International Disputes

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 288, 1 September 1931, Page 11

International Disputes

Sir, —As a New Zealand-born citizen I would like to comment on the Prime Minister's recent statement on the subject of the pacific settlement of International disputes. When sneaking In the House on July 21, the Prime Minister announced that New Zealand had notified its acceptance of the “General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes.” The following is an extract from the statement referred to: —“An important subject considered by the conference was that of the General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. ... The General Act provides for compulsory a: bitration or judicial decision of all uisnutes whatever, whether concerning legal rights or otherwise, and adherence to this Act involves therefore* the acceptance of compulsory arbitration or judicial decision over the whole field of possible international disputes. The conference decided that the best interests of the British Commonwealth would ,be served by the acceptance of the General Act, and accordingly in common with other Governments of his Majesty, our accession was duly notified on May 21, 1931. By this accession we are bound by the provisions of the General Act. . . . By the terms of our acceptance . . . disputes between members of the British Commonwealth are excluded." (Hansard No. 3, pages 547 and 548.) Any person reading the above statement would ordinarily understand that New Zealand had on May 21. 1931. placed itself under “arbitration law” for the settlement by “pacific means” of any possible dispute that could arise with other nations. The Prime Minister’s statement can bear no other interpretation: but what are the facts? The Prime Minister’s statement I find was seriously deficient, and the full facts disclose that New Zealand has not genuinely and without reservation accepted the “General Act.” The full facts show that, in addition to the reservation mentioned by the Prime Minister (the one concerning disputes between members of the British Commonwealth). New Zealand has stipulated other reservations, and that the effect of these additional reservations is to change the character of our acceptance of the General Act and to turn our signed accession practically into a valueless “scran of paper.” Most thinking people know that there is a big dispute looming up in the Pacific area concerning the better distribution of the enormous and increasing population in that part of the world, and that preparations are now being made at “Singapore” to provide a great naval base, in order that the old, old “instrument of war” may be fully available when this difficult question comes to be discussdd. as it must sooner or later. If the Prime Minister’s statement had been full and complete, then we could have rested assured that “war” is not going to be the method by which this looming dispute is to be settled, but that the question would be placed before the tribunal provided by the General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. But such is not the case, as one of the additional reservations (not mentioned by the Prime Minister) “excludes” the immigration question from the jurisdiction of the General Act. This reservation is as follows: —“The following disputes are excluded from the procedure described in the General Act. including the procedure of conciliation : IV: Disputes concerning questions which by international law are solely within the domestic jurisdiction of A States.” Immigration questions or disputes are included in the above reservation, therefore should a dispute arise on the White Australia question; it will not be subject to settlement by conciliation or arbitration under the General Act. That the crowded millions of Asia and Japan should have a right to some outlet to the sparsely-populated continent , of Australia is a question that should be considered by ah unbiased tribunal, such as is provided by the General Aet for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. and not be, left to settlement by the instrument of war. God did not make Australia for whites alone; its climate proves that, and I am sure there can be no doubt as to how He"'would have us settle the White Australia question. New Zealand and the other members of the British Commonwealth of Nations can, under the General Act. abandon the inconsistent nullifying reservations and thus: honour their solemnly signed contract under Article 2 of,the Treaty for the Renunciation of War, which provided that: “The high contracting parties agree that the settlements or solution of all disputes or conflicts of , whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise between them, shall never be sought except by pacific means." Will New Zealand honour its signature to the above treaty? It is for Parliament io decide as representing the people of this self-governing Dominion. —I am. eta, NEW ZEALANDER. Wellington, August 26,