationship without involving politics. You can keep the two apart, and we have. China is a valuable market and will be for some time to come. And we can't ignore them.

MacVoy: UN as a factor.

Shaw: The role of the UN in solving economic development problems has not succeeded. What the UN has done is examine and sort out the problems but not come up with solutions yet. The issues are defined, but not solved. The UN is not a government; it can't tax or legislate. Resolutions. Assessments for peacekeeping are not binding. So it is clear - it is not a world government.

Adams: Resolution at the UN for the non-proliferation treaty. You have some reservations?

Shaw: nuclear weapons are an evil. Binding obligations require good definitions. In Australia, we have two areas of different interest. We live in an area close to Communist China which is developing an offensive nuclear capacity. It can be described as aggressive. We as a non-nuke power must look at this problem on how to live with China, and the threat is real. Second, by the nature of its terrain, Australia has a need for nuclear activity, not just energy, but nuclear explosive devices for peaceful uses. Our flat terrain to sink down harbors, fracture ground for oil. The treaty isn't just for weapons, but explosive devices of any sort, so by subscribing to the treaty we are cutting ourselves off from these possible peaceful uses of explosive devices for development.

Edwin: Is Australia the answer to overpopulation and feeding the world?

Shaw: The long term view population growth has to be checked by individual countries. Japan, for example, has had the wisdom and education to set up family planning. This is how countries all see their future. This is what can happen, and I think will happen. The pressure for food is there, but it is still not simply of growing it but getting it there in a timely way. Australia has great open spaces to be filled with millions? This wouldn't solve the overpopulation problem. We're growing at 300,000 per year as an expanding economy. We have no apology for our open spaces.

Audio courtesy of the NYC Municipal Archives WNYC Collection

WNYC archives id: 151840
Municipal archives id: T5981