Canberra Pact to large extent a curiosity

Press, 14 October 1985, Page 16

Canberra Pact to large extent a curiosity

By

STUART McMILLAN

The pact whose name the Australian Foreign Minister, Mr Hayden, was unable to recall in Washington is known as the Canberra Pact on this side of the Tasman and the A.N.Z.A.C. Pact on the other side.

As the name used in New Zealand suggests, it was signed in Canberra. The date was January 21, 1944, and the New Zealand signatories were Peter Fraser, Frederick Jones, Patrick Charles Webb, and Carl August Berendsen.

Mr Hayden apparently had cause to remember that there was such a pact when he was asked a question about Australian defence commitment to New Zealand. Articles 13 to 16 of the Canberra Pact deal with defence and security. It is not so much a commitment to one another — that was more taken for granted — as a commitment to act together. Article 13 says: “The two Governments agree that, within the framework of a general system of world security, a regional zone of defence comprising the South-west and South Pacific shall be established and that this zone should be based on Australia and New Zealand, stretching through the arc of islands north and

north-east of Australia to Western Samoa and the Cook Islands.”

Article 15 expands the thought: “... it is agreed that it would be proper for Australia and New Zealand to assume full responsibility for policing such areas in the South-west and South Pacific as may from time to time be agreed upon.” At the time, the pact was a bold assertion of New Zealand and Australian interests in the area — bold because both were still closely linked with Britain, the war with Japan was not over, and the United States was asserting its interest in the Pacific. The two countries tried to settle that last matter with a grand gesture. Article 16 says: “The two Governments accept as a recognised principle of international practice that the construction use, in time of war, by any Power of naval, military, or air installations, in any territory under the sovereignty or control of another Power does not, in itself, afford any basis for territorial claims or rights of sovereignty or control after the conclusion of hostilities.”

That clause is followed immediately by a section on civil aviation and New Zealand and Australia insisted on their rights to run their own domestic and international air services. Other sections of the Canberra Pact cover dependencies and territories, the welfare and advancement of native peoples of the Pacific, the holding of a confernece relating to the Southwest and South Pacific, the establishment of permanent machinery for collaboration between Australia and New Zealand, and the establishment of a permanent secretariat.

The permanent secretariat was never, of course, established, though cooperation has been as close

between New Zealand and Australia as between virtually any other two countries.

When he informed Parliament of the Canberra Pact the then Prime Minister, Mr Peter Fraser, had some memorable words about the attitudes of New Zealand and Australia: “... In regard to the post-hostilities period, the Governments of both countries feel that it is only right that we should epxress vital interest in possible armistice and armistice terms. When we realise the greatness of the United Nations, the greatness of the Unted Kingdom, of the United States, our great ally, of Russia, our other greatly ally, and of. China, which has endured so much throughout the whole of the negotiations in connection with the agreement, neither New Zealand nor Australia had any enlarged opinion of it own capacity, its status, or its power. “While there is nothing of the humbleness of the Uriah Heep type about either Government or their peoples, we have a sense of responsibility, and there is a ; realisation that without the cooperation and help of our larger allies we and our ideals and efforts will be

stultified ...”

Neither Britain nor the United States was much impressed by the pact. To a large extent it has remained a curiosity, recalled from time to time and the point acknowledged that New Zealand and Australia had formally recognised the importance of each to the other. The existence of the pact has been recalled in both New Zealand and Australia in recent months. The Prime Minister, Mr Lange, referred to it earlier this year. Many of the pact’s provisions have been overtaken by events and the pact did not provide . a framework for the many understandings which followed later. Some of its provisions were the product of the times. Article 35 (e), for instance, says: “There should be cooperation in encouraging missionary work and all other activities directed towards the improvement of the welfare of the native peoples in the islands and territories of the Pacific.” Mr Hayden forgot the name of the pact. Four decades after the pact was signed, New Zealand and Australia ■ would probably prefer to forget that they included that article.