Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

DEFENCE OF DR. EVATT

AUSTRALIAN FOREIGN POLICY

MR CHIFLEY REPLIES TO CRITICISM

(Rec. 7 p.m.) CANBERRA, Sept. 26. “I nave my suspicions that the name the Minister of External Affairs (Dr. H. V. Evatt) has made for himself in the councils of the world has caused a great deal of jealousy.” said the Commonwealth Prime Minister (Mr Chifley) in’ the House of Representatives. He was replying to attacks which some members of the Opposition had made On Australia’s policy during the debate on foreign affairs. “Members are entitled to disagree with the conclusions arrived at by Dr. Evatt,” said Mr Chifley, “but I believe

that not many would be prepared to .say that Australia’s representation in the councils of the world is not the ablest. At least that is not the opinion of the world.”

He said that Opposition speakers had accused Britain and America of appeasing Russia. It was a fact, however, that the greatest territorial concessions made to. Russia were made by the Conservative war leaders, Mr Churchill and President Roosevelt. He described speeches by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr R. G. Menzies), Mr P. C. Spender, and Mr C. L. Abbott as being calculated to provoke war.

“The attitude of Russia—her reluctance to co-operate, her unreasonable exercise of the veto, and the antagonistic spirit she shows to the nations with whom she fought—these are inexcusable,” he said. “I do not propose to excuse the behaviour of Mr Molotov and Mr Vyshinsky; but it is the duty of every public man to play his part in trying to bring between nations.”

He pledged that the Government would do all in its power to avert another war. The future peace of the world depended on complete co-oper-ation between the British Commonwealth and the United States. The Australian Government had never attempted to take sides in the Indonesian dispute, and he believed that 80 per cent, of Australians approved, the Government’s request for intervention. Mr J. T. Lang alleged that Australia’s foreign policy of “meddling and muddling” had lost, friends all over the world, that the United Nations was a hotbed of power diplomacy and a costly futility, and that Australia should base its future policy solely on its own security.

Mr Menzies said that it was time the democracies made it glear to Russia that they were under no illusions about her policy and determined to retreat before it no longer. Russia, he said, had established nomination over the Ealtic. the Dahubian States, and East Germany. Now was the time for an honest warning. From 1936 to 1938 the democracies had adopted an appeasement policy because they were unable to back their words with force. To-day they were stronger than for years, but in 10 years’ time they might be much weaker.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19470927.2.102

Bibliographic details

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25300, 27 September 1947, Page 9

Word Count
464

DEFENCE OF DR. EVATT Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25300, 27 September 1947, Page 9

DEFENCE OF DR. EVATT Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25300, 27 September 1947, Page 9