CANBERRA PACT

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 126, 23 February 1944, Page 6

CANBERRA PACT

Outspoken Criticism By Australian

“REBUFF” TO U.S.A. (Bv Telegraph—Press Assn. —Copyright.) (Special Australian Correspondent.) (Received February 22, 11.55 p.m.) SYDNEY, February 22. “The Australia-New Zealand pact had its good side in getting the two Anzac countries together, but in every other way it has done harm. Now the resentments have begun and the snubs are arriving. Strong criticism of certain sections ot the agreement signed last month in Canberra is published by the Melbouine “Herald” in an article (by Sir Keith Mui doch. jvho directs particular attention tp the “slights” offered to the United States. “The Canberra conference was the hrot 'meeting of two South-west ac .‘to ni-ninents since America saved life, ho and land,” he writes. . “Some Oiankfu. and comradely resolution, might have been expected. And Britain did not fait Much better. She was not consulted about the pact.” 1, Sir Keith adds that while Messis Fraser and Curtin both spoke warmly or the British tie they anounced an Australasian alliance of far-reaching scope: ana a further segregation of Australia and New Zealand as political influences m the Pacific Ocean, \dnle British tole. ance will not resent this. Sir Keith says that real doubt and puzzlement occui when the pact sets cut Australasian P7 1 . 1 / on wide and vital issues on which Bnain, the United States and Russia have not yet been approached. . And when it is declared that Australia will convene a conference of Bowers with South-west Pacific Interests to form a regional council on which ‘ there migim be accredited representatives of Britain and 1 America,” he adds that “we look for trouble.” -j. . Clauses Criticized. Clauses which have aroused . ‘‘derision, ridicule and even bitter hostility” ill America are listed as Aos. 16, 17 to *-U, 25, 26, 27, SO and’3l. /These clauses are interpreted in Washington as an attempt to placard the South-west Pacific with-notices ‘Hands off, America, ” says the writer. “But can American interest in the 1 South-west Pacific be anything but good? Can the long task of making this country strong and great be carried Through :without American as well as British interest ami support? It. will take at least 100 years. Rather than have , America shoved out of the Southwest 1 Pacific we want her protecting strategical and economic interests within it; and for this she must be encouraged io establish those interests, certainly in th e islands. Would any sensible section of Australians begrudge letting America have. New Britain or the easternmost section of GermanfrPapua? Would.it conceivably be anything but strength for us?” , ; //■ “The present effect of these ‘unnecessary’ clauses in the pact, Sir Keith says is to have jolted our best friends in America, given anti-British and isolationist sections ■ material for embarrassing attacks and brought'ourselves a snub. Canberra, he says, has been informally advised that America will not attend the suggested South-west Pacific conference. Reported American Views. “America has too high a regard for our friendship and; sturdy character to be ungenerous toward us,”' concludes Sir Keith, “but she has no intention,of play,ing second fiddle and has made'her views clearly known. These are: — “First, Australia ' and' New Zealand cannot.decide these questions alone. “Secondly, their initiation should have been left to Great Britain or America. “Thirdly, it is foolish to invite controversies between the Allies.

"Fourthly, the task of defeating Japan is long and most exacting and comes before other questions. “Fifthly, negotiations about bases are for the future. “Sixthly, Russia’s outlook on the Pacific would be affected disadvantageously by decisions from which she must be excluded bee -use she. is at peace with Japan. . “Seventhly, it is unwise, to'focus American attention upon claims that Australia has made.“The unilateral clauses in’the pact have struck a-blow at Allied unity and have done enough harm already. They should be forgotten as soon as can be.”

REPLY BY MR. FRASER

Agreement Not Directed At Any Power

In commenting on the above message, the Prime Minister. Mr. Fraser, said last night that Sir Keith Murdoch’s extraordinary attack on the Australian-Nev. - Zealand agreement was as-unwarranted as it was misleading. The ' Canberra agreement most definitely was. not directed against the interests of any' Allied Power, said Mr. Fraser. The two Governments had confined their discussions to matters of mutual interest and did not attempt to discuss, let alone settle, questions involving the interests of other countries. Any. such considerations were -reserved for the regional conference proposed in article 34 of the agreement. . "The confusion that exists in Sir Keith Murdoch’s mind is apparent from his statement that' Australia will convene a conference of Powers with South-west Pacific interests to form a regional council on which there might be accredited representatives’ of Britain and America,” .said the Prime Minister.. “He is mixing two entirely separate proposals contained in the agreement. The first was r.» the effect that the two Governments should agree to promote the establishment of an advisory body, to be called the South Seas Regional Commission, for the purpose of securing a common policy on social, economic and political development directed toward the-advancement and well-being of the native peoples themselves'. Similar regional commissions had already been suggested by the United Kingdom Government in 1943, and in endorsing this conception of colonial trusteeship Australia and New Zealand had every right and indeed a duty to take the initiative in suggesting such a body should be established in the'geographical region in which the island peoples under their control were situated. "The second proposal was for a conference of powers with interests in the South-west and South Pacific, not for the purpose of forming a regional council, bnt in order to provide for a frank, exchange of views on the problems of security, post-war development and native welfare. The. suggestion that certain clauses of fhe agreement are inter-pretetL-in Washington as an attempt to placard the South-west Pacific with notices of 'Hands Off America’ can best be disposed of by stating that it is neither the desire nor the intention of the United States to-lay hands on the South-west Pacific. This war is 'being fought by all the United Nations against territorial aggression, and a grave disservice is done tql the common cause by suggesting otherwise. Full Collaboration Sought. "Sir Keith’s concluding comments can best be answered by denials in each instance. Australia and New Zealand do not . propose to attempt the solution of Pacific questions alone. On the contrary, they seek, as they state in the agreement, the full collaboration of all ’Pacific . Powers. In view of their' responsibilities as Governments of sovereign. peoples they cannot accept the contention that the initiation of discussion on the various questions covered by the agreement should be left to Great Britain or America for the obvious reason that our own problems are more fully appreciated by us than they are by others. "The third comment can simply be answered by stating that -there is no intention to invite controversies between our allies. On the contrary, the whole purpose of Australia and New Zealand’s proposals is to eliminate sources of controversy in the Pacific. “As to the fourth point, the deeds of 'both countries are a clear indication ‘that -there is no intention of placing other questions in the forefront of,the task of defeating Japan. Finally, there is ' nothing in the agreement which forces -premature discussions on bases or prevents discussion upon them in due course. : . “The whole spirit of fhe accord between the two countries is that of promoting, after full discussion, mutual agreement and co-operation particularly with the United. Kingdom and the .Dnite'd' feta

land have each co-operated most cordially with the United States, and they with each of us, before and since Japan entered the '.war, the forces of each fight side by side with their American allies, and the spirit of mutual trust and acof .today will undoubtedly contijtiie.iifn’X’iha,future.”