Speeches Advocating Recognition

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS SPEECH Thursday, 12 August 1954

BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, 12 August 1954

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

1

SPEECH Date Thursday, 12 August 1954 Page 1 Questioner Speaker WHITLAM, Gough

Source House Proof No Responder Question No.

Mr WHITLAM (Werriwa—) (NaN.NaN pm) .- The fact that for more than three years the House has not been allowed to participate in a debate on foreign affairs is a damning indictment of the Government.

The last debate of any length on a ministerial statement on foreign affairs occurred on the 10th July, 1951, and occupied two hours and 40 minutes. On the 6th May, 1952, a statement on international affairs by the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Casey) was debated for a mere eighteen minutes. The next statement on international affairs by the Minister that was debated at all was made on the 5th September, 1952.

Mr Gullett (—) (NaN.NaN pm) - Before the House had the advantage of the honorable member's presence !

Mr WHITLAM (—) (NaN.NaN pm) - Things have improved in the meantime. The Minister's statement on that occasion related to the first meeting of the Anzus council, which had taken place a month before.

The statement was not debated until a year later, when the second meeting of the Anzus council was in progress. The Minister for External Affairs has made other statements on Korea, meetings of the United Nations General Assembly, and the like. None of those statements was debated, and all were allowed to lapse with the prorogation of the Parliament. During the last week the House has had the good fortune to hear statements, first, by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) on foreign affairs, and, secondly, by the Minister for External Affairs on SouthEast Asia. We have had the even better fortune to hear the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) debate both those statements.

This is virtually the first time in three years that the elected representatives of the people have had the opportunity to express their views on international affairs for the Government's consideration, and it is the first occasion in more than three years that the Government has deigned to listen to the views of the people's representatives on this matter.

In the exciting and rapid movement of events during the last few months the Minister for External Affairs has twice circumnavigated the globe in the steps of his model, Mr. Eden, and his master, Mr. Dulles.

Though the Minister saw fit to make statements to the newspapers in the United States of America and in other parts of the world, he did not say anything to the Australian press. The only Minister who has seen fit to

make any statement on international affairs has been, of all people, the PostmasterGeneral (Mr. Anthony), who three weeks ago addressed the annual conference of the Queensland branch of the Australian Country party. In haranguing that rally of rustics the PostmasterGeneral declared that we Australians cannot live in peaceful co-existence with the Communists in this cold war. That pronouncement, fortunately, was in direct contradiction of statements that had already been made by President Eisenhower, of the United States of America, and Sir Winston Churchill, the British Prime Minister. The declaration of the PostmasterGeneral has been emphatically repudiated in this House by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. As a consequence of that rash utterance, the PostmasterGeneral, whose health in recent months was deemed to be rapidly qualifying him for a diplomatic post, has rendered himself persona non grata to every head of State except President Syngman Rhee of the Republic of Korea, and General Chiang Kai-shek, the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Government.

For the first time since Japan invaded Manchuria, there is peace on the continent of Asia, and for the first time since World War I. began 40 years ago, there is peace throughout the world. During the last three days honorable members have exercised their minds in recrimination and soul-searching at this unwonted state of affairs, and many honorable members have criticized the French, who they allege have let the free world down, and also the action of the Chinese Communist Government in intervening in Indo-China.

I want to make my position in this matter perfectly plain. 1 do not blame the French one jot. Their gallantry in the seven and a half years during which they carried on the struggle in Indo-China cannot be denied. They may have been ill-advised. I certainly believe that they were, but it does not become any of us to criticize the forlorn hope of Dien Bien Phu. We can recall that Indian summer of French colonial glory when General de Lattre de Tassigny restored the French position temporarily and was, posthumously, awarded the grandest military title in the world - Marshal of France. At the same time, it is useless for us to blame the Chinese for intervening. China was not the only country to intervene in Indo-China. The Chinese were the first to recognize Ho-Chi-Minh as the head of State in Viet Nam. In fact, when the nationalists took over the occupation of northern Viet Nam, after the Japanese were defeated, Chiang Kai-shek

CHAMBER

Thursday, 12 August 1954

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

recognized him in September, 1945, and armed him with Japanese arms. The French recognized Ho-ChiMinh in March, 1946, and later that year negotiated with him at Fontainebleau. The French broke with him in December, 1946. It was in December, 1949, that Chinese troops reached the Viet Nam border. For the first three years of the war, Ho-Chi-Minh did not receive, because he could not receive, any help from Mao-Tse-Tung. Until the elections are held in Viet Nam in 1956 there will continue to be turmoil in that area. The tragedy is that those elections will be the first ever to be held in Indo-China.

Australia faces the dilemma that if war comes and Australia is attacked, the only country that can render it any assistance is the United States of America. Yet the policies very often advocated by that country are in complete disagreement with those advocated and acted upon by all our neighbours. I am not suggesting that we should take notice, to the point of action, of everything that leaders of Congress and of the American armed forces say. President Eisenhower has followed a middle course, and in view of public opinion in the United States of America one must admire him for following a sane and consistent course. It is unfortunate that the separation of legislative and executive functions in the United States of America relieves members of the American Congress of taking responsibility for their utterances. It is also unfortunate that Admirals Radford, Carney and Stump are not members of a silent service. The solution that is often suggested for the dilemma in which we find ourselves is that we should join a South-East Asia treaty organization on the analogy of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization which has experienced considerable success in the northern hemisphere in stemming the march of communism in that area. But although the United States of America, the United Kingdom probably, and ourselves are prepared to join such an organization, none of our neighbours are prepared to do so. India has certainly said that it will not join, and Indonesia and Burma have taken a similar stand, whilst Ceylon has said that it will follow India.

Pakistan has said that it will attend a conference on the proposed organization, but that country has not committed itself to join the organization. The temper of those countries is reflected in a statement that was made last month by the Indonesian Foreign Minister when he said Such a regional defence community in Asia should bc initiated by Asian powers themselves. For Asian countries the problem was how best to develop a. common defence based on unity of interest.

If the South-East Asia Treaty Organization is to be valid at all, it must represent South-East Asia, but it cannot be said that the organization will represent that area if the only Asian countries that join it are the

2

Philippines and Thailand. That fact has been publicly acknowledged in the Philippines in a statement that was made two weeks ago by Senator Claro Recto, the Nationalist Government's foreign policy spokesman.

He said An alliance excluding India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Burma and Ceylon will not be representative of South-East Asia.

Thailand is of particular significance, because it may well be the country in which the next civil war, as some people would call it, or subversion, as other people would call it, may break out. The reason is that Thailand has a great Chinese minority which presents all the makings of a civil war, whilst coups d'etat have characterized politics in the country in recent years. Fearful of the number and skill of the Chinese in Thailand, the country has been opposed to the Governments of Chiang Kai-shek and of Mao-TseTung, and successive Thai governments have sought the assistance of outside powers to counterbalance the Chinese influence. Just as Japan provided that bulwark for Thailand during the war, the United States of America serves that purpose in the interests of Thailand to-day.

One great fault of the South-East Asian Treaty Organization compared with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization secured the support and co-operation of the government of every country on both sides of the North Atlantic seaboard, with the exception of Spain and Eire, and it also obtained the co-operation of the maritime powers of the Mediterranean. So, all the relevant countries were represented in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; and for that reason it has been successful. Conversely, if all the relevant countries are not represented in the South-East Asia Treaty Organization the organization will not be a success, and we shall only delude ourselves in joining any organization of that kind in such circumstances.

Certain phases of our policy have been allowed to continue for four and a half years to the provocation of the people of China and of all our neighbours. I refer to the question of the recognition of the Communist Government in China and to its admission to the United Nations. Whether we like it or not, all of the Colombo plan nations have recognized the Government that is installed in Peking. At Colombo, on the 1st May last, the Prime Ministers of those five countries, four of which are members of the United Nations whilst the fifth, Ceylon, has failed to gain membership because of the exercise of the veto by Soviet Russia, said in a joint communique The representation of the People's Republic of China, the Prime Ministers felt, would promote stability in Asia, ease world tension and assist in bringing about a more realistic

CHAMBER

Thursday, 12 August 1954

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

approach to problems concerning the world, particularly in the Far East.

It cannot be said that any of those countries are Communist-inclined, because in the same communique those five Prime Ministers stated The Prime Ministers- affirmed their faith in democracy and .democratic institutions and, being resolved to preserve in their respective countries the freedoms inherent in a democratic system, declared their unshakable determination to resist interference in the affairs of their countries by external communist, anti-communist or other agencies.

We have to face the fact that the countries of South-East Asia, and the Colombo plan countries in particular, do not regard the Communist Government in China as being hostile to them. In those circumstances, they do not wish to aline themselves with either of the two power blocs as they regard them.

A still more serious phase of our policy is that we say not only that the Communist Government in China is not, and should not be, the government of that country, but also, that the Nationalist Government in Formosa is, and should be, the government of China. We must recognize the fact that the government installed in Formosa has no chance of ever again becoming the government of China unless it is enabled to do so as a result of a third world war. When we say that that government should be the government of China we not only take an unrealistic view but a menacing one.

The Australian Government should have recognized the Communist Government in China, in view of the fact that all our neighbours, including the colonial powers, Great Britain and the Netherlands, have recog nized it. We are menaced by the situation that exists in Formosa. The arrangements there have no international or United Nations sanction; and we must not allow it to be thought that if any attack is made on Formosa we shall regard such an attack as a cause for war.

One fact that has emerged from this debate is that every honorable member stands for democracy and the preservation of peace. Therefore, the next thing that we must do is to consider how best we can preserve our system of government, promote it in other countries and prevent war, because only war will subvert our system of government in Australia, It is significant that the only countries among our neighbours who can be regarded as recognizable democracies, because they have a parliamentary or congressional government, are the five countries which the English-speaking countries ruled before World War II. and freed after that conflict. The British parliamentary system has proved successful in India, Pakistan, Burma, and Ceylon whilst the congressional system has proved successful in the Philippines. A change of government has taken place in the lastnamed through ordinary constitutional processes. In these

3

five countries communism is weakest. If we want to preserve peace and democracy in this area we must ensure that those countries enjoy self-government.' We must see that there is a will to. peace in that area. We must be neighbourly, and, at all times, adhere to the principles of the United Nations and to its processes.

Our neighbours will be satisfied with that, and we, also, should be satisfied with it. I quote from a statement given to Reveille by General Carlos Romulo, the personal representative at Washington of the President of the Philippines and his predecessors. He said If communism is to bc successfully fought in South-East Asia, the will to fight it must first be there.

That will cannot be created unless it can be shown that in combating Moscow's godless ideology, the Asians would win their freedom, plain and absolute.

In that area we not only can but we also must adopt peaceful means of conducting our affairs. If self-government succeeds in that area, there will he peace and development. We must co-exist with our neighbours. The conflicts in Malaya and Indo-China were not reasons for our going to war. I conclude by quoting the conclusion of a speech made by Sir Winston Churchill in the debate that took place recently in the House of Commons on foreign affairs upon his return from his visit to President Eisenhower.

Sir Winston said In the speech which my right honorable friend the Foreign Secretary made in winding up the debate before our departure, he used, in speaking about the relations of the Communist and free worlds, the remarkable phrase " peaceful co-existence ". This fundamental mid far-reaching conception certainly had an influence upon some of our conversations at Washington, and I was very glad when I read after we had left that President Eisenhower had said that the hope of the world lies in peaceful co-existence of the Communist and non-Communist powers, adding also the warning, with which I entirely agree, that this doctrine must not lead to appeasement that compels any nation to submit to foreign domination.

The House must' not underrate the importance of this broad measure of concurrence in what was in this case the Englishspeaking world. What a vast ideological gulf there is between the idea of peaceful co-existence vigilantly safeguarded and a mood of forcibly extirpating the Communist fallacy and heresy. Tt is indeed a gulf. This statement is a recognition of the appalling character which war has now assumed and* that its fearful consequences go even beyond the difficulties and clangers of dwelling side by side with Communist States.

Indeed I believe that this widespread acceptance of this policy may in the passage of years lead to the problems which divide the world being solved or solving themselves as so many problems do in a manner which will avert the mass destruction of the human race and give time, human nature and the mercy of God their chance to win salvation for us.

CHAMBER

Ti

ts•—tah..40."81"--"'"

UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA - ADULT EDUCATION BOARD SUMMER SCHOOL 23 JANUARY 1961 WHAT SHOULD AUSTRALIA'S FOREIGN POLICY BE ?

BY

DEPUTY LEADER OF T1 OPPOSITION WHITLAM

President Kennedy and the opportunity to change Australia's foreign _policy.

The present is a good time to take stock of Australia's

foreign policy. Under President Kennedy United States policy will be more contemporary and as enunciated in the United Nations

by Adlai Stevenson will be more articulate. Australia, which has so faithfully followed U.S. policy during the Eisenhower

and Dulles regimes, except where British policy has been more bellicose or colonial, = 'thus be rescued from some of the blind alleys into which she has gone in the 1950s.

Australia will thus have the opportunity to change her policies0 Australia's isolation and the need to change policy.

Our foreign policy is not a wise or successful one if it puts us so often and so greatly at variance with our neighbours and particularly with those of our neighbours with whom we share some organic or historic association, e.g.

S.E.A.T.O. or the Commonwealth.

The attitudes we support

may be right, but we have not persuaded our neighbours that they are right and usually we have not tried to persuade them that they are right or consulted with them at all.

2 The worst instances, the most dramatie and blatant instances, of our isolation have occurred when the Prime Minister himself has taken the centre of the stage-when he supported the invasion of Egypt in 1956 and sabotaged the five-power resolution in the General Assembly three months ago.

Towards World Government The Australian government should try to allay tensions and cure injustices between nations to the same extent as governments are expected to do between sections of their own internal population. It should share in establishing and operating international organizations with functions that cannot be so well performed by individual countries.

International organizations, like governments, were originally designed to secure law and order but are now increasingly dedicated to social justice and economic development. In future such organizations will be charged with preserving the peace and supervising disarmament, with equalizing the standard of living, with stabilizing the terms of trade, thus carrying out those functions which governments have successively come to perform with their police forces, their welfare services and their economic agencies.

Through international agencies and by steady surrender

of sovegignty Australia and similar Atlantic communities must reduce inequalities and inequities and consequent tensions between nations as our individual parliaments have done in the

first half of the century by taxation and social services.

Slow ada ptation to new circumstances Hitherto Australia has adhered to the restricted view that foreign policy was concerned with protecting our national security by political means. Even with such restricted terms of reference Australia has shown a difficult and unhappy adaptation. Our national security has been conditioned by two influences - our history and our geography.

Until the last war, history was by far the stronger influence.

In the First World War the U.K., by reason of its naval strength, •both desired and was able to help us and it was natural to rely on U.K.

In World War II the U.K. was willing but

unable to help. The U.S. was fortunately able to come to our aid.

The, world has changed markedly since 1945.

This is

shown most convincingly in the changed voting patterns in the • U.N. The West no longer controls Asia and Africa and the balance of economic and military power is shifting quite rapidly against the West and the U.K. in particular.

Since the Conservatives took office in Britiin and the Republicans in America, our policy has been to follow. _ them when they agreed and to follow the more bellicose and colonial course when they disagreed. We supported the AngloFrench invasion of Egypt in 1956 although the rest of the world, except New Zealand, opposed it. We have supported the

American pretence that -the Government in Taiwan is the Government of China although the British and the Afro-Asians have rejected this view for eleven years. We have acquiesced in American policy on the invasion of North Korea and the retention of Quemoy and Matsu although the British and the Afro-Asians cautioned against the former and have seriously questioned the latter. In the United Nations we supported until 1958 the British view that apartheid is a South African domestic matter although most of the world repudiated such escapism ever since the subject was first raised.

Geography must drive Australia much more rapidly to make an adjustment from the. familiar European world to the unfamiliar Afro-Asian world. In political matters we shall continue to rely heavily on our. proven Western allies but we do not do justice to ourselves or assist them if we render them uncritical support. Our history and geography combine to make us the best bridge between the North Atlantic and the Indian Oceans. In the 1950s our leaders singularly failed to serve Australia and its allies and its neighbours. Throughout that decade Australia and its most significant neighbours, India and Indonesia, had the same political heads yet the relations between ours and theirs were of the most tenuous and perfunctory.

The promising contacts of 1959 were dissipated in last year's General Assembly when Mr.Menzies volunteered to sabotage the motion forecast by President Soekarno and moved by Mr.Nehru.

Our Minister for External Affairs during those years spent less time in Djakarta and Delhi than in any other capitals in the region* _

_

The representation and other allowances for our heads of missions in Europe and North America are in all cases higher than in Asia.

The average representation and other allowances of our High Commissions, Embassies and Consulates in Europe and North America are twice those in Asia.

Only in India, Indonesia and Japan have our diplomatic posts in Asia an officer who speaks the principal local language.

At the other ten there are none.

country Australia is a remote/and a middle power. It is not within her province or her means to approach or settle the great issues single-handed.

She should offer and try to take her

share of world responsibilities. There are, however, some associations to which she belongs and some issues which particularly concern her. I shall deal with these associations and issues to shoe he inadequacies of our present policies and to suggest more fruitful ones.

The Commonwealth of Nations The oldest and most natural association to which Australia belongs is the Commonwealth. 'We should be in a very good position to advance the common ideals of the

nations which belong to the Commonwealth.

On our performance, however, in the United Nations the Commonwealth might just as well dissolve. At the recent session of the General Assembly there were six key issues, the seating of China, the discussion of Tibet, the charges of U.S. aggression, the seating of the Congolese delegation, the dissemination of nuclear weapons and the declaration of colonial independence. On these six issues Australia voted alongside the U.S. and the U.K.

On none of the six

it vote wish India, Ceylon, Ghana or Nigeria. It •

voted twice with Malaya, three times with Canada and Pakistan, four times with New Zealand and five times with South Africa.

Burma and Ireland do not belong to the Commonwealth but have clos historic and sentimental ties with many members of it. On the six issues Australia never voted with Burma and only twice with Ireland.

If the Commonwealth is to be a reality Australia clearly should play a greater role in interpreting issues and reconciling differences.

S .E.A.T.O,.

Australia joined S.E.A.T.O. to support the U.S. policy o-containing Communist China. The organization commenced with two great disadvantages. The first was that it had so few and such unrepresentative Asian members. In this it

formed a striking contrast to N.A.T.O., which hadcemplete representation of the nations on each side of theAAtlantic seaboard and strong representation in the Mediterranean.

The second disadvantage is that the area and obligations of the treaty are imprecise.

For inst gnce, it is impossible

to know which of the islands between Australia and Asia are included in the term "general area of the South-West Pacific" just as it is impossible to know which of the islands off the coast of China and. Australia are included in the term "Pacific Area"

3644+64 (441,44,4

in the A.N.Z.U.S. Treaty.

Subsequent events have shown that S.E.A.T.O. is

unable to preserve the security and stability of its members and the designated countries in

Asia.

It is no defence

(err

against Communism to bolster up reactionary and corrupt

politicians and generals.

Secondly, the machinery of S.E.A.T.O. breaks down when the non-Asian members disagree on policy. Inlaos the British and Australian governments have come to realise that the country cannot remain independent or become united until it has an utterly neutral government. The United States) however ) has financed, equipped and manned insurrectionary forces to set up an anti-Chinese administration. It is well to recall that late in 1959 United Nations investigators disagreed with Laotian assertions and U.S. Intelligence concerning outside intervention.

If S.E.A.T.O. is to serve a beneficial purpose every

effort must be made to secure the goodwill of other Asian countries towards it, to advance political freedom and living standards within its Asian members and to have loyal and forbearing consultation and action by its nonAsian members.

Colombo Plan The Colombo Plan is the only mechanism by which Australia makes a regular contribution towards reducing the economic inequality between herself and her neighbours.

This inequality is greater than there ever was between sections of the Australian community itself and the inequality is increasing.

.--Q.12r aid

1n q

Al.h4ra_lagreater

There is no m echanism on the

-

9-

international level as there was at the national level to reduce inequalities of income.

The Colombo Plan began as an

important experiment in

international economic co-operation and as a gesture of friendship. It has not been a failure but it is clear that

it is inadequate.

The amount of our aid is unworthy of a country as prosperous as Australia. We have spent one-quarter as much as Canada and one-sixth as much as the U.K. We spend approximately ÂŁ5 million per annum, which is about one-tenth

of one per cent. of our national income. This amount should be substantially increased.

Unfortunately, even a small increase in foreign aid (in relation to need) is frowned upon by some Australians. Why, they say, should we send locomotives to Pakistan or buses to,/ Indonesia when they are needed at home ? Why not look after our pensioners first ? Charity begins at home. I agree that a strong case can be made out in this way against increasing aid but this case is based on a distorted view of the needs of the world. It is a question of relative need.

Certainly we must

do much more to develop Australia and provide social justice for our own people. But surely it is getting things entirely out of perspective if we say that we should not help the underdeveloped areas until we have built a Utopia in Australia.

The amount of aid Australia can offer in relation to general need will of course, be small.

There are areas, however,

-1 0 and. I refer particularly to Singapore, where Australian aid could be decisive. The type of government which is in ,power in Singapore is of vital importance to all peoples in the South-East EE Asian area. The present government in Singapore enjoys widespread popular support. One thing is certain - if it falls through its inability to provide employment for its expanding work force, it will not be the conservatives of Singapore who will profit. The Chinese Capitalists are interested in commerce but not in manufactures, which are required to cope with endemic unemployment.

The Colombo Plan is also open to criticism in that co-operation is on the basis of bi-lateral negotiations. It should be multi-lateral rather than bi-lateral, for bi-lateral aid encourages emphasis on public relations rather than on the real value of aid itself. Bi-lateralism also appears to result in virtue rather than

need,

being the determining influence.

Pakistan,a member of S.E.A.T.O., appears to receives much more aid on a population basis from Australia than India or Indonesia who are not members of S.E.A.T.O. The term "Plan" is also a misnomer because aid and technical assistance is made on a piecemeal year-by-year basis.

This prevents the full value of aid being realised because' under-developed countries in their planning must know in advance how much aid they can anticipate.

I have dealt with the three associations, the Commonwealth, S.E.A.T.O. and the Colombo Plan, to which Australia belongs. I now pass to three issues which concern her, the part of New Guinea which she rules, the western paiL of the island and our troops in Malaya.

The Territory of Papua and New Guinea

In the 1940s Australia was not regarded as a colonial power and enjoyed the goodwill of the emerging nations.

In the last few years she has acted as a colonial power and become suspect as such. The General Assembly's Declaration on the Granting of Independence to the Colonial Countries and People, to which I have already Neerred, was supported by 89 nations and opposed by none. Nine nations, however, abstained from voting, our representative being instructed to align himself with the representatives of Mr.Macmillan, General Eisenhower, General de Gaulle, Mr.Verwoerd, King BaUdouin, Senhor Salazar, General Franco and Generalissimo Trujillo.

In the eyes of the world Australia will be judged on her performance in New Guinea more than on any other issue. Our government of the Trust Territory is reviewed by a visiting mission every two years and by the Trusteeship Council and

- 12 General Assembly every year. In a Allizew- few years this will be the last Trust Territory in the world and Papua, and the Portuguese Territorpli will be the last colonies in the world.

We have governed parts of New Guinea for longer than Europeans governed most of the territories which during the last year have been admitted as members of the United Nations. Our record on education, surface communications, overseas markets, industrial development, employment conditions andabove all, political advancement is poor.

In our day private enterprise will not develop New Guinea the political future is too obscure. In addition, Papuans will increasingly become resentful of private foreign capital if it results in high profits, low wages and poor working conditions - as it does at present.

If there is to be

industrial development in Papua and New Guinea the impetus must come from public enterprise.

We must also ensure that the development of certain agricultural crops is not retarded or prohibited in New Guinea for fear of harming Australian tropical production.

We should seek international aid to develop these areas just as the British Colonial Office makes extensive use of U.N. agencies, including the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and U.N.E.S.C.O.

XXIXXEKKX

Our most important task in New Guinea is to promote the development of the more advanced sections of the community.

Under the recent r eforms of the Legislative Council there is

- 1 3still no guarantee that the most articulate native leaders will come forward. Why should any Papuans so desiring it be refused a direct vote for their representatives ? Paternalism in New Guinea must give way to politics.

International opinion, Dutch policy and the developing elite will impose a timetable upon us in New Guinea whether we like it or not.

It is best that we recognise quite clearly 406L241

that this timetable will not be 4of our choosing. We must ensure, however, that within that timetable (say 10 to 15 years), economic and political independence in New Guinea becomes a reality.

West New Guinea

Australia has taken a prominent part in international debates and negotiations on the question of jurisdiction over West New Guinea. Our representatives in the United Nations have made trenchant and technical attacks on Indonesia's claims on historic, legal) racial, religious and linguistic grounds.

On all these e04.4

unds, of course, the claim of the Netherlands was (AA"(

much more tenuous than that of Indonesia. Indonesia's claim A is principally based on the groundethat she is the successor0 State to all the Netherlands East Indies. The Australian tests might have encouraged Indonesia to make claims which she has never in fact made to East New Guinea or to Eastern Timor or to ) North Borneo and Sarawak and to Palawan and the Sulu Archipelago.

째

14 The arguments of Australia and the Netherlands XX have been rejected by a large majority in the United Nations although the supporters of Indonesia were unable to secure the necessary two-thirds of the votes in the General Assembly. It is significant that every country in Asia, including all the. S.E.A.T.O. powers, voted against us and that on every occasion the United States abstained from voting.

Two years ago the Indonesian and Australian foreign

ministers issued a communique in which it was stated that if any agreement were reached between the Netherlands . and Indonesia as parties principal, arrived at by peaceful processes and in accordance with internationally accepted principles, Australia would not oppose such an agreement.

The Australian government thus lent itself to the proposition that the issues involved concerned the ownership of some land and its inhabitants.

The objection to Indonesia's claim tn New Guinea owes AO much validity as it has to the principle of self-detertination.

The League of Nations asserted that most of the inhabitants of the eastern half of the island were, unfit to govern themselves and for that reason gave Australia a mandate over them.

The United Nations helVand still holds the view that those inhabitants are unfit to govern themselves and, accordingly, gave Australia trusteeship over them. The United Nations should in logic hold that the inhabitants of western half of the island are still unfit to govern themselves*

– 15 – argument to this effect might well have secured support if it had been advanced in time. Asian colonialism could be as ana ronistic and objectionable as European colonialism.

The unstated justification for Australia's support of the Dutch has been a strategic one. Those who fear or suspect our Indonesian neighbour should recall that Indonesia already exercises jurisdiction over the Kai, Tanimbar and Aroe Islands, which lie between New Guinea and Australia and, which were occupied and used as bases by the Japanese during the last war.

22-222§laMalaZa The strongest opposition to sending Australian troops to Malaya was based on the objection to sending troops by agreement with the British Government and without consultation with the Malayan people. Then, however, Malaya became an independent member of the Commonwealth it concluded an Agreement on External Defence and Mutual Assistance with the United Kingdom under which the latter was afforded the right to maintain in Malaya such forces, including a Commonwealth Strategic Reserve, as the two goyernments agreed to be necessary to assist Malaya in its external defence and for the fulfilment of Commonwealth and international obligations. Subsequently, the Australian government exchanged letters with the Malayan government associating

-1 6 itself formally with those provisions of the Agreement which are applicable to the Commonwealth Strategic Reserve.

Even after 1 August last, when the Malayan Emergency was declared to be at an end, Commonwealth forces in Malaya, including the Australian forces, were authorised to assist in operations against the terrorists in border security areas.

Malayan readiness to have Australian forces in that

country should not end the matter as far as Australia is concerned. Australia's first concern should be with her own interests and she should only oblige Malaya insofar as it is in her own interests to do so.

Fortunately,

the presence of Australia's forces has not been a serious bone of contention with Australia's and. Malaya's neighbours and associates. Nevertheless, Australians should realise that Malaya has refused to accede to S.E.A.T.9., has refused to accept S.E.A.T.O. bases and has not been designated by the parties to S.E.A.T.O.

However Australia

may regard her forces in Malaya, Malaya does not accept them as part of the S.E.A.T.O. forces.

To put it crudely,

Australia regards Malaya as a useful training ground for her S.E.A.T.O. forces.

It might be undesirable now to withdraw our forces from. Malaya without coming to an agreement with the British and New Zealand governments to withdraw their forces at the same time. Unilateral withdrawal by Australia would reveal still further divisions within the Commonwealth. If, however,

•

-17Australia in future contemplates sending troops overseas to the south-east Asian area, it would clearly be to Australia's interest to secure the agreement or acquiescence

of the Indian government, which is the most influential Commonwealth country within the whole area, and, of the

Indonesian government.

4

041"4.07.-01

GENERAL POLITICAL POLICIES

-

:L8

Political Policies General I have hitherto dealt with the specific associations and issues which concern Australia. I pass now to more general political issues in which Australia can play a

significant role in association with other members of the United Nations. Two admirable examples in the last year

DuXr-

4

644./'

have been the Antarctic Treaty and the Indus Wdecters...4=g4e0 41.44.ALafruk.4.0.44.

(51,444- Boundary Ad'ustments

The boundaries between countries in Africa, the Middle East and South-east Asia were laid down last century not by the indigenous inhabitants but usually in Paris and London. These boundaries have no more economic, strategic,

racial or historic reality or relevance than the boundaries which were determined for the Australian States over a century ago in Westminster without consultation with Australians* A major contribution would be made to political •

stability among the emerging nations if some regular international procedure were devised for reviewing all such boundaries.

Transit and Fishing Riohts There is an increasing need to regulate peaceful transit through international waterways, whether artificial canals within the territory of one nation such as the Suez

04 and the Panama, or natural straits and4

- 19 as in the AegeanAto our north or international rivers such as the Danube, Rhine and Paranh, Similarly, efforts should be continued to regulate palagic fishing and whaling as has already been achieved with sedentary fishing on the continental shelf.

We should recall that one more vote,

perhaps that of a Commonwealth country such as India, would have been sufficient to save the second law of the Sea Conference from failure, Australian indifference to such Commonwealth countries may well have made the difference between success and failure*

Nuclear and Missile

e iments

It may at present be legal for countries to experiment with nuclear weapons within their own territory, as France has thrice done in the Sahara within the last year, irrespective of the fall-out over neighbouring territories. Again, it is legal for America to experiment with missiles in the Atlantic and Russia in the Pacific, Australia herself was a party to the atomic explosions in the Montebellos and participates in missile experiments from Woomera.

An initiative is required to bring such experiments -0,064040 under international supervision and control,

-20International Police Force Australia's armed forces are becoming notably more compact,i„professional and mobile.

They would have been ideal

components of United Nations forces after the crises over Suez, the Lebanon and the Congo. Australia, however, is looked upon as being as much a voluntary satellite of the U.S. as Czechoslovakia is of the Soviet Union, Accordingly, Australia is too compromised and committed for her troops to be acceptable in such ideologicaytender spots. This is regrettable since Australian troops have never subverted a government and have a strong Citizen tradition.

International Regulation of Commodities The under-developed countries rely almost entirely on their exports of primary products, and often a very few varieties of primary products, to earn them foreign exchange which is so necessary for their development. Any fall therefore in the price of primary products on world markets poses serious problems for under-developed countries. Falls in the price of primary products can come about through a long teix fall in the demand for primary products by industrial countries, a short term fall in demand due to industrial recession in Western Europe or the U.S., or exploitation of weak sellers by strong buyers.

- 21 The seriousness of the fall in the price of primary products is illustrated in the United Nations World Economic Survey for 1958, which said that the decline in the price of primary products together with an inching up of industrial prices represented a loss of over two billion dollars in both the real income and the capacity to import of primary producing countries in 1957-58. Put another way, this represented

a loss of import capacity equivalent to about six years lending to the under-developed areas by the International Bank for Re-construction4Land Development at the 1956-57 rate.

In our own interests, but more particularly in the

interests of the poorer primary producing countries , we must endeavour to ensure that prices for these products are kept at a high and stable level. To achieve thisjindustrial countries should seriously consider their tax and tariff policies to the extent that the burden of such policies fall on under-developed countries. Taxes imposed on, or tariffs directed against ) the products of under-developed countries are really a tax imposed by the rich countries against poor countries the very reverse of expressed intentions.

Industrial countries should also pause and consider what effect even a slight industrial recession has on the poorer countries. The 1958 recession in Western Europe and the U.S. was not a bad one by earlier standards, yet it produced most serious repercussions on the primary producing countries. Clearly industrial countries must maintain high

-22 and expanding levels of output and employment even at the expense of a little inflation.

Efforts must be made directly, however,to try and mitigate instability in the prices of primary products through some form of international commodity stabilisation.

The experience with commodity agreements since the war has been at least encouraging. Agreements between countries in such international agencies as the International Wheat Agreement, the International Tin Agreement and the International Sugar Agreement have helped to iron out large fluctuations in prices.

The progress that has been made, however, is small

in relation to the need. The commodity agreements negotiated cover only a small part of the field. If a much bolder plan for international commodity stabilisation is not devised, the industrial countries will continue to exploit, perhaps unwittingly, the poor primary producing countries.

The difficulty of achieving greater international cooperation in the marketing of commodities is the jealousguarding of their sovereignty by national governments. Just, however, as individuals were obliged to surrender some independence for the sake of the improved welfare of their fellows, so national governments must be prepared to surrender some of their independence for the sake of international equity and equality.

-23— Our economic problems are surprisingly similar to those of the Afro-Asian bloc and Latin America. While our internal economy, like that of North America and Europe, is primarily and increasingly industrial, our external economy is still overwhelmingly dependent on mineral and primary products.

In shipping and post-war industrial investment we conform to the colonial pattern. We need to iron out international fluctuations as our stabilization and pooling arrangements have done internally.

International R la ion of Investment International shipping, mining and oil companies are frequently more powerful than the governments of those countries whose commodities they develop, transport, process and market. The place and pace of development of Africa's copper-belt and Australia's bauxite de osits are not determined in Africa or Australia.

A few -eorttrrb-rtes control the world's

oil supplies, through some subsidiaries securing concessions to drill for oil and extract it, through other subsidiaries transporting the crude oil to refineries overseas, through a third set of subsidiaries operating those refineries and through a fourth set of subsidiaries controlling the retail outlets for petrol and lubricants.

There are very few

-24governments which are able to supervise the whole process from drilling to selling. Most governments are only strong enough in combination to regulate the operations of the corporations which handle the commodities on which most countries depend for their external incomes and their hope of industrialisation.

et

International Development & esources

.

Just as Australia and all its neighbours have a common interest in the international regulation of

communications and commodities, so too they realise that a high degree of co-operation is required to develop the natural resources which they share. As much diplomacy was required to arrange the harnessing of the Mekong and Indus as has been required to set on foot the Snowy Mountains Scheme which affects the three south-eastern States of our continent.

The problem of the second half of the twentieth century is to increase food supplies and employment opportunities in the tropics, to promote their agricultural and industrial development. Only Brazil and Indonesia control as large a tropical territory as Australia. If Australia were to develop the agricultural, pastoral and industrial potential of the islands she rules and of the 40% of her own continent which lies within the tropics, she would be able to develop

- 25 the techniques and train technicians to enrich life for all the peoples on the shores and islands of the Indian Ocean.

International Welfare Policies Australia should take a very much more active part in the affairs of the World Health Organization, the

International Labour Organisation, U.N.E.S.C.O. and the like.

Our government is notably tardy in contracting and fulfilling international ob4tigations of this character. For instance, Australia has ratified only a quarter of the I.L.O. Conventions.

It is difficult to find a country with so pitiful a record.

Australians often claim that they are unable to compete with other countries on the world's markets because of the low industrial standards which prevail elsewhere. Self-interest therefore would combine with humanity in urging Australia to be among the foremost in raising and co-ordinating industrial standards through such Conventions.

-26World Court Australia accepted the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice with qualifications. President Eisenhower recently initiated moves to abandon similar qualifications which the U.S. had made.

It is to be hoped that Australia will follow or provide a lead in this matter. Because of her geographical position and her trading pattern, Australia stands to gain more than most nations from the growth of the institutions of world governmetnt; because of her historic associations and her skilled population she can contribute more than most nations to the establishment and operation of such institutions.

The Australian Institute of International Affairs Fourteenth Roy Milne Memorial Lecture Australian Foreign Policy 1963

By Mr E G Whitlam, QC, MP, Deputy Leader of the Opposition Armidale, NSW, 9 July 1963 Australia has few endowed lectures; she has none more important than the lecture endowed to honour the memory of Roy Milne. Its importance derives not only from the supreme significance of international affairs but also from the distinction of successive lecturers whom I have the honour tonight to follow. From 1950 each lecturer has from necessity contributed something new and original because the task of exploring and defining a foreign policy for Australia is relatively new.

A Background of Change The territory we explore is not only new but ever-changing. In the single year alone since the Minister for External Affairs delivered the last lecture, Australia has been involved in three crucial events. The Dutch have had to leave West New Guinea despite the encouragement which the Australian Government had given them for a dozen years. Malaya, where Australian troops are stationed, is about to federate with British Borneo after a crucial reaction by neighbours who were not consulted. Australian territory has become a link in the extension of the American nuclear deterrent to cover Central Asia.

Moreover, Australia must now face continuing problems. The spirit of nationalism which swept Europe between Napoleon and Hitler is now sweeping Africa and Asia. There is no security in remoteness. The trouble spots are now all around us. In Europe war ceased in 1945; in Asia there has been persistent warfare ever since that time. The world keeps a watch on the Mekong rather than the Rhine. The most populous country in the world has recently invaded the most significant democracy in Asia; the agonies of reappraisal have not been limited to India alone.

The risks of nuclear war which were once peculiar to Europe and North America are now also with us.

Not only have the problems and dangers moved in upon us but we are becoming more and more isolated from countries with whom we have had traditional economic, social and cultural ties.

The captains and kings of Europe have departed from our area. Britain is being drawn closer and closer to Europe. Japan is already a larger market than Britain. Forces very largely outside our control are forcing us into fundamental re-examination of our position as an isolated and European community. We are being driven rapidly to making adjustments from the familiar European world to an unfamiliar Afro-Asian world. No country can live in isolation if it has the size and site of Australia with so much significance in strategy by air and sea and in studies of space, meteorology and astronomy.

It is against this background that an Australian foreign policy is gradually emerging. Its pattern and principle are still in the process of definition. In this context bipartisanship for its own sake is impossible and wrong, impossible because the fluidity of the present situation makes for differences of opinion rather than unanimity and wrong because we stand greatly in need of intelligent criticism and informed debate. In practice bipartisanship requires acceptance of the

StreamGate

Page 1 of 15

views propounded by the government of the day. There is no reason why distinct ideological issues between the parties on internal affairs should not persist in the field of international affairs. Ideals of justice and equality cannot be confined within the continental shelf.

Coherency is needed in foreign policy more than conformity. Australians must now be grateful that there was no bipartisanship in the past on such matters as Britain’s aggression against Egypt, South Africa’s membership of the Commonwealth and political development in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea. Australia needs a vigorous dialogue between and within its political parties in the endeavour to attain coherency in foreign policy. Therefore, I have no apology to make on behalf of the Australian Labor Party for its refusal to accept or applaud Australia’s recent foreign policy.

Australia is a remote country and a middle power. It is not within her province or her means to approach or settle the great issues single-handed. She should offer and try to take her share of world responsibilities. For the time being she cannot forgo alliances. Many Australians believe that Australia could and should pursue an unaligned policy. Many other Australians have advocated preventive wars. It would be surprising if there were no isolationists and interventionist on our political parties – because the absence of them would indicate an unwholesome conformity – but it is significant that their views have not prevailed within their parties.

The world situation is not an uncomplicated struggle between freedom and slavery, between Communism and democracy. Political freedom cannot be equated with the free enterprise systems of the west. We cannot describe South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Portugal, Spain and South Vietnam as belonging to the free world. Our ideological opposites are not a monolithic bloc.

Many countries within the Communist orbit are pursuing widely different roads; we should encourage the most liberal of them. The dispute between Moscow and Peking is undoubtedly one of the most significant developments of our age. We cannot label them both as Communists and leave it at that.

This ideological contest is only part of the problem. It cannot be isolated from the arms race which is the cause as well as the result of disputes. There is also the sharp gulf between the rich and the poor countries which overshadows all ideological differences. Those who require that the world scene should be interrupted in stark terms of black and white are not only naive but dangerous. It is fortunate for the hopes of humanity that such dogmatic attitudes have been explicitly rejected by the United States under the leadership of President Kennedy. The purpose of Australian foreign policy and Australian security are not served by moralistic affirmations of our solidarity with the Western powers and ritualistic denunciations of the Communist powers.

The points and principles of differences between the Australian Labor Party and the conservative parties will appear as I deal in succession with all the alliances and commitments which Australia has already undertaken. The particular pressures which she now faces, the continuing challenges which she and other nations should meet the international machinery which she can and must help to devise.

Alliances and Commitments ANZUS A country as isolated and as small as Australia must for the time being seek security in collective arrangements. The ANZUS Treaty is the most important such arrangement to which we belong.

StreamGate

Page 2 of 15

The Federal Conference of the Labor Party in March declared that “co-operation with the United States in the areas of the South Pacific and Indian Oceans is of crucial importance and must be maintained”. A similar declaration was made at the Hobart Conference in 1955 and at succeeding conferences. In particular the recent conferences declared that “ANZUS is essential and must continue”. The ANZUS Treaty is the only clear and certain commitment between Australia and America in the event of armed attack on their homelands or their island territories and armed forces in the Pacific. America is now emphasising ANZUS and reappraising SEATO. The different attitudes towards alliances held by the Liberal and Country Parties on the one hand and the Australian Labor Party on the other hand are well shown in connection with the U.S. naval radio station at North West Cape and Australian forces in Malaya and South-East Asia. It has been difficult for the public to come to an informed opinion on these subjects since neither the government nor the newspapers have fully of frankly dealt with them.

North West Cape Naval Communications Station Many people supported the North West Cape station for the opportunist reason that America would now help to pay for Australia’s defence and for the cynical reason that America would now abide by her ANZUS obligations. The Labor Party supported the agreement for the station because it wished to safeguard Australia’s alliance with the U.S. It objected to the government allowing an interpretation of the agreement which excluded Australian control.

The terms of the agreement seem wide enough to give Australia the right to share in decisions. In view of the government’s attitude, however, the Labor Party moved, although without success, that the agreement be approved “with the understanding that the station will be operated (1) in a way which will not bring Australia into war without the knowledge and consent of the Australian government and (2) in the spirit of the understanding to consult and act which the two governments have assumed under the ANZUS Treaty”.

If war breaks out between Russia and America, it is axiomatic that an attack would be made on America herself and that under ANZUS Australia would go to war with Russia. Any Australian government should and would agree in advance that the facilities at North West Cape could and should be used immediately in the event of an attack on the U.S., which after all is the situation which this station is primarily designed to meet. If America feels threatened in the Pacific, it is Australia’s obligation under ANZUS to consult with her. Similarly, if Australia is attacked, America must act beside her and, if Australia feels threatened, America must consult her.

Joint control has proved practicable in many other countries. The United Kingdom, for instance, has joint political control over missile sites and U.S. bombers in Britain; so have Italy and Turkey over ballistic missiles stationed in their borders. On the ground of practicability, it is irrelevant whether control relates to a missile site, bomber base or radio station. Control is at the political and not at the technical or military level.

Joint control procedures between the U.S. and other countries have been worked out in such a way as to preserve the deterrent’s capacity to deter, whilst reserving to the host country rights of political decision. Nowhere has the problem been as difficult in practice as it may superficially appear in theory. The Western deterrent is based on a “second strike” principle, that it will only be used in retaliation. In such circumstances, it has proved to possible to set out in advance all conceivable contingencies and the response to be made by the U.S. and the host country to each of the contingencies.

StreamGate

Page 3 of 15

In today’s nuclear stalemate and with improved intelligence the completely surprise attack is most unlikely. In situations which build up over a time consultation and joint control are obviously practicable, even when the situation blows up as quickly as did the Cuban crisis.

Situations may occur where the U.S. and Australian strategic or political interests may conflict.

The use of nuclear weapons was threatened in Korea but Mr Attlee dissuaded the U.S. Similarly, Sir Anthony Eden dissuaded President Eisenhower when Mr Dulles was threatening to use them in Indo-China. It is also believed that our Prime Minister used his influence to prevent the use of them in a crisis over the Chinese off-shore islands.

It was said in the debate in the House of Representatives that Australia, in allowing a message to be transmitted through its territory to a belligerent submarine, would not be committing an act of war but a mere breach of neutrality. The consolation was then offered that America’s opponent might be as tender in its attitude to Australia as Germany was in its response to America’s breaches of neutrality in 1940. Doubtless it is easier to delude one’s self than one’s enemy.

Australian soil should not be used by other powers unless Australia has an effective voice in the policies of the powers on her soil. It is irresponsible for a government to abdicate its right to decide how an allay can use its territory. It washes its hands of its responsibility to its own citizens and to other nations.

Malaya A second point of difference between the political parties on alliances concerns our troops in Malaya. Some editorial pundits would have us believe that our troops in Malaya are a contribution to the joint defence of South-East Asia and, even since Indonesia’s incorporation of West Irian, would help keep war away from our shores.

Australia’s commitment to Malaya is in very veiled and vague terms and cannot be verified from any public documents. During the recent dispute between Indonesia and Malaya, the Malayan Prime Minister said that Australia would support her in the event of war. Only an embarrassed silence came from the Australian government.

The strongest opposition to sending Australian troops to Malaya was in there ground that they were sent by agreement with a colonial power and without consulting the Malayan people who were shortly to achieve independence. The same criticism must be made of recent assistance which Australia gave to the British following a request to them from the Sultan of Brunei. The assistance was not provided under any treaty arrangement whatsoever. Nor were the Australian people informed.

Just why our troops are still in Malaya is at times hard to understand. They were used in an emergency which has been declared at an end. Britain is reassessing the scope of the Commonwealth Strategic reserve. Malaya has refused to accede to SEATO, has refused to accept SEATO bases and has not been designated by the parties of SEATO. Our forces there cannot be used for SEATO purposes without the approval of the Malayan government. RAAF units on the way from Butterworth in Malaya to Ubon in Thailand had to be regrouped in Singapore. When Singapore becomes part of Malaysia, this regrouping point will be lost. At least until about a year ago, the Malayan government did not care whether our forces in Malaya stayed or went. To put it crudely, Australia regards Malaya as a useful training ground for her SEATO forces. As the Minister for the Army recently subtly put it “They do not get at Canungra the atmosphere that they get in Malaya”.

StreamGate

Page 4 of 15

Australian troops should not be stationed overseas unless Australia has an effective voice in the policies of the countries where they are stationed. Any treaty arrangement should be clear and public and, if possible, involve mutual aid. The parties to the treaty should know their rights and obligations with precision; the countries which are not parties to the treaty should also know the implications of the treaty with precision.

SEATO SEATO arrangements are now confusing and conflicting. If war had broken out between Malaya and the Philippines over Malaysia, Australia might have been obliged to fight on both sides, beside Malaya because of some obscure commitment and beside the Philippines because of our SEATO obligations.

The answer to Communist expansion in our area is not to be found in economic, social and political terms alone, or in military terms alone, but in terms of both, with the emphasis on the former. Jet planes will not defeat subversion and disaffection. No war of liberation against Communism can be fought successfully if it does not enjoy the active support of the local population. Support for some regimes in the Treaty area has been far too uncritical and unqualified.

Whilst not necessarily reflecting U.S. administration policy, the mission led by Senator Mansfield recently reported on Viet Nam: “It is most disturbing to find that after 7 years of the Republic, South Viet Nam appears less, not more, stable than it was at the outset, that it appears more removed from, rather than closer to, the achievement of popularly responsible and responsive government. The pressures of the Vietcong guerrillas do not entirely explain the situation. In retrospect, the Government of Viet Nam and our policies, particularly in the design and administration of aid, must bear a substantial, a very substantial, share if the responsibility”.

The Mansfield report added that “present political practices in Viet Nam do not appear to be mobilizing the potential capacities for able and self-sacrificing leadership on a substantial scale”.

Recently Australia has provided assistance in support of this government, apparently at the instigation of the U.S. This no doubt improves the façade but it also spreads the stigma.

Unless the South Vietnamese government successfully implements a plan of social and economic reform and rallies the support of the population, military aid will not only fail to combat Communism in Viet Nam but offend neighbouring countries. Senator Mansfield’s mission summed up this problem in this way: “Primary responsibility…. Must rest….. with the Vietnamese Government and people. What further effort may be needed for the survival of the Republic of Viet Nam in present circumstances must come from that source. If it is not forthcoming, the United States can reduce its commitment or abandon it entirely, but there is no interest of the United States in Viet Nam which would justify, in present circumstances, the conversion of the war in that country primarily into an American war, to be fought primarily with American lives”.

The Mansfield mission had this to say about the area of Thailand adjoining Laos. “… the north east area of the country which contains about one-third of the population is vulnerable to infiltration by militant political opposition inasmuch as its population is extremely poor and has traditionally been isolated from the Central government”. Jet planes will not persuade them to support the Central government and resist Communist infiltration. The answer is not to be found at that level. It may be found in economic and social development, improved transport and

StreamGate

Page 5 of 15

communication and a demonstration by the Central Government that the interest of this neglected part of Thailand will be considered.

In a complete volte face in Laos, the West is now supporting a government which it was twice instrumental in overthrowing.

Cambodia has throughout pursued a policy of neutralism and non-alignment and today is more secure that either Laos or South Viet Nam. The Federal Conference of the A.L.P. last March said that SEATO is ineffective but that Australia should not withdraw from it until adequate arrangements are made for new treaties. In particular, we believe that there should be “a pact of friendship, trade and non-aggression with Indonesia�. At the time of the Dutch withdrawal from West New Guinea the prospect of a nonaggression pact with Indonesia was openly discussed. A year ago the Minister for External Affairs spoke of formalising an assurance by Indonesia that she had no claim or design on any Australian territory. In view of the improved political relations in the area, some new and worthwhile treaty arrangements mighty be possible. A treaty covering the arc of countries to our north could be invaluable for Australia.

Particular Pressures Racial Discrimination The nations in this arc share a common attitude with the rest of the Afro-Asian bloc on two great issues, racial discrimination and decolonisation. These nations now form the majority of the United Nations; these issues touch Australia closely. Many Australians fear resentment at the policy which encourages migrants from Europe and at most tolerate migrants from elsewhere.

They do not realise, however, that the keenest resentment will be felt over the under-privileged position of our aboriginal population. Australia is suspect because of her protracted support for South Africa in the U.N. Most countries will find it difficult to understand and Australia will find it embarrassing to explain why a country with a substantial aboriginal population refuses to ratify the 1957 ILO Convention concerning the Protection and Integration of Indigenous and Other Tribal and Semi-Tribal Populations in Independent Countries.

Decolonisation Under a 1960 resolution of the United Nations on colonialism (on which we abstained) a Special Committee has been established to consider decolonisation. The Committee now known as the Committee of 24, is, unlike the Trusteeship Council, heavily weighed in favour of the anticolonialist bloc in the U.N. Up to date the Committee has been mainly concerned with Africa, particularly the Portuguese and British territories and South Africa. In a year or two it will be turning very earnestly to the cluster of colonies in the South Pacific.

Under the Charter of the United Nations, Australia undertakes to promote the political, economic, social and educational advancement of her Trust Territories and non-self-governing territories. In certain fields in New Guinea we have done well, in health and transport particularly. Yet although we have been in possession of Papua for over 80 years and held the trust of New Guinea for 43 years we have still not produce one university graduate. This year only about 20 students in the whole territory will reach leaving and matriculation standard.

StreamGate

Page 6 of 15

Suspicion of an educated elite spills over into the political field, where reforms to date have been much too hesitant and half-hearted. For too long political advancement has not been given the priority which it should have. We have disregarded the experience in other territories where political development has set the pace for development in all other fields. We have not yet succeeded in implanting the idea of representative government in New Guinea. The indigenous members appointed by the Territory Administration have either not been re-appointed when their terms expired or were rejected by their electors at the first elections in 1961.

The government recently rejected the U.N. suggestions on the composition of a New House of Representatives for the Territory. This was typical of the grudging and often uncooperative attitude of the Australian government towards the U.N. over its administration in New Guinea.

This has been shown time and time again, in the stubborn fight against the U.N. Information Centre in New Guinea, the refusal until recently to make use of the U.N. specialised agencies and the scarcely concealed hostility towards the U.N. Visiting Missions and their reports.

New Guinea, like most countries in Africa, may not yet be economically and politically viable by European and North American standards. The world believes that the required assistance will come more rapidly and disinterestedly from international bodies than from self-appointed guardians.

There are great difficulties in New Guinea but the U.N. and its member countries will come to appreciate them more if we are much more frank and co-operative. They will then not have reason to suspect our good faith. We may think that the Visiting Missions are not in New Guinea long enough to get a proper picture. They obviously do not know as much about New Guinea as our own administration officers. They do, however, have great experience in other colonial and ex-colonial territories and so have a very valuable basis for comparison. What do they know of Papua who only Papua know?

One excuse given for not proceeding faster with political development is that the people do not want it. There is an element of self-delusion and dishonesty in this. It is an attempt to put into the mouths of other people an excuse for our failure to give them the normal human and community aspirations which other people have. The U.N. recommendations on political development have been supported by America, Britain, France and New Zealand, which are our closest allies and have neighbouring colonies.

In carrying out our trust in New Guinea, we must be careful that the policy of blending European and Papuan cultures does not become a means of fragmenting the Papuan culture and society.

We should not assume that economic development can only come about by adopting the traditional methods of the western industrialised countries. We should not assume that the common law system of settling dispute where the winner takes all is superior to a system which seeks to reconcile opposing interests. We should not assume that private ownership of land is inherently more desirable than community or village ownership of land. We should not assume that our political system can be imposed unmodified on a society with completely different traditions. It is unlikely that New Guinea will develop a party system similar to ours. Not one of the newly independent counters of Asia and Africa has done so. It is not even to be expected that New Guinea will develop a parliamentary system as distinct from a congressional system like that in the United States of America or a Fifth Republic system like that of France and the former French possessions and Pakistan. The important thing is that New Guineans themselves should operate within their own representative institutions and adapt them to meet their own particular needs.

StreamGate

Page 7 of 15

Our other trust territory is Nauru. The phosphate deposits on Nauru have been of great value to us. Whilst we certainly could not do less for the Nauruan people, the offer of resettlement in Australia is nevertheless a wise and just one. No similar concern has yet been shown for Christmas Island, which we blithely requested and accepted from Britain five years ago in her early efforts at decolonising the Straits Settlements.

There are many territories in the Pacific which are approaching independence.

Arrangements should be made for greater political and economic integration of the area. In 1947 an agreement was drawn up between representative of Australia, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States for the establishment of the South Pacific Commission, its object being “to encourage and strengthen international co-operation in promoting the economic and social welfare and advancement of the peoples of the non-selfgoverning territories in the South Pacific region administered by them”. At present there are 17 South Pacific territories within the Commissions area, as well as the independent State of West Samoa and the Kingdom of Tonga. There should be much greater co-operation between the Commission, particularly between Papua and New Guinea, the British Solomon Islands Protectorate and the Anglo-French Condominium of the New Hebrides.

The hopes held out by the Commission in its early years have not been realised. Its functions have been severely restricted. Whether the people of the Pacific desire some federation is for them to determine. At least we should not put a barrier in the way of that objective by the uncoordinated development of territories in the area. It was with this in mind that the conference of the Australian Labor Party in March declared that “Australia should take the initiative within the South Pacific Commission to promote and co-ordinate decolonisation of all territories in the South Pacific”. The ANZUS council in June also reaffirmed the need for continued political, economic and social development in the Pacific Islands, adding that the SPC should be given the necessary support to ensure this progress.

The Malaysian Federation is an ingenious attempt at orderly decolonisation. From the point of view of Malaya and the United Kingdom it had much to commend it. So eager was Britain to disengage politically in the area that it rushed ahead without taking into proper account the attitudes of Indonesia and the Philippines. There was an unfortunate breakdown in consultation and diplomatic contracts which could have avoided much of the later hostility. Australia was either not consulted or not interested until an outbreak of hostilities seemed imminent.

Eastern Timor must appear as an anachronism to every country in the world except Portugal. We shall get nowhere by saying that outside pressure on Portugal is just another indication of the expansionist policy of one of our neighbours. We would not have a worthy supporter in the world if we backed the Portuguese. They must be told in no uncertain terms that the standard of living must be rapidly raised and the right of self-determination fully granted. Our allies hesitate to speak because they are also Portugal’s allies in NATO; we are not so embarrassed.

There have been reports of uprisings and killings in Eastern Timor, but it is such a closed country that reliable information is extremely difficult to obtain. Through the U.N. we must act quickly to meet this problem on our doorstep. We learned the lessons of West New Guinea the hard way. We must not become bogged down in another futile argument over sovereignty.

Continuing Challenges War

StreamGate

Page 8 of 15

Thus far I have dealt with the complex situation and the difficult problems in our immediate area of Asia and the Pacific. I now wish to deal with the two great questions which overshadow humanity in all its dealings and cast a portentous glare upon future, the elimination of war and the elimination of want.

In 1961, the Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth recognised that disarmament…was “the most important question facing the world today”. They stated that an agreement to secure the permanent banning of nuclear weapons tests by all nations is urgent, “since otherwise further countries may soon become nuclear powers, which would increase the danger of war and further complicate the problem of disarmament…The risks involved in the process of disarmament must be balanced against the risk involved in the continuance of the arms race”.

It is only in the spirit of such a statement that any useful disarmament negotiations can proceed.

The cause of peace and disarmament will not be served by adopting a superior patriotism and by stigmatising every disarmament proposal the West makes as a lack of resolution on its part. We must recognise that the West is no longer dealing with an inferior power but one of equal power and status. In this we must recognise that unless we concede something and even risk something we will achieve nothing. On 10 June President Kennedy warned the American people “not to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible and communication as nothing more than an exchange of epithets and threats”.

It is unfortunate that the questions of disarmament, foreign policy and defence are deprived in Australia of the President’s refreshing approach and cannot be discussed in this country in the same reasoned way as they can, for instance, in the United Kingdom. The issues of peace and war are far too important to be treated in the trivial way – as “an exchange of epithets” – in which they have in recent months in this country.

Disarmament Proposals No disarmament proposal can be affective without the support of the super-powers but they need constant prodding by the lesser powers. There is a limit to what Australia can do on the wider question of world disarmament, but we have an opportunity to take the initiative in our own area.

Take the proposed French nuclear tests in the South Pacific. For months there had been continual press reports that tests were planned but the Australian government had obtained no official information one way or the other. Late in the day the French government confirmed the fact, but the Australian government has merely said that it deeply regrets France’s intention. It should have supported the protest lodged by the New Zealand government. France’s former subjects have forced her to withdraw her nuclear pretensions from Africa; her allies have not availed to keep them out of the Pacific.

Further, the Labor Party urges that the Australian government should have taken the initiative in calling a conference of all present nuclear powers together with China and the countries around the Indian Ocean and in the southern hemisphere to extend the Antarctic Treaty to the Equator.

There have been many proposals for the establishment of nuclear-free zones in recent years. In 1955, Sir Anthony Eden at the Geneva Summit Conference suggested a “demilitarised area between East and West”. In 1957, the Polish Foreign Minister, Mr Rapacki, proposed a “denuclearised zone” prohibiting the production, stationing and use of nuclear weapons and reducing conventional forces in Poland, Czechoslovakia and the two Germanys. The two most comprehensive plans for this area of confrontation between East and West were presented in

StreamGate

Page 9 of 15

1957 by the British Labour Party Leader, the late Mr Hugh Gaitskell, and Mr George F Kennan, formerly U.S. Ambassador to Moscow. The 1961 Annual Conference of the British Labour Party declared “in the field of disarmament we regard… as especially urgent… the establishment of a non-nuclear zone of controlled disarmament in central Europe as a first step to disengagement”.

The 1961 Session of the United Nations carries without dissent a resolution calling upon member states to consider and respect the continent of Africa as a denuclearised zone. Speaking to this resolution Ambassador Dean of the United States said “It is the decision of my government that once the African States themselves have arrived at regional agreements or regional arrangements, it would be appropriate for the United Nations to request that all of its members observe and co-operate in the fulfillment of such arrangements”. Some of America’s NATO and OAS allies and all her Asian allies voted in favour of a nuclear-free Africa.

At the 1962 Session of the United Nations Brazil, Chile, Equador and Bolivia, supported by the United States, sponsored a resolution for declaring Latin America a denuclearised zone. The matter was deferred until the 1963 United Nations Session, although, outside the United Nations, the four sponsors and Mexico have pledged themselves to ban nuclear weapons over their territories. Speaking on the general question of denuclearised zones, Ambassador Dean said “In an area where nuclear weapons are not deployed, an agreement which would ensure keeping them out, including arrangements for verification could be a most important contribution to our overall efforts to prevent the wider dissemination of nuclear weapons”.

Indonesia has declared that this year she will sponsor a proposal in the United Nations for a nuclear-free zone in Asia and the Pacific.

The parties to the Antarctic Treaty of 1959, which has been the model for the Labor Party’s proposal, agree that “Antarctica shall be used for peaceful purposes only. There shall be prohibited any measures of a military nature, such as the establishment of military bases and fortifications, the carrying out of military maneuvers, as well as the testing of any type of weapons… Any nuclear explosions in Antarctica and the disposal there of radioactive waste material shall be prohibited. Nothing… shall prejudiced or in any way effect the rights, or the exercise of the rights, of any State under international law with regard to the high seas within that area”.

It should be emphasised that the Labor Party’s proposal is not one of unilateral renunciation of nuclear weapons. The core of our proposal is that a conference should be called to consider the establishment of a nuclear-free zone. Only if that conference could agree to a watertight arrangement would Australia agree not to manufacture, acquire or receive nuclear weapons. To obtain such a watertight arrangement would require the support of all the nuclear powers. If the United States or any other nuclear power found the proposal unacceptable, clearly the conferences would be abortive and nothing would be achieved. But neither would anything be lost. The emphasis is on calling a conference, on taking a diplomatic initiative. The Australian Labor Party is not pledged to renounce nuclear weapons in advance of the conference or following the conference if it proves unsuccessful. Defence measures cannot be deferred till disarmament agreements are achieved.

Inspection is a technical problem common to all disarmament proposals. No government would enter into a disarmament proposal which could not be policed and verified. We would renounce nuclear weapons only if other countries concerned agreed to do the same and entered into an agreement to make this binding and verifiable. Any such agreement would also have to include guarantees by the nuclear powers as to prevent attacks from outside the treaty area.

StreamGate

Page 10 of 15

The first objective for a country not having nuclear weapons is to try and prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. In this lies our only real security. No country in the southern hemisphere has nuclear weapons at this stage. Accordingly Australia’s defence is not immediately prejudiced by a proposal to ban them. If, however, our neighbours were to acquire them, then probably Australia would have to match them. If, moreover, Australia were to acquire them then probably our neighbours would have to match us. Thus as each country attempts too protect itself against others, the whole area could come to bristle with nuclear weapons, an unattractive prospect in view of the political instability of the area. In the words of President Kennedy “We are both devoting vast sums to massive weapons that could better be used to combat ignorance, poverty and disease. We are both caught up in a vicious and dangerous cycle in which suspicion on one side breeds suspicion on the other and new weapons beget counter-weapons”.

It is our job in Australia to see that we are not caught up in “the vicious and dangerous cycle” of a nuclear arms race in this area. The Labor Party believes that, with no country in our area yet having nuclear weapons, we should act to try and prevent the nuclear infection spreading. In a year or two it may be too late.

As in all negotiation it is foolish to take up a hard and inflexible attitude. Perhaps some variation of our proposal, such as a more limited regional arms agreement, might prove the most likely one to bring success. We should certainly explore every possibility. We may not succeed at all in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons to powers in our area. That, however, is no reason for failing to do what we can now there is still time.

China For Australia and the world, China presents a very great threat. She is potentially the most powerful country in the world and she seems prepared to run risks which Russia is unwilling to run. This is in part due to her isolation and unrealistic assessment of the world position. Instead of assisting her to arrive at a more reasonable view we encourage her to continue in her doctrinaire ignorance. Turned in upon herself, she imagines all sorts of plots against her and becomes more certain that a war between capitalism and communism is inevitable and that in such a war China could survive. China must be drawn out of this prison house in which she is placed. Like Russia she must stand with other nations of the world and defend her policies in public not only before her avowed enemies but also before the ex-colonialist and neutralist countries.

How futile it is for the world to be discussing disarmament when the most populous and potentially powerful country is excluded, a country which in a few years or even months might be exploding its first nuclear bomb.

The U.K. has recognised the Peking Government as the Government of China and in the last two sessions has supported her admission into the U.N. In explaining his country’s vote in the U.N. last October the U.K. delegate said that his government deplored the armed incursion across India’s frontiers but that did not alter the view of the U.K. government that the Government of the Peoples’ Republic of China was the Government of China. The conservatives in Australia, unlike their counterparts in the U.K., refuse to budge; they must share responsibility for denying China the normal diplomatic means of urging a particular point of view. The Country Party acquiesces in this attitude but for economic and trading reasons does not shout it from the roof tops; it is prepared to extend credit but not credentials. The Labor Party has consistently urged the recognition of China and its entry into the U.N. In 1945 Mr Menzies, as he then was, said

StreamGate

Page 11 of 15

“The fourth defect of the League (of Nations) was that although it aimed at universality of membership it did not possess universality. At vital times it did not include the United States of America, Russia, Germany, Italy and Japan”. We believe the same is true of the U.N. today.

We do not underestimate the practical difficulties of recognition and admission to the U.N. Both the Peking and Taipeh governments reject the “Two China” solution. We have made no attempt to bargain with Peking, and no country is likely to concede anything before bargaining begins.

Perhaps the off-shore islands of Quemoy and Matsu might be a useful bargaining point with which to begin. In any event the longer we persist in our present attitude the weaker our bargaining position will become. We do no service to our allies or to ourselves in persisting with our present inflexible attitude. Let us act and let China run the risk of annoying Afro-Asian feeling by being uncompromising.

Opponents seek to obscure the issue by alleging that recognition would involve the surrender of Formosa to the Communists. This certainly is not contemplated nor would it be tolerated. The future of Formosa must be determined by the people themselves. At present we do not know what their attitude is. Their views have never been sought.

Want Bids to eliminate war must be accompanied by bids to eliminate want. Australia is at the centre of the arc formed by the least developed countries in the world, Africa, Southern Asia and South America. It is especially in Australia’s interest that economic tensions in the area should be relieved.

Regulation of Commodities, Investment and Resources Underdeveloped countries rely almost entirely upon their exports of primary products, and often a very few varieties of primary products, to earn them the foreign exchange which is so necessary for their development. Any fall, therefore, in the price of primary products on world markets poses serious problems for underdeveloped countries. Efforts must be made to eradicate instability in the prices of primary products through some form of commodity stabilisation.

Australia’s economic problems are surprisingly similar to those of the Afro-Asian bloc and Latin America. Whilst our internal economy, like that of North America and Europe, is primarily and increasingly industrial, our external economy is still overwhelmingly dependant on mineral and primary products. In shipping and post-war industrial investment we conform to the colonial pattern. Australia has long ceased to be a colony but she is as much a tributary as ever. We need to iron out international fluctuations as our stabilisation and pooling arrangements have done internally. We need to convert the U. N. financial institutions into an authentic world central bank International shipping, mining and oil companies are frequently more powerful than the governments of those countries whose commodities they develop, transport, process and market.

The place and pace of development of Africa’s copper-belt and Australia’s bauxite deposits are not determined in Africa or Australia. A few companies control the world’s oil supplies, through some subsidiaries securing concessions to drill for oil and extract it, through other subsidiaries transporting the crude oil to refineries overseas, through a third set of subsidiaries operating those refineries and through a fourth set of subsidiaries controlling the retail outlets for petrol and lubricants. There are very few governments which are able to supervise the whole process from drilling to selling. Most governments are only strong enough in combination to regulate the

StreamGate

Page 12 of 15

operation of the corporations which handle the commodities on which most countries depend for their external incomes and their hope of industrialisation.

Most of the under-developed countries of the world adhere to socialist principles. They realise that internationalisation is now more urgent and fruitful than nationalisation. A Labor government in Australia would deliberately and whole-heartedly enter upon such a policy Just as Australia and all its neighbours have a common interest in the international regulation of and commodities and investments, so, too, they realise that a high degree of co-operation is required to develop the natural resources which they share. As much diplomacy was required to arrange the harnessing of the Mekong and the Indus as has been required to set on foot the Snowy Mountains Scheme which affects the three south-eastern States of our continent.

Aid The problem of the second half of the twentieth century is to increase food supplies and employment opportunities in the tropics, to promote their agricultural and industrial development. Only Brazil and Indonesia control as large a tropical territory as Australia. If Australia were to develop the agricultural, pastoral and industrial potential of the islands she rules and of the 40% of her own continent which lies within the tropics, she would be able to develop techniques and train technicians to enrich life for all people on the shores and islands of the Indian Ocean.

There is a real basis for co-operation with our neighbours. In becoming a regional member of ECAFE we have realised and our neighbours have accepted that we are no longer an outsider but belong to the Asian area and have common problems with it. We must seek out ways of cooperating with them at every level – economic, social, political and military. This presents a great challenge but also a great opportunity.

The Labor Party believes that we should also take the initiative in formulating “a new development plan to provide the pooling of resources for the provision of capital, technical and training assistance on a large scale to the peoples of South-East Asia and their allotment on the basis of need and not by selective, independent inter-governmental arrangement”. Aid will be more effective and wholesome as the nations come to contribute to international funds and agencies to their capacity and draw upon them according to their need.

Australia continues to provide valuable aid under the Colombo Plan. We believe, however, that it is time we looked carefully at the deficiencies of the plan. Quite apart from the inadequacy of our own contributions, the plan is not mobilising the available resources for the meeting of urgent priorities. Bilateral aid is often given on a basis of ideological virtue rather than greatest need. Moreover, this bilateralism encourages the donor countries to render such aid as will attract the most publicity and kudos with it. The term “plan” is itself a misnomer because aid and technical assistance are given on a piece-meal, year by year basis which prevents the recipient country taking full advantage of them. Assistance by donor countries is so uncoordinated that much of the aid provided remains unspent by the recipient country. So much aid is duplicated. A more orderly drawing up of the “shopping lists” is necessary if the Colombo Plan is to attain its full potential. In the long run it is through such aid and development schemes that the democracies’ best – perhaps only – hope of containing or at least challenging Communism lies.

The U.S. is anxious that a country with Australia’s standard of living should try to equal her own generosity in foreign aid. Military containment has too often proved a demoralizing failure.

StreamGate

Page 13 of 15

Towards World Government Australia must be less sluggish and suspicious and more whole-hearted and cordial in promoting international legislation and international agencies.

In the case of the International Court of Justice we have accepted the court’s compulsory jurisdiction subject to reservations which are either restrictive or otiose in either case objectionable and dispensable.

In the case of the United Nations there is one particular subject on which Australia has taken up an intransigent attitude. Article 2, par. 7, of the United Nations Charter says: “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State”. Article 55 reads: “the United Nations shall promote… (c) Universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion”. Australia for many years has maintained that the great number of matters which come before the United Nations on the basis of human rights are, in fact, matters of domestic jurisdiction, are therefore matters which do not fall within the competence of the United Nations. Australia has taken this stand on Cyprus and Algeria, which are now members of the United Nations, on South Africa which is still a member, and till recently on the Portuguese territories in Africa. The Australian interpretation is not beyond dispute; most countries take the opposite view and so do such formidable international lawyers as M Rene’ Cassin and Sir Hersch Lauterpancht.

Australia has been slow in ratifying conventions sponsored by the U.N. General Assembly, UNESCO and ILO Australia has ratified only a quarter of the ILO Conventions. It is difficult to find a country with so pitiful a record. Australians often claim that they are unable to compete with other countries on the world’s markets because of the low industrial standards which prevail elsewhere. Self-interest therefore would combine with humanity in urging Australia to be among the foremost in raising and coordinating industrial standards through such Conventions.

Australia has resisted the conclusion of many Conventions in recent years on the grounds that they cover social and economic matter rather than industrial ones. The ILO now comprises so many under-developed and pre-industrial countries that Australia’s attitude is regarded as unhelpful to say the least.

The preamble to the foreign policy of the Labor Party declares that “Australia must give unswerving and paramount loyalty to the United Nations and seek to have carried out the principles of the U.N. Charter and in particular their application to the areas of the South Pacific and Indian Oceans”. We regret that the U.N. is not more effective in reducing tensions and keeping the peace; we recognise that circumstances can arise where its machinery is not put into motion or is brought to a halt. We support it above all for the world legislature and executive which it could and should become.

It is a mistake to put too much confidence in the United Nations just as it is a mistake to continually denigrate it. It performs many valuable functions. Through its specialised agencies it has done outstanding work. Through its good offices, as in the recent Cuban crisis, it can make contact between hostile governments. It has been invaluable in providing and promoting personal contacts between world leaders on many occasions. It has also assisted many new countries to sovereign status and full membership of the international community.

Whilst the U.N. proved unable to do anything about the Russian brutality in inaccessible Hungary, it assisted in containing the conflicts in Korea, the Congo, the Lebanon, the Middle

StreamGate

Page 14 of 15

East and the Suez Canal zone. Apart from Korea, however, Australia has not assisted in any of these peace-preserving activities. We have apparently been too compromised and committed for our troops to be employed directly in such ideologically tender spots. Or could it be that we have not offered assistance? Canada, for instance, which is just as committed as Australia, provides military assistance to the U.N. In 1962, Canada had about 1 300 military personnel serving with the U.N. in the Middle East, the Congo and India and Pakistan. Even if Australian combat troops are not acceptable, there is no reason why we could not make transport and support facilities available to the U.N. The U.S. provides such assistance.

The Australian Labor Party believes that Australia must show a greater willingness to assist the U.N. in its peace-keeping functions. As a first step, however, we must demonstrate our good faith in the U.N. by the way we vote within it. Until recently our record in the U.N. had been marked by misplaced loyalty to allies on colonial issues and our own sensitive on New Guinea.

In the last year or two we have climbed back a little off the limb but this has mainly been due to a change in U.S. and U.K. policy and not in our own. Britain’s about-face on apartheid and South Africa generally provided an excuse for Australia to change her attitude on that subject.

The U.S. attitude to colonialism also changed considerably with the advent of the Kennedy administration, which again gave us a pretext for changing. Australia, unlike most other Western countries, need feel little shame for her colonial record. Our sins have been those of omission, not commission. Yet time and time again we have found ourselves voting alongside Franco and Salazar in the U.N. where colonialism is such an explosive issue and where so many member countries have only recently achieved independence.

In the last session of the U.N. there were many critical resolutions on West New Guinea, China, Hungary, nuclear tests, Southern Rhodesia, South Africa and South-West Africa, Angola and the Portuguese Territories. On these resolutions we voted with Spain and South Africa more often than we voted with Malaya, India, Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand and Indonesia. Our foreign policy is not a wise or a successful one if it puts us so often and so greatly at variance with our neighbours and particularly with those of our neighbours with whom we share some organic or historic association such as SEATO or the Commonwealth. The attitudes we support may be right but we haven’t persuaded our neighbours that they are. Very often we have not even consulted with them.

Because of her geographical position and her trading pattern, Australia stands to gain more than most nations from the growth of the institutions of world government; because of her historic associations and her skilled population she can contribute more than most nations to the establishment and operation of such institutions. Australia must strive above all things and more than most nations for the Parliament of Man, the Federation of the World. The ultimate security of our nation and the ultimate survival of civilisation alike demand it.

StreamGate

Page 15 of 15

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES QUESTION INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS SPEECH Thursday, 25 March 1965

BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, 25 March 1965

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

1

SPEECH Date Thursday, 25 March 1965 Page 1 Questioner Speaker WHITLAM, Gough

Source House Proof No Responder Question No.

Mr WHITLAM (Werriwa—) (NaN.NaN pm) .- The choice is not merely between surrender and escalation.

If that is the choice as seen by supporters of the Government then the future is bleak indeed. We have concentrated on military methods for too long and they have proved futile. I propose to express my attitudes on the same subjects and in the same order as the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Hasluck) did two nights ago when he referred to power politics, Vietnam, Malaysia and the United Nations.

There are several considerable powers in our part of the world. There are China, Japan, India and Indonesia and of these the greatest is China. It always was and it always will be. China is the leading and the principal power in this area. This does not mean that it has to be a power which rules other countries in the area. But we now must accept the fact that China has regained the position that it always had in the world until early last century. China has regained the position that it has always had in Asia. Putting it in terms of power, the United States of America is clearly the greatest counterweight to China in this part of the world just as she has been to Russia in Europe. Her influence must continue in both areas. But the United States realises mat she cannot conquer China. She found it difficult enough to rule Japan after conquering her 20 years ago. She found it difficult enough with her allies to rule Germany after conquering her 20 years ago. It would be still more difficult to rule China. America knows that she cannot conquer China. America is now seeking to demonstrate to China that China cannot defeat America; that America for the foreseeable future has resources on the sea, in the air and in space which China cannot defeat.

The position which has been reached in Europe now has to be reached in Asia. The Americans and the rest of us realise that in Eastern Europe the principal country - the leading country - is Russia. Some countries on the borders of Russia have regimes which are very acceptable to Russia - Poland, Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia. Some countries have regimes more acceptable to Russia than to their own populations Hungary, for instance. At least one other country has a regime which probably is not very acceptable to Russia but which is highly acceptable to its own population - Finland. We have reached the situation where the status of Russia is accepted in Europe, and America and her allies, we among them, do not seek to upset

that balance. There is now a situation of coexistence in Europe. This is the situation which has to be reached in Asia. We cannot reach it by military means alone.

America did not bring about the position in Europe through military means alone. Military means were necessary because Western Europe could not have learned to stand on its own feet without the security provided by the United States; but the United States also provided the social and economic wherewithal to get Western Europe on its feet. Now Western Europe can make its own very considerable contribution to its own security and wellbeing.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation did not prevail in isolation. It prevailed because it went hand in hand with the Marshall Plan. The position in South East Asia has deteriorated mainly because there has been no equivalent to the Marshall Plan. The Colombo Plan has never been as large or as well planned. There has been no security arrangement equivalent to N.A.T.O. The South East Asia Treaty Organisation is a very pale and incomplete reflection of N.A.T.O. and, incidentally, contrary to what has often been said in this House, Australia's very small and America's very large and growing military commitment in Vietnam is not under S.E.A.T.O. at all.

The Minister has made this quite plain in answers he has given to precise questions.

If co-existence is to be achieved in South East Asia it can be achieved as it was achieved in Europe by a solid contribution both in the security aspect and in the political, social and economic aspects. Western Europe is on its feet because both contributions were made

by America and, in a very small way, by some other countries. South East Asia is not on its feet because America and her allies, like us - and our contributions could be much larger - have not made comparable contributions in that area. South East Asia will not achieve equilibrium until America and we accept that responsibility as it was accepted in Europe.

An accommodation must be reached in South East Asia. An accommodation must be reached by China and the United States and likeminded countries to the United States, such as Australia. Chinese power and influence must be accepted. The Minister maintained that the problems in Asia could not be separated from the major problems of power in the whole world. He

CHAMBER

Thursday, 25 March 1965

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

was quite right, but the Minister will not recognise Chinese power in this area. He cannot avoid it by omitting to mention it or by wishing it were not a fact.

It is a fact of life which we have to accept, and we have to learn to live with it in the same way in Asia as we have learned to live with Russia in Europe. Peace in the area will depend on an accommodation between China and the West.

Above all, the situation in Asia is made more difficult by the lack of communication between China and the United States. The United States does not recognise the regime in Peking but, worse, it does recognise the regime in Taipei as the legitimate Government of China. This is an unrealistic and hostile attitude. Naturally China resents it. There are links between America and China through the ambassadors in Warsaw and, more recently, through those in Stockholm. Australia must help to reconcile America and China as America and Russia are becoming reconciled, and surely she can make some contribution towards this end. It is of ten thought that we are being disloyal or unfriendly in suggesting that China must be recognised by the United States. Many arguments have been advanced by successive Ministers why in Australia we should not recognise China. They have always omitted the crucial point that we do not do it because America does not do it. Once America does it this Government will quickly follow. We take the attitude officially in Australia that opinion in America is monolithic. There is a difference of opinion in the State Department itself on many matters; there is a difference of opinion between State Department officials in New York, who have to sell America's attitude to other nations, and those in Washington, who have to sell it to the Congressmen; and there is a difference of opinion on matters such as this between the Congress and the Administration in Washington itself.

Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes (CHISHOLM, VICTORIA—) (NaN.NaN pm) - China says we cannot recognise her without agreeing to the liberation of Formosa.

Mr WHITLAM (—) (NaN.NaN pm) - If China persists in that attitude then, of course, she will be exposed as unreasonable, but the offer has never been made. I am not suggesting that one makes an offer without getting some corresponding advantage; but in the settlement which must take place and for which we must strive in South East Asia this is one of the contributions which China is entitled to expect and which America will have to offer. China naturally regards America as hostile while America recognises and supports the former Chinese regime. In these circumstances China naturally tries to minimise and, in fact, oust American influence, and China naturally

2

succeeds in minimising American influence in any country where the local regime is weak and does not have the support of its own population.

I ask honorable members who interject to read the statements which Mr. Casey, as he then was, made in this House in 1954 as Minister for External Affairs.

They will find that the statements he was making then about the lack of support for the Vietnamese regime and the lack of resistance to Communist infiltration precisely describe the situation which is occurring now. Members of this Government are like the Bourbons after the expulsion of Napoleon; they have learned nothing and they have forgotten nothing.

In the intervening ten years no progress has been made in dealing with this position. Admittedly there has been infiltration from the north and subvention from China - civil wars are never left to themselves - but even if there had been no aid from outside at all the regime in South Vietnam would have crumbled. One cannot blame external assistance alone for this. It would still have happened. The civil war which has gone on there for many years has resulted in at least one-third of the country being lost. The choice is not between America surrendering or the war being escalated. America has now undertaken hostilities in a wider field. She has undertaken them in order to bring home to the North Vietnamese and their Chinese allies that she will not be ousted, that she cannot be defeated. Surely we are not going to take the defeatist attitude that this process must go on and on until there is another Korea or a world war.

One cannot condone the brutality of the assassinations by the Vietcong, the incinerations by the Government forces in South Vietnam or the use of gas. Gas is more humane, if one uses terms of humanity in referring to war, than the assassinations or the incinerations. But let us tell America - it is helpful for us to do so, because there is no more loyal ally of America than Australia - that she did wrong in using gas there. Even if one takes a more cynical view, America made a mistake.

Mr Malcolm Fraser (WANNON, VICTORIA—) (NaN.NaN pm) - Would the honorable member have used bombs instead?

Mr WHITLAM (—) (NaN.NaN pm) - I am seeking an end to hostilities.

Mr Malcolm Fraser (WANNON, VICTORIA—) (NaN.NaN pm) - At what price?

Mr WHITLAM (—) (NaN.NaN pm) - I want to see that North Vietnam and South Vietnam get into negotiation. This is what America says she is aiming to achieve. Honorable members opposite who are interjecting ought to remember the use which was

CHAMBER

Thursday, 25 March 1965

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

made against America and Australia, and America's other allies of the allegation about germ warfare in Korea.I have never been able to get any evidence that germ warfare was used. There is evidence in this case that gas has been used. Its propaganda consequences will be out of all proportion to its military significance.

Australia was not consulted regarding the use of gas.

Do honorable members opposite say it was right to use it? Do they say it was wise to use it? I feel bound to say to honorable members that not only in Cambodia or Indonesia, but also in Malaysia, the attacks which America was early last month extending into North Vietnam were condemned in official and political circles. I found nobody in Malaysia, let alone in Cambodia and Indonesia, who appeared to understand the reasons for this action. We may think that America is justified, but we, as America's loyal allies, living in this area, and having to judge the temperature and the effectiveness of America's action in this area, should bring it home to America that every time she acts in this way she must be perfectly certain that the people in the region understand her objectives. Our objective surely, and America's objective also, is that the countries in this area should have governments of their choice.

They never have, either in South or North Vietnam.

Mr Hughes (—) (NaN.NaN pm) - Who stopped them?

Mr WHITLAM (—) (NaN.NaN pm) - We did not assist them to have the governments of their choice. We must always make plain what our objective is, what our purpose is, and why we are acting as we are.

Now, America has not conveyed this, and Australia is not conveying it either. The Minister for External Affairs makes statements on the Vietnamese situation only in order to support military objectives. Military objectives alone have not succeeded during the ten years of civil war that have succeeded Dienbienphu.

Military methods alone will not succeed in the extension of the war into North Vietnam.

Mr Chipp (—) (NaN.NaN pm) - Does the honorable member want Vietnam to be neutralised?

Mr WHITLAM (—) (NaN.NaN pm) - I want Vietnam to be neutralised in the sense that it will be internationalised.

Mr Chipp (—) (NaN.NaN pm) - What does the honorable member mean by " internationalised "?

Mr WHITLAM (—) (NaN.NaN pm) - There are difficulties in communication, as I have said, because China is not recognised by the United States. There are other difficulties of communication in this area because China is not in the United Nations, and maybe no longer wants to be in the United Nations, or cares about it. Indonesia is no longer in the United Nations.

3

This makes the difficulties very much greater. But this does not mean that we should sit back and say that the alternative is surrender or escalation. The alternative is to get negotiations going or an international basis.

Personally, I regret, and I am certain that all our friends in South East Asia similarly regret, that the State Department so summarily and abruptly rejected U Thant's proposals for a conference on Vietnam. Nobody suggests that America should leave or abandon interest in the area. As I have made quite plain, she is at this stage the only effective counterweight to Chinese influence there. It is the countries in this area which must be built up, and they have not been built up yet. China is the principal power there. It does not mean she should rule the other countries around. Russia is accepted by the West as the principal country in eastern Europe. That does not mean she rules all the other countries there.

Mr Wentworth (—) (NaN.NaN pm) - Oh, doesn't it?

Mr WHITLAM (—) (NaN.NaN pm) - Does Russia rule Finland?

Mr WENTWORTH (MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES—) (NaN.NaN pm) - Yes. Mr WHITLAM (—) (NaN.NaN pm) - Does Russia rule Yugoslavia?

Mr Wentworth (—) (NaN.NaN pm) - Yes. Mr WHITLAM (—) (NaN.NaN pm) - The best position we can achieve in regard to Vietnam is the position which obtains in Finland or in Yugoslavia. International peace-keeping forces could be established there as they are in Berlin. Russia could not overrun Berlin without embroiling in conflict the countries whose troops are there. Accordingly, she does not.

Again, the United Nations could have peace-keeping forces in Vietnam as a world guarantee against attack.

Many countries our size have contributed or signified their willingness to contribute peace-keeping forces to the United Nations. We have refused to do so; we have failed to do so. This is the way to stabilize and build up the area. As long as China and America compete for the area militarily, the whole of the area will be in turmoil.

We have to bring about a state of co-existence in South East Asia similar to that which exists in Europe. It can be done, and Australia should be making contributions toward that end. We have to live here always. There are some considerable powers in this region - Indonesia, India and Japan. There are many small powers. The small powers, as well as the large ones, need help from many other countries as mediators and guarantors.

CHAMBER

SYDNEY UNIVERSITY FABIAN SOCIETY

EVATT MEMORIAL LECTURE 1966

"AUSTRALIA BASE OR BRIDGE?" E. G. WHITLAM Q.C., M.P. Deputy-Leader, Federal

Parliamentary Labor Party

20 cents

F is t,

1

1.

Evatt

It is Lectu was t tractc with cham only I Fey Evatt Pandi Evatt this f

Pre Further copies of this booklet can be obtained for 25 cents (posted) from The Secretary, S.U. Fabian Society, Box 45, The Union, Sydney University.

h

mistic cheer] not al diffici legalis other knock and result. issue_ to tha riding are p. or kn we se(

power Electi

Published by Lance Wright Secretary, S.U. Fabian Society and printed by New Life Printery Pty. Ltd., 54 Renwick Street, Marrickville.

Ovf mount Repre public to increa he wi Vietm The for se drawn progre

AUSTRALIA Base or Bridge?

This first H. V. Evatt Memorial Lecture in International Relations was delivered by Mr. E. G. Whitlam Q.C., M.P., in the Great Hall, Sydney University under the auspices of the Sydney University Fabian Society at 8 p.m., Friday 16th September, 1966. The meeting was chaired by the Society's President, Michael Symons.

The Society was honoured by the presence of Mrs. Mary Alice Evatt, widow of the late Dr. H. V. Evatt.

Evatt ! Thou shouldst be living at this hour !

It is a signal honour to deliver the first H. V. Evatt Memorial Lecture in the university of which he was proud and of which he was the greatest graduate. More than either his admirers or his detractors he saw the limitations placed on small powers, yet he strove with all his might to see that they were not ignored. He was the champion of the small powers. He saw the United Nations as the only means of restraining and employing the power of large nations.

Few Australians appreciate the international prestige which Dr Evatt and, through him, Australia enjoyed. When I spoke with Pandit Nehru, he asked only of one Australian, ' How is Dr Evatt ' ? Detractors at home could not diminish the stature of this famous Australian statesman.

Preparin l this ddress one question kept recurri 'What would p r vatt, if Australian Minis r or xternal Affai s, be do' an saying about • tetnam government is pessiiii ff lukewarm about negotiations. It sees, its role as a cheerleader for the United States. I am sure that Dr Evatt would not accept such a position. He would not have been daunted by difficulties or discouraged by rebuffs. He would not have accepted legalistic arguments about whether the United Nations or some other body could deal with the problem. He would have kept knocking on doors until someone answered. His often unorthodox and sometimes irritating persistence would have forced some result. Dr Evatt would, I believe, have recognised the central

isque in Vietnam today — How do we stop the war ? Compared to that, other issues to him would have been secondary. His over-

•eet,

riding passion would have been peace for a suffering people who are pawns in a power struggle in which they have little interest or knowledge. His humanity would have been outraged by what we see happening in Vietnam. He would not share the complacency of, Mr Holt : ' It's bad luck for the Vietnamese that theworld power struggle is being fought out on their territory '.

Election Escalation Over the next ten weeks external affairs will be discussed with mounting passion. Before the last elections for the House of Representatives, Sir Robert Menzies did not scruple to inflame public oninion against Indonesia and to suggest that she was about to invade Eastern New Guinea. Mr Holt is already warning of increasing aggressiveness by China ; before the campaign is over he will be suggesting that China is about to enter the war in Vietnam.

The government has divided the country by conscripting men for service in Vietnam. The two battalions are due to be withdrawn between March and June next. The debate will rage around programs for the size, composition and duration of their replacements.

1

Diplomatic Decline It will clarify current issues if I survey the foreign triumphs of the Liberal-Country Party governments over their 17 years in office.

The friendly relations which Australia enjoyed with her neighbours and the status she held in international bodies when Dr Evatt was Minister for External Affairs have been eroded. The government inherited very friendly relations with Indonesia and dissipated them throughout the 1950's. Indonesia had an excellent case over West Irian as the successor state to the whole of the Dutch East Indies. Australian lobbying prevented Indonesia securing the two-thirds majority required to have the question considered in the General Assembly. It is fortunate that Australian advice to take the question to the International Court of Justice was ignored ; our distinguished graduate, Sir Percy Spender, has helped to destroy the reputation of common law judges which the Supreme Court of the United States had done so much to enhance in recent years.

Our protracted support of the Dutch encouraged extremist and Communist groups in Indonesia. Sir Robert Menzies sought to divert attention away from affairs at home to affairs in Indonesia just as much as President Sukarno used West New Guinea to relieve pressure on his home front. They both played politics at home at the expense of relations between their countries. Relations were further strained by the way the Australian Government acquiesced in the clumsy formation of Malaysia without regard to the views of Indonesia, which ruled three-quarters of Kalimantan.

If the Labor Governments of Australia and New Zealand had been returned to office in 1949 they would have joined Britain in recognizing China. The new governments held back. So many of the problems of today stem from the unreal treatment of China.

No lasting peac:. is possible in Asia until China and the United States reach the same sort of accommodation which Russia and the United States achieved in Europe. Mr Hasluck regularly gives all the reasons for excluding China from the United Nations except the crucial one that it is still the wish of the United States. Canada, New Zealand and Australia in co-operation could help the United States Administration in facing the inevitable and achieving the desirable membership of China in the world body. The government's ingenuous rationalisations are currently accompanied by a campaign to elect another Taiwan judge to the International Court of Justice. Throughout, the government sturdily pursues a contrary policy of selling more wheat to China than in Australia herself ; here it is prepared to defy United States wishes because one dollar in every four in the wheatgrower's income is paid by China.

In Indo-China in the early 1950's the Menzies government supported French colonialism against the nationalists. The support was vividly demonstrated to me three weeks after I first took my seat in the parliament. M. Jean Letourneau, French Minister for State in Charge of Relations with the Associated States of Indo-China, was invited to take a scat on the floor of the House of Representatives as a distinguished visitor. Two days later Mr Casey assured the House that Australia would provide equipment to help the French to combat Communism in Indo-China. Dr 2

Evatt self-g contr Af ment: by tf Barw sourc suppc in cc and r for tl from At again Britai Au in a Natio Frc New of th econc the h deteri Th, thetic fact e If could better The Wi signs wing Its m Sydnc Affair issues new 1 basso of bo Track De Unila disgu regim the p and c who 1 the bi Vietn Ser racial

hs of rs in 'eight]. Dr The and ellent f the inesia conralian ustice , has h the Nance t and ht to mesia to ics at itions it ac.0 the 1 had Britain

many :hina.

Jnited i and gives xcept nada, Jnited g the wernd by Court ntrary rself ; dollar supipport took Mister es of House r Mr pment . Dr C

Evatt warned, ' The French Government resisted the demand for self-government in Indo-China, until Communism captured and controlled the Indo-Chinese Nationalist movement '.

After the Geneva settlement, Australia and other Western governments supported the Diem Government. President Diem was feted by the Australian Government as a guest of state. Sir Garfield Barwick was maintaining on the basis of his official and authentic sources of information right up to August 1963 that Diem had the support of the people. Now Western leaders vie with each other in condemning his destruction and demoralisation of democracy and none so poor to do him reverence. Australia is paying in blood for the dishonest and unsuccessful policies in Vietnam, which, far from countering Communism, only nourished it.

At Suez, the Australian Government supported aggression against the United Arab Republic and fostered Asian doubts about Britain throughout the countries east of Suez.

Australia equivocated on apartheid and invariably found itself in a minority on sensitive racial and colonial issues in the United Nations.

From Suez to South Africa and from South Vietnam to West New Guinea, Australian foreign policy has failed to meet the needs of the time. In the 1940's Australia had led the political and economic advancement in her area, due in no small measure to the humanity, energy and ability of H. V. Evatt. The subsequent deterioration would have been incredible if it had not occurred.

There is a desperate need for a national policy which is sympathetic to the needs of our neighbours, which can anticipate and in fact encourage change in peaceful and progressive channels.

If Mr Holt were given a popular mandate as Prime Minister, could we expect a happier outcome for Australian interests, a better presentation of Australian attitudes ?

The Radical Right With the departure of Sir Robert Menzies there are increasing signs that the always vociferous but formerly ineffective extremist wing of the Liberal Party is revelling in its new found latitude.

Its number was swelled at the last election by new members from Sydney and Brisbane. Its members have been elected to the Foreign Affairs Committee ; they are chosen to speak on such sensitive issues as Rhodesia and Nauru. They tasted real success when the new Prime Minister himself made the decision to appoint an ambassador to Taipeh. The decision was made against the judgement of both the Department of External Affairs and the Department of Trade.

Despite the official attitude of the government towards the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by Rhodesia there is undisguised sympathy in the government parties for the Smith regime. It extends to the Cabinet Minister responsible for advancing the people of New Guinea to independence. United States envoys and officials have expressed concern at the hawks among ministers who have pressed for the escalation of the war in Vietnam, including the bombing of the dykes and the use of nuclear weapons in North Vietnam.

Senior Australian diplomats have shown uneasiness over the racialist sympathies of one minister.

3

side, sible threat Sir We s count We h That only piratic life.

Sir Robert Menzies ignored or concealed this frenetic fringe ; Mr Holt does not. When the new Prime Minister can glibly recount in Washington that the Indonesians have ' knocked off ' between 500,000 and 1,000,000 communists, can one expect restraint and judgement from his supporters ?

Peaceful Change

There will be as many and great changes in South-East Asia in the next 25 years as in the last 25. Australia should and indeed must frame policies which will make these changes peaceful and progressive.

The Menzies government saw Australia principally as a base from which Britain and the United States could police the area and control its turbulence. The Holt government has redoubled the efforts to retain British forces in Singapore and involve United States forces in Vietnam. Just as conservatives used to proclaim their support for North Atlantic empires in South-East Asia, they now see no further than North Atlantic alliances in South-East Asia. Despite their protests and support the British withdrew from India, the Dutch from the Indies and the French from Indo-China.

Even United States commitments cannot be eternal in their present plentitude in our area. Who can imagine that in 10 years Britain will still garrison Singapore, protect the Solomons and condominate the New Hebrides ? Who could assume that in 10 years Australia will still rule New Guinea or that Malaysia will still include Sarawak and Sabah ? Who could be certain that in 10 years the United States forces will still be in Okinawa or that the United States Navy will patrol the Indian Ocean ?

Conservatives are naturally unhappy in such a situation. To them change and upheaval are distasteful. They are by definition unsympathetic to change. They would like to isolate themselves from it. They see our role in Asia vaguely as an anti-communist one and piously hope that somehow we can demonstrate to our neighbours the benefits of a European capitalist society. Such an approach is doomed. Our military commitment in Vietnam will not stop change. Sooner or later, and probably sooner, we shall have to come to terms with the legitimate interests of the countries of our region. To appreciate our role and future in Asia in the long term we must break free of the ideological straight-jacket in which conservatives seek to place this country. For once in their lives they have a political philosophy, anti-communism, and they work it to death. The government paints the struggle in our area as an ideological one between the Communists and the anti-Communists. The Prime Minister refers to South Vietnam as the ' battle ground for free people '. In fact the Vietnamese people have seldom known freedom ; their lot has been only oppression and poverty. The struggle of the Vietnamese people was going on long before Communism became an issue and will continue long after Communism has failed.

All ideological crusades bear the hall-marks of blindness and self-righteousness. It is the fanaticism of minority groups on both sides which brings such suffering to the people of Vietnam today.

No side has a monopoly of virtue. Societies change and revolutions normalize. The late President Kennedy warned the United States ' not to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other 4

•

politic Aust of the ment in a sâ– of all Auslm

Mil involv her n abroac doubt!

Our c ' to cc This and pc The Triitk has fii its affi mark, many, Southpower, but other the U: those favour found Southisolate commi within commi I ndon( great well d Aus at am ness a have t

[lige ; y reoff ' t re-

Asia ideed and base area ubled nited claim they -East from 'hina. esent ritain [inate tralia awak [nited Navy To iition ;elves Lunist our ;II an I will shall ntries 1. the :et in their they area Com; the eople ;ssion going Ltinue and both oday. ;voluInited other

side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible and communication as nothing more than exchange of threats '. In such views we should all go all the way with J.F.K. Sir Robert Menzies exploited the phrase ' defence in depth '.

We show no integrity and shall earn no respect by regarding such countries as Vietnam as our military front line against Communism.

We have no right to fight our wars in other people's backyards.

That is how many are construing the conflict in Vietnam. Our only interest must be a genuine determination to ensure the aspirations of the Vietnamese people for a prosperous and peaceful life.

The Australian Labor Party is not an isolationist party, either politically or militarily or economically.

Its platform declares ' Australia cannot isolate itself from the struggles of the people of the world for economic development, security and self-government '. Isolationism is a selfish concept. It should have no place in a socialist party. We must be involved in the needs and problems of all our fellow men.

Australia's Military, Political and Economic Involvement in Asia.

Militarily, Australia is quite heavily committed in Asia. Her involvement, however, is often made in such a way as to alienate her neighbours. Our Prime Minister and Ministers are reported abroad in the context of a military commitment and we encourage doubts about our intentions by appearing ancillary to our allies.

Our commitment to Malaysia in Sir Robert Menzies' words was ' to come to the assistance of Great Britain in Malaysia's defence '.

This is asking for our position to be misunderstood. Our diplomatic and political initiative is inhibited.

The United States alliance is essential. Co-operation with the United States must be maintained. The Australian Labor Party has firmly held to these views for a quarter of a century, as have its affiliated Socialist and Social Democrat parties in Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, West Germany, Italy and Britain. In the long run, however, the future of South-East Asia will be determined principally by the large Asian powers, China, Japan, Indonesia and India. Australia can influence but cannot determine the future of the area. More than any other country in the area, Australia is able and bound to interpret the United States to the countries of the region and to interpret those countries to the United States. There has never been so favourable a prospect for regional arrangements. Last month I found that the members of Maphilindo and the Association of South-East Asian States are well-disposed to the idea that the isolated Chinese community of Singapore and the isolated European communities of Australia and New Zealand should be brought within institutional arrangements for the region in which those communities are the most developed political and economic units.

Indonesia has human and material resources several times as great as those of any other nation in the area. Her new rulers are well disposed to every one of her neighbours.

Australians act towards Asia as if we expect or wish to be held at arm's length. We fear, and probably correctly, that our selfishness and racial intolerance are offensive. This has meant that we have taken an apologetic or defensive role in Asia which in turn 5

has inhibited positive political action. The countries of Asia are diverse and diffuse. They cannot be divided up according to whether they join a military pact against Communism. We must seek to establish good relations with all of them in the light of their own and our own particular needs and aspirations. With some, we shall have better relations than with others, as we do with European countries. Sir Robert Menzies believed that the only place to meet Asian leaders was in London.

Unless we develop an active political participation we shall be suspect, particularly in the light of our military subservience. In fact our allies want us to be more independent in our approach to our neighbours so that we can supplement and interpret their efforts. Our size and proximity enable us to do things which our allies cannot. We are a threat to no one. Our neighbours know this. Our relative military weakness can be our political strength in Asia. We can play a proper role in Asia, not by withdrawal but by involvement. Socialists should bring understanding to the clamour of our neighbours for a better life. We have a particular and unique role to fulfil.

The region is the most turbulent in the world because it contains the greatest number of deprived persons. They will expect within their own lifetimes to secure the standards enjoyed by western societies. Once economic emancipation has commenced, expectations rise. People now know that the present skills available in the world can emancipate everyone in it. If he will only organize properly, man has, for the first time in history, the means to feed, clothe, shelter, employ and educate every person on this planet. This must inevitably produce change. There will be change. It will either be peaceful or violent.

Social democrats believe that economic and social reforms can be achieved and are best achieved by democratic means, by elected persons, by the will of the governed. Communism has achieved great economic and social reforms, however harsh and cruel the means. We have to convince people in countries which have never had democracy that it is a preferable method. At present they are understandably indifferent.

As a socialist party the Australian Labor Party should be able to appreciate, interpret and assist developments in Asia. We believe in equality, the elimination of poverty, the growth of freedom and the proper ordering of society. We believe that change is best done peacefully and not built from ruins and revolution. To us these concepts are national and international.

There can be no economic or social emancipation in SouthEast Asia within a tolerable period unless the developed countries contribute. The region has a greater population than Africa or Latin America. If Britain and the European Economic Community contribute as much to South-East Asia as they do to Africa, if the United States contributes as much as it does to Latin America, then the future is hopeful. Australia is in the best position of all countries in the region to advocate such contributions from her associates in the Northern Hemisphere and to illustrate the proper nature and scale of such contributions by her own example.

Australia's principal preoccupations in foreign policy in recent 6

year Viet Unit dete Sir Men mitn Gen

cgbcrhea reaien rt hm peat

AS

T us t( Indo mad Li noth repe; asoncei;

since en e the i coun restr Acct and 1 He c cong was win by tl mina TI He area area This grow colt the I ft:TA State I do sides and They

is are rig to must f their some, with only all be In )roach their h our know rength Irawal to the ticular ,ntains within restern .pectable in ganize ins to n this ill be is can is, by Ti has h and which At

e able I. We ith of e that s and tional.

Southuntries ica or Corndo to Latin e best ntribuind to ins by recent

years have been the military commitments in Borneo and then Vietnam which she undertook at the behest of Britain and the United States. The commitment in Borneo followed a prolonged deterioration in Australia's relations with Indonesia for which Sir Percy Spender, Mr Casey (as he then was) and Sir Robert Menzies were just as responsible as President Sukarno. The commitment in Vietnam followed a decade of indifference after the Geneva Accords. The political situation within Indonesia has been transformed and the military situation within Vietnam is changing. Australia now has a second chance to contribute to peaceful and progressive change in the two countries where hitherto her only significant participation has been a military one beside great powers from outside the region. In each case Australia can make its most significant contribution by changing from a military to a civilian role.

A Second Opportunity in South Vietnam Twelve years ago the Minister for External Affairs was calling us to ' stand up and be counted ' in the struggle for freedom in Indo-China. The government policies, then and since, have only made it less likely that ' freedom ' in Vietnam will be realized.

Like the Bourbons the Australian government has forgotten nothing and learnt nothing. The mistakes of the past are being repeated again. The government pays lip service to political and social reform but still seeks only a military solution. It wildly alleges ' red plots ' and ' fifth columns ' amongst those who have sincere and justified doubts about Western policy. It continually en eavours to condition Australia to a military commitment. At the next election we shall all be called upon to stand up to be counted as we were after Dien Bien Phu. Far from urging restraint, the Australian government asks for further escalation.

Accustomed to war lords, the peasant in the village pays taxes and delivers rice and provides soldiers to whoever will protect him.

He cares little for either side and probably fears both. The Vietcong and Hanoi can no longer win the military victory which was imminent a year ago. It is still far from clear that Saigon can win a political victory. It is, however, quite clear that victory by the Vietcong and Hanoi would destroy any hope of self-determination in the South as it has destroyed it in the North.

The peasant will not give his allegiance until he feels secure.

He will obviously not give it to forces that sweep through an area and "then leave him exposed again. To take and hold an area to win the support of the villagers requires very large forces.

This is what the United States has now embarked upon. The growing United States build-up, while helping the military position, ckuld4arejudicea_p_olit ical and economic solutj,n. The size of the United States intervention far ro • - • —in• elf determin. 'on for_the_peollle,maydeprive them of it. The effect of the United States commitment on the economic and social life of such an underdevelo ed countr ma - the end be counter-productive. ow can Australia best help to secure an encriiiiii is war ?

I do not believe that the negotiating positions taken up by both sides are irreconcilable although it is clear that the government and military groups ruling in Saigon are simply not interested.

They want to win a military victory almost regardless of cost.

7

Las For a long period the United States and Australia refused to has countenance suggestions of negotiations at all. It is still quite plac unrealistic to ask Hanoi to enter ' unconditional discussions '. It ing. is just as unrealistic to admit a highly disciplined group like the stan Vietcong into the government in Saigon. Unfortunately for the emr suffering people prestige is at stake for so many. This applies Viet as much to Hanoi and Saigon as to Moscow and Washington.

What is urgently required is that the West must state its terws I] for a ceasefire, political solution and militarywittjrawaL...114th civil it out this there can be no hope of negotiasomelparticularit ralk tions. ese terms should stipulareaTi—d-i n -pendent and neutral Plar ith Vietnam with free general elections in the country within a 6-idete period of, say, 5 to 10 years. In the meantime the United Nations Nov should police the country and prepare it for general elections in govt which all competing groups would be free to participate. There is obviously little hope at this stage of re-uniting the whole of the Vietnam. area s __ _No count has a better o s eortunit to influence Unite k inc It is essential that we __decisions in Vietnam than Australia. that counsel restraint and de-escalation as a preliminary to negotiations invc with a timetable for the wit al of foreign troops and the are -implementation o free elections b the U ni e. a ions. So far not overnment has acte e ire in e opposite the Australia brin b d irection. It has urged greater esca ation. • us ra ian troops are desc not in Vietnam under a treaty commitment. SEATO has not the been invoked. The circumstances leading up to this war, the the I' mistakes by Australian and Western Governments since Geneva 0 and the present conduct of the war in both Saigon and Washingof t ton lead the Labor Party to the certain conclusion that Australian out troops should not have been sent to Vietnam. We share that view with numerous other countries, such as Britain, who have ir refused to send troops to Vietnam in the present circumstances. rc We have said, however, that a Labor government would be pretf pared to provide troops in Vietnam for ' the maintenance of al United Nations peace-keeping forces '. tc The A.C.T.U. Executive on 30 August made this declaration :— V ' In all circumstances it is preferable that united action by p1 Australia with other nations should be through the agency of the United Nations. ec ' We express the strongest opposition to conscription for SI military service overseas in all of the current circumstances. li We believe that Australia's military commitments, under treaty or other obligation, can and should be met by voluntary enlistfi ment and it is noted that this method has not been fully exploited. ir ' We declare that military conscription for overseas service t a] can never be justified unless there is a crisis threatening national fc security, and in such a situation the whole resources of the tc nation should be mobilised '. a The provision of immediate and generous economic aid in 01 Vietnam is crucial. The allocation for international development F and relief in this year's budget has been reduced from $22.7 aid million to $17.3 million. The allocation for economic and defence are support assistance to member states of SEATO and the protocol and States, i.e., Vietnam, has fallen from $2.3 million to $2.0 million.

8

d to quite It the the )plies gton. :ems ;otiamtral lin a ttions as in ['here e of etates t we lions l the 3 far )osite — s are not the :neva hingalian that have nces. pree of

_

a :— a by f the for nces. reaty nlist)ited. rvice ional the in Went 22.7 'ence tocol [lion.

Last year's expenditure of $103,581 for refugee relief in Vietnam has been dropped. These amounts were absurdly low in the first place. To reduce or cancel them now is dangerous and self-defeating. The government is singularly reluctant to publicise our outstanding civilian workers in Vietnam. For political reasons it emphasises the military commitment and the body count of dead Vietcong.

In the 1950's the Menzies government showed little interest n civilian aid. In the eight years after the Geneva settlement Australia provided an average of $400,000 a year through the Colombo Plan and Seato Aid to Vietnam. When the military situation deteriorated, it stepped the aid up to an average of $1.7 million.

Now that the military situation has somewhat recovered the Holt government seems just as unwilling to learn from past mistakes.

There is an urgent need for civil aid now. It cannot wait until the fighting stops throughout the country. No sooner has an area been cleared than assistance, usually of a very elementary kind, is required. We must make it clear to the Vietnamese people that we want to help them and that we are not just militarily involved to obligate the Americans. Our armed forces in Vietnam are being called upon to perform social and civil work which is not their primary duty. They are doing an outstanding job and bringing credit to their country. Their civil work is more properly described as ' civic action '. It has a military purpose, to open the hearts and loosen the tongues of the population and so make the military tasks easier.

On 31 August the A.C.T.U. Executive, amplifying resolutions of the Federal Conference of the A.L.P. in August last year, set out the position with admirable clarity and force :' The Executive is aware of the urgent need for social reform in South Vietnam. We believe that military action will not resolve the internal discord and conflict within Vietnam unless the social and economic problems are attacked with real vigour and determination. ' We state that the Federal government should be prepared to allocate no less finance to assist in social reform in South Vietnam than it has been prepared to spend for military purposes. ' This Executive believes that there should be increased economic, medical, technical and educational assistance to our South-East Asian neighbours in a concerted effort to increase living standards and relieve international tensions. ' We therefore call on the government to offer immediate financial and administrative assistance to peoples' organisations in South Vietnam, including the trade union movement, which are building democratic institutions and developing social reforms. We believe the Australian government should attempt to assist in such matters as general education, technical training, agricultural methods, public administration and the establishment of co-operative societies '.

Fears have been expressed for the safety of Australian civil aid workers in Vietnam. Already large areas of South Vietnam are secure ; on present trends the principal centres of population and production will be secure within two years or even earlier.

9

i-

Many nations which have no troops in the country have furnished civilian assistance. The Australian surgical teams live and work in areas where there are no Australian troops. A few have sought to deride or defer civilian projects by alleging that great numbers of Australian troops would be required to protect the civilians ; some have said that the civilians would obstruct the soldiers, others that the soldiers would compromise the civilians. Prospective in- surgents anywhere in South East Asia might conclude from such views that overt insurrection on their part would be followed and assisted by the cessation of any Australian civilian aid ; by civil war they would end civil aid.

Australia has the opportunity to make Phuoc Tuy province a showpiece of how a war-torn area can be successfully rebuilt and its residents given a chance of deciding their own future. The province has a population of over 130,000.

It is the duty of Australia to provide civilian experts to help rebuild the shattered economy of the area. Roads and bridges must be repaired, schools and hospitals built, public utilities improved and resources exploited. Australian advisers can build up provincial police forces and a civil service structure. This requires Army and civil engineers and mechanics, doctors and nurses, public health teams, police advisers, administrators to train public servants and agriculture and forestry advisers. There is also a desperate need for teachers to staff trade schools to provide training in non-skilled professions. Agricultural advisers can show the Vietnamese how to improve the livestock and the orchards which abound in the district and set up abattoirs and packing sheds. Many people in the area rely on fishing, and fishery advisers from Australia can help them improve their techniques, open new fishing grounds and operate canneries. The area has luxuriant forests, and Australian experts can survey the timber resources and establish saw mills.

Unless civilian aid is made available in South Vietnam on a great scale and at great speed, the situation will deteriorate again and the military sacrifices will have been in yain. The Geneva Accords miscarried partly because Australia and her great and powerful friends on the other side of the world and the other nations in the region displayed no further practical interest. Australia must not fail again. The government should now be sur- veying the type and scale of aid which Australia can supply not as ancillary but in succession to military action. Civilian recruiting and training should be taking place now.

A Second Opportunity in Indonesia No other country in South East Asia takes more interest in Australia than Indonesia takes. Visits by Australians and news from Australia are widely reported in the neWspapers and on the radio, in both English and Indonesian. There is a deep and genuine interest in Australia In no other country in South-East Asia is there such a legacy of goodwill. Some Australians were in Eastern Indonesia during the war.

The Chifley government helped Indonesia obtain independence.

The work of Australian students and graduates in Indonesia has been appreciated.

As individuals 10

we hoN

pec we nor pm of obl dip cee

COL

box nog

$1 It the wh' dot in go N not

It Au adr twc

suc

ad\ OUT

re - ! off( We Gu We qui risi bri rali des Di an( tail bui um toc ob fici lac plu

;hed work aght bers ms ; hers in- ;uch and civil

we get on very well with our neighbours. In no other country, however, have we done more to forfeit goodwill.

We now have a second opportunity. We are the only European people next to a large Asian nation. This is one instance where we are not handicapped by distance. We are neither so distant nor so dominant as Japan and the United States. The new opportunity must be seized and built upon. The new government of Indonesia is well disposed towards this country. It is our obligation and in our interest to see that we render all the political, diplomatic and economic support we can. If the coup had succeeded a year ago, and it nearly did, we would have had a :e a country of 100 million people dominated by Communists on our and border. One can only imagine the additional sums we would The now be spending on defence.

This year Australia is increasing its aid to Indonesia from help $1 million to $1.5 million. What concern ! What generosity ! dges It is indicative of the government's inaction and indifference in im- the economic and social conditions which breed violence. Only ∎uild when violence erupts does the government stir itself. ConsideraThis Lion of problems is spasmodic and alarmist because it is always and in the context of military involvement or military incidents. The to government criticises the cure which Communism offers but will here not initiate the cure to head it off. to The government of Indonesia faces extraordinary problems. isers It is entitled to expect some practical and prompt gestures by the Australia. It continues to face strong political opposition. The and administrative and economic life of the country is disrupted by and two decades of mismanagement and the aftermath of the unheir successful coup. The whole nation is paying the price of military The adventurism abroad and prestige projects at home. We must urge the our great and powerful friends to provide emergency aid and re-schedule debts.

In the face of these difficulties Australia na offers an additional $500,000, some carbon black and spare parts. gain We should make as large grants to Indonesia as we make to New ieva Guinea. We must not stand back and let aid await results. and We must give aid to produce results. they There are initial areas of the Indonesian_ economy which reust- quire assistance. The transport system is largely responsible for sur- rising prices in the cities and falling income abroad. The roads, not suit- bridges and docks cry out for repair and modernisation. Australia has shown her road-building skills in Sabah and Flores despite local difficulties ; she could recondition the roads to Djakarta and the Sumatra ports. She could help to modernise in and equip Tandjung Priok, which would be a relatively self-conews tained project, readily supported with outside supplies. She could the build ships for the inter-islands trade, including tankers. and In many sectors a considerable amount of capital is either unused or not fully used because there are no spare parts or a too few maintenance facilities. The textile and transport sectors Asia obviously suffer in this way. The publishing industry lacks sufficient paper supplies. The peasants lack fertilizers and the sick and lack medicines. Text books are in short supply. The sparkials plug investment that is needed would not be excessively expen11

sive. It would yield quick and large returns. The emphasis should be on Eastern and Central Java.

Australian institutions should also contribute. The Department of Civil Aviation has provided navigation facilities in Indonesia.

The Snowy Mountains Authority has worked on water conserva- tion in Cambodia and roads in Thailand. The A.B.C. could assist in radio and television. Australian universities and profes- sional bodies should seek links and affiliation wth their counter- parts in Indonesia. Lecturers and experts should be exchanged.

Australia assisted Malaysia in the establishment of a Central Bank and arbitration system. What assistance could we offer to help Indonesia restore its financial and administrative control ?

Australian companies also have obligations. These obligations may in fact be long term opportunities. Those companies which ' get in on the ground floor ' will stand to benefit as the economy expands. Fokker and Mercedes-Benz clearly realise this.

Indonesians will, of course, decide on what terms they will admit private capital. They have their own concept of production sharing. I am sure that the Indonesian government and Aust- ralian companies could negotiate mutually satisfactory management contracts or consortia.

So far the West has been slow to help the new regime in Indonesia. The Russians have been even slower. It is our obliga- tion as a neighbour to assist. It is in our interest to see that the people of Indonesia are given opportunities for a full and happy life.

Principles and Methods of Civilian Aid

I have stressed the aid which Australia should now be giving and encouraging others to give in Indonesia and Vietnam because those countries have been our overriding concern in recent years.

It is only if Australia and similar nations help India that political liberty can be extended and economic and social advance can be hastened in Asia as a whole. Australia's civilian efforts and example in Indonesia and Vietnam would be equally applicable in all countries between the Indian sub-continent and the Aust- ralian continent.

Two objectives should be paramount in Australia's policies on aid. First, capital aid should as much as possible be channelled through international channels. Secondly, technical assistance can be most effective if it is concentrated in the recipient country and if greater emphasis is given to some of the less highly skilled occupations, for the recipient countries need nurses as well as doctors, technicians as well as technologists.

The 1965 Federal Conference of the A.L.P. set out the party's general approach to the level of aid and the importance of the multilateral approach in these terms : ' Australia should con- tribute one per cent of her national income to less developed countries and should encourage and match increasing contributions by other more developed nations. Australia should aim, and should encourage other nations, to channel international aid as much as possible through United Nations agencies '.

Multilateral aid is more effective and is less likely to cause offence. It is the best way to involve the resources of the large 12

pow whe pas obsc app pref nati late] Inte sista to1 reso exp( Cell suet.

Higl U bilai aid this Dev that ratio that and in t repc

ingl:

sour sour

T othe whit

Spec char the 1951 of e to 1

R

part Pro) a lc to a natiq will to ( whit A will

susp

tom' haw havi whit

)uld lent [sia. rva-

mid fester;ed. tral ffer ol ? ons Lich imy will :ion 1stLent in gathe DIV

ing use irs.

cal pan

ind ble iston led an

[try led as ty's the 3n)ed )ns

tnd aF use rge

powers without corresponding political difficulties. The days when foreign aid was received with political strings attached are passing, while aid with economic strings, often wrapped up in obscure financial forms, is also becoming unpopular and inappropriate. Hitherto Australia and most other countries have preferred to extend bilateral rather than multilateral aid. International agencies are now experienced in administering multilateral aid. Especially noteworthy has been the work of the International Development Association, the U.N. Technical Assistance Board and the U.N. Special Fund which have helped to lay the groundwork for a genuine economic development with resource surveys, the training of technicians and the like. This experience will probably be needed in the very near future.

Certain projects by their geography and cost go beyond bilateralism, such as the Lower Mekong project and the proposed Asian Highway.

Until recently the Australian government has concentrated on bilateral forms of aid. The ratio of multilateral aid to bilateral aid has been low. There has been a welcome improvement in this ratio due to the recently increased grant to the International Development Association. The government has also announced that it will join the Asian Development Bank. Even so, the ratio of multilateral aid to bilateral aid will remain the same as that prevailing in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in 1961 and 1962. This ratio was described in the Organisation's 1963 annual review as unsatisfactory. The report noted also that multilateralism in aid was becoming increasingly important in view of ' the need for closer and more systematic co-ordination of aid efforts arising from the great variety of sources of external assistance '.

The Labor Party would like to see a stepping up of funds to other agencies, especially the U.N. Development Programme in which the Extended Programme of Technical Assistance and the Special Fund are now merged. Such aid, involving low interest charges, straight out grants and supply of technicians, keeps down the financial hangover of debt redemption. Whereas in the early 1950's the servicing of debts absorbed only 4 per cent of the value of exports of the under-devoloped countries, the figure has risen to 12.1 per cent.

Recipient countries are less likely to be affronted if aid, and particularly capital aid, comes from an international source.

Provided the terms are reasonable any individual prefers to raise a loan from a bank rather than place himself under obligation to a private money lender. There is no reason to believe that nations feel any different. As a small country our capital aid will be limited but through international agencies we can hope to encourage the participation of the large powers in a way which will not cause offence.

Australia has an exceptional opportunity to demonstrate its goodwill in the field of technical assistance. Our advisers are not suspect like those from former imperial powers. They are accustomed to smaller installations and simple operations. Australians have also demonstrated a sensitivity to local customs and behaviour. They have been prepared to hop in and demonstrate while Europeans or Americans stand back and advise. They 13

are not afraid of the oily rag. This may sound like excessive patriotism. I believe it to be true.

In Phnom Penh, Australian advisers have rendered an outstanding service by assisting with the maintenance of public trans- port. This has helped to make the city one of the cleanest • in Two Australians, who would be classified, I suppose, Asia. as mechanics and tradesmen in this country, have performed an outstanding task.

One objection which is invariably raised to an expansion of this form of aid is that the economic and administrative situation in the recipient country is so bad that it cannot take advantage of aid. There is merit in this objection. It should, however, present a challenge instead of an obstacle.

Amongst our aid workers I found great irritation with Treasury officials who lacked knowledge and sympathy with local needs and problems. If this country sends workers into the field it should be prepared to place greater trust in their judgment. It should be more flexible and generous in the guarantees and assurances it requires. Much Australian aid is not only mean but amateurish. The government is not daunted by financial and administrative difficulties in making a military commitment ; the problems suddenly become extraordinarily difficult when it comes to a civilian commitment. Aid always seems available to purchase military equipment but not basic civil facilities. There is diffi- culty in supporting civilian workers in the field when local supplies are either delayed or unavailable. If there is a military commitment, however, the problem is soon overcome. We must learn to support our civilian workers in the field as readily as we support troops. We must apply the same initiative and re- sourcefulness in waging war against poverty, disease and ignorance. It is time we stopped being amateur dabblers in aid and took the whole problem seriously.

Sensitive Issues

Our duty and our interest compel us to take note of the issues of colour and colonialism about which our neighbours feel so acutely.

Our size inevitably means that our influence on other countries can only be marginal. There are some issues, however, which are exclusively within our own jurisdiction and which will increas- ingly determine the attitude of other countries to us. Such are immigration, aborigines and external territories.

The United States will not support our present official policies ; Negroes often criticise Australia already.

In no other country is our racial policy under such close scrutiny as in the Philippines. The countries which most often criticize our racial immigration policy are not always paragons of virtue themselves. The fact remains that the exclusion of many Filipinos from this country cannot be justified.

They are a Christian, highly-educated, English-speaking people. It would be possible to integrate many of them without imperilling our housing, em- ployment, social and economic standards.

In international agencies our treatment of aborigines will attract increasing attention. The International Labour Organisation is justifiably concerned about the employment standards of Aust- 14

rali its 1 the to I me] and are I` It i wee rest Par doe Gui I if t] are she] pec aloe bee] race whi rah] and Iâ– will asst to off forg and porgy whc will 'I Gui At 1 Aus con

join and of gov, ecei has to The Car lion larg in be

;ive tnsin use, an of ion of ;ent ,ury ;eds it It and can and the mes rase iffi)cal ary lust as reand aid

;ues so ries rich easare ited .oes tiny cite

rtue nos ian, ible emract is ust-

ralian aborigines and the failure of the government to carry out its international obligations towards indigenous people.

The standards of health amongst some groups of aborigines is the worst in the world. Their educational opportunities are inferior to other Australians. They are cheated of their rights and entitlements by bureaucrats and station owners. The Northern Territory and New Guinea should not be run as remote ranches. They are being forced out into the light of day and world scrutiny: New Guineans and Australians will always be neighbours.

It is important to both people that Australians should not outwear their welcome as masters and tutors. The government restricts the entry of New Guineans to Australia, even from Papua whose inhabitants are Australian citizens ; the government does not restrict the entry of Australians who may take New Guineans' jobs.

It is a sign of immaturity among New Guineans and Australians if they fear independence for New Guinea. Many New Guineans are reluctant to contemplate independence because they have been sheltered from the rest of the world and believe that their prospects of protection and advancement depend on Australians alone. There are now, however, many New Guineans who have been to New York and Kenya and realise that there are other races which are no more economically advanced than they but which are receiving assistance from many sources. The Australian government encourages New Guineans to feel dependent and then justifies its policies by citing their feeling of dependence.

Many Australians speak as if Australian experts and capital will have no future in New Guinea when it is independent. They assume that Australian teachers, for example, will mot be welcome to New Guineans and that the Australian government will cut off the financial assistance to pay their salaries. Such persons forget that there are more Britons in India now than ever before and that British capital is welcomed in partnership in most important industries. There is no reason to believe that Australians who are able to contribute to the development of New Guinea will cease to be welcome throughout the forseeable future.

Those who plead the virtues of private enterprise in New Guinea are too often advocating foreign domination of its economy.

At the present stage of development private investors are inevitably Australian since there are no New Guineans with investible incomes. The fair and prudent course is for private investors to join in partnership with the Australian government to develop and service New Guinea's resources. In this way the government of an independent New Guinea can later succeed to the Australian government's interest and immediately play a full role in the ecenomic development of the country. The Australian government has committed an act of gross folly in granting a 99-year lease to W. R. Carpenter & Co. to develop tea plantations at Mt. Hagen.

The proper course would have been for the government to employ Carpenter's as its agent in setting up the tea factories and plantations or to have entered into a partnership in doing so. The largest industry in the Territory is the plywood factory at Bulolo, in which the Commonwealth has a half interest. This should be the model for developing the canneries and processing works 15

and shipping and other services which the Territory requires.

The Minister for Territories repeats the formula that Australia will withdraw from Papua and New Guinea when the people want it to do so. He does not apply the same principle to Nauru.

In 1964 the Nauru Local Government Council representatives asked that a Legislative Council be established in 1963, that the island be given independence by 1967 and that the phosphate industry be transferred to them. The Australian government did not agree.

If the Nauruans wish to be independent they should be allowed to be. They should be granted full partnership in the British Phosphate Commission.

We shall have few friends unless we speed up the development of our territories and shake ourselves free of the self-righteousness and parochialism which have characterised our administration in New Guinea.

Dr Evatt's successors have done nothing to build and much to impede the international bodies on which he had set his heart.

They have been much influenced by and have exercised little influence on British and United States policies in the region. The result has been that security is more precarious and poverty more dangerous than in any other region of the world. Australia is an ally and associate of the most powerful and affluent countries in the world ; it is a neighbour of the most turbulent and deprived.

Australia has not helped herself or her allies by responding merely to their initiatives and being a base for their operations. Australia can help both her allies and her neighbours by advocating and demonstrating a positive and total concern for military security, political freedom, economic development and social opportunities in all the countries of the region. No other nation is as well qualified to be a bridge between our allies arid our neighbours. I have concentrated on the immediate matters for Australian involvement. They should be the first steps towards restoring the cooperative and interdependent foreign policy for which H. V. Evatt strove and for which we honour him.

NEW BASIS

CC

JOURNAL OF THE SYDNEY UNIVERSITY FABIAN SOCIETY

N.

R. J. Thomson.

VII S.A QI4

Dr. J. F. Cairns.

W.

ISSUES AVAILABLE • No.2. WHO'S AFRAID OF THE VINCENT REPORT? A BRITISH LABOUR GOVERNMENT. •

No.3. IMPLICATIONS OF AUTOMATION. Professor John Bennett.

AUSTRALIAN FOREIGN POLICY. Dr. N. K. Meaney.

•

No.4. OUT SOON.

30c per copy. Subscription (4 issues $1.20).

(8 issues $2.20).

ENQUIRE THE SECRETARY, S.U. FABIAN SOCIETY, BOX 45, THE UNION, SYDNEY UNIVERSITY, N.S.W.

16

Ins Ay'

ires.

-alia ople uru. ;Iced Land Ls-try ;ree. wed itish lent [less in

i to ;art. ittle The lore I is tries ved. rely ustting rity, [ties . I lyecovatt

AN

tT?

ION,

JOIN THE

Australian Labor Party Australia's Democratic Socialist Party

CONTACT YOUR LOCAL STATE HEADQUARTERS:

N.S.W.: 235 Elizabeth Street, Sydney. (26-2732).

Vic. : Box 70, Trades Hall, Melbourne Cl. (34-4243).

S.A. : The Trades Hall, Adelaide. (51-3409).

Qld. : Labor House, Edwards and Elizabeth Streets, Brisbane.

(B-2918).

W.A. : The Trades Hall, Perth. (28-2231).

Tas. : The Trades Hall, Hobart. (2-5355).

Inserted by Cyril S. Wyndham, Federal Secretariat, 39 Ainslie Avenue, Canberra. (4-0393).