N.Z. LEGATION IN MOSCOW

Press, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 25606, 22 September 1948, Page 4

N.Z. LEGATION IN MOSCOW

Possible Change In

Status

HOUSE DEBATES USEFULNESS

(From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON. September 21. He would discuss the alteration in the status of New Zealand’s representation in Moscow when he went to Britain, said the Prime Minister (Mr Fraser) replying to Opposition members in the House of Representatives to-day. When the legation’ was first opened it was justified, because high hopes were held then of working in with Russia to ensure the peace of the world. “I don’t need any prompting myself of the need to review these matters,” said Mr Mr Fraser said a case might be made out now for having a Minister in Western Europe. To a certain extent the views of Mr R. M. Algie (Opposition, Remuera), the leading Opposition speaker, coincided with his own, said Mr Fraser, but later remarks about appeasement by Mr W. H. Fortune (Opposition. Eden), were without basis in fact. There was no shred of appeasement in the actions of Britain, the United States, and France in the present negotiations over Berlin. He would assure the public that there was no similarity at all between Munich and the present negotiations, nor would there be. Messrs Algie and Clifton Webb (Opposition. Rodney), speaking earlier on the External Affairs vote, opposed keeping the Moscow, Legation at its present strength. Mr Algie suggested the position might be met by attaching a New Zealander to the staff of the British Embassy. Neither for strategic reasons nor for those of trade could the present legation be justified, he said.

Mr Fraser replied that it would be unwise to close down altogether the legation in Moscow, but he would consider replacing the present set-up bj* the appointment of a charge d’affaires. Mr Algie suggested that if, as a national matter, it was still necessary to maintain the Moscow Legation, it could be nlaced on the same status as the Russian Legation in Wellington (where the post of Minister is vacant) and the Minister (Mr E. A. Boswell) better employed somewhere else. Expenditure on the Moscow Legation was not justified by the results achieved. What could New Zealand get in Moscow that it could not get from the British Legation with a New Zealand representative? With that saving in expenditure New Zealand could establish representatives in parts of the Pacific where they could do far more good. New Zealand had two honorary agents in South Africa. Would it not be better to link up with South Africa than with Moscow? He also suggested wider New Zealand representation in India, at San Francisco, and at Vancouver.

Mr Algie moved that the vote be reduced by £5 as an indication that the iponey could be spent better along the lines he indicated.

Importance of Western Europe The Prime Minister said that when the New Zealand Minister to Moscow was appointed efforts were being made throughout the British Commonwealth to secure friendly relations with Russia and to know the Russians, and let the Russians get to know the British Commonwealth. The position had since changed considerably, and the centre of gravity had shifted from Moscow to Western Europe. When he went to the United Kingdom he would discuss whether New Zealand should be represented in Moscow by a Minister orx a charge d’affaires, and whether New Zealand should have a representative in Western Europe. He had already considered the idea that the High Commissioner in London (Mr W. J. Jordan) should represent New Zealand in Western Europe, but he felt he could not do that and his own job as well, said Mr Fraser. As there was no Russian Minister in New Zealand, but a charge d’affaires, he thought arrangements could easily be made for similar New Zealand represeqtation in Moscow. Two questions were involved in wider representation elsewhere—expense and the difficulty of promoting trade at the present time. Intensive negotiations were in progress to procure supplies of jute from India. He welcomed the nature of the criticism from the member for Remuera. Mr Boswell’s Dispatches Mr Webb said Mr Boswell had been criticised as a “silent Minister,” but he should be given credit for the work he had done in sending back dispatches to thp Government. 1 It was a matter for the Government whether the contents of the dispatches should be made public. The time had arrived, however, when the legation could be closed down without causing any misunderstandings. There was no point in keeping the legation going if no benefit was to be obtained from it.

Mr F. W. Doidge (Opposition. Tauranga) said that when Mr Boswell was in New Zealand on furlough, the External Affairs Committee of the House met him. Mr Boswell, when asked if he thought there was justification for sending him back to Russia, replied that it was for the Government to say. Mr Doidge said no information given the committee bv Mr Boswell had justified the expenditure on the legation in Moscow. Perhaps the Prime Ministre. in view of events in Western Europe, would now be prepared to consider appointing a new Minister in Paris. If'that were done. New Zealand should be represented there bv a Minister of Sir Carl Berendsen’s calibre. It would not be satisfactory simply to transfer Mr Boswell from Moscow to Paris. “Some New Person”

Mr A. C. Baxter (Government, Raglan) said Mr Doidge suffered from Russophobia of a type which could lead to war. Expenditure on the Moscow Legation was worth while if it contributed in any small degree to peace. While the establishment of the legation was a proper step when it was taken, it could now be reconsidered ill the light of rapidly changing events, and it was just possible some new person’ might be best suited for any new Ministry New Zealand might open in Western Europe. Mr Fortune said there was no question of understanding the Russians. They knew what they wanted, and regarded the Western attitude as appeasement. Mr Fortune said the West should do nothing that suggested appeasement. If even a small legation such as New Zealand’s was closed,-it might show the Russians that New Zealand “has had it” is regard to the treatment meted out to the Western nations by their erstwhile allies. Mr Fraser said that there had been throughout the recent weeks of critical negotiations the greatest desire for agreement and - representatives of the Western Powers had gone to great, lengths to reach an agreement, but there had not been, nor would there be at any future time, anything like Munich or the immediate post-Munich period. Negotiations Confusing

“There has been a quite determined insistence on the rights of the Western Powers,” said Mr Fraser. “It looked in Moscow a fortnight ago as if matters had been adjusted. Then in some extraordinary way what was agreed to in Moscow has been blocked in Berlin. It is most confusing. No wonder the Western allies have been nonplussed. I can assure the House and the country that in all the negotiations between the three Western Powers and Russia there has been no trace of appeasement. There has been a firm but not belligerent or aggressive insistence on the treaty rights of the Western Powers. Nothing could have been fairer than the attitude of the United Kingdom, the United States, and France throughout these negotiations.” The future depended on the Western Powers’ maintaining their present firmness, the Prime Minister added. Mr Algie said the Prime Minister’s statement was most welcome. Mr Fraser said it would be unfriendly to Russia and a first-class mistake to close the New Zealand Legation entirely. It would be likely to hinder the establishment of better all-round international relationships, but the question of restricting representation could be considered. Mr Ormond Wilson (Government. Palmerston North) said New Zealand

as a sovereign country must accept responsibilities which could not be measured simply in terms of tfade. There was no question of appeasement in maintaining representation in Moscow but of obtaining what information New Zealand could, even if the prospects of accord with Russia were now less hopeful than before. Dr. A. M. Finlay (Government, North Shore) said the legation provided a valuable listening point behind what the Opposition called the Iron Curtain. Mr Boswell’s reports afforded some insight on the Russian mind. Mr S. W. Smith (Opposition, Hobson) said the Opposition maintained its at.titude, in spite of what had been said, that New Zealand did not require separate representation in Moscow.

Mr W. A. Sheat (Opposition, Patea) said the only meeting addressed by Mr Boswell when he returned to New Zealand was the Parliamentary Labour Party caucus. Mr A. S. Sutherland (Opposition. Hauraki): With pickets on the door, too.

Mr Sheat said that if there was any value at all in the information which Mr Boswell gave to that meeting every member in the House was equally entitled to hear it.

Mr Algie’s motion was lost on a division, 38 votes to 31.