EMPIRE RELATIONS

Greymouth Evening Star, 20 February 1945, Page 8

EMPIRE RELATIONS

NEW ZEALAND’S TIES'

LONDON, February 17. The leader of the New_ Zealand delegation (Dr. W. P. Morrell), speaking at the British Commonwealth Relations Society conference, said that, though New Zealand was saved from invasion by American and not British power, the people were encouraged in their moment of greatest danger by Britain’s example in 1940. They knew their danger was not due to British neglect or incompetence, but to Britain’s continuing danger. New Zealand’s new closeness to the United States was not accompanied by resentment against Britain or a desire to loosen Commonwealth ties. She looked to closer economic and cultural ties and political and military relations with America, but only as supplementing, not supplanting, ties with Britain and the British Commonwealth. She hoped the Canberra Pact would form a, wider international organisation for security, but did not intend to be argued out of her family relationship with Britain and the Commonwealth. Professor K. H. Bailey, chairman of the Australian delegation, said wartime changes had taught the lesson that the problems of Australian national existence were not capable of domestic solution or solution by action within the British Commonwealth. They could be solved only as the British Commonwealth of Nations contributed to the organisation on a world basis of security and prosperity. The Pacific war had shown Australia that American seapower had been a major factor in preserving Australia’s integrity. Australians were glad their ports had been made bases for British sea power’s re-entry to the Pacific, but they expected that the realities of defence must keep Australia, like Canada, in close, direct military, and therefore political, relationship with the United States. Professor Bailey said the Canberra Pact was a conspicuous instance of direct relations between two Dominions at the highest political level. The pact sprang from a desire of two small Powers to participate in making decisions which vitally affected them. Mr. E. J. Tarr, chairman of the Canadian delegation, said Canada could not maintain a high level of employment after the war without much greater industrial production. T t had become of national interest for Canada to increase imports from Britain to hold and sustain British purchasing power, but this must not be done by restrictive measures which would bear against others of her best customers. The dual problem would be insoluble unless Canada operated within an expanding world- economy.

Viscount Astor, who presided, said he hoped the conference would collect material for the public, without whose instructed opinion statesmen could not tackle the problems facing them all. •Sir Muhammed Zafrullah Khan, chairman of the Indian delegation, said the fear of relegation to a position of inglorious obscurity in postwar arrangements was aggravating India’s sense of dependency,and frustration in the political field. He criticised India’s dependence on Britain and declared it. was ironic that India should have 2,500,000 men fighting for the liberty of the Empire and yet be a supplicant for her own freedom.

Lord Halley, chairman of the United Kingdom delegation, regretted that the Khan had left India with a sense of frustration, and said: “We are only awaiting the day when India herself will provide the consummation of the

policy of full self-governnient laid down in the 1942 declarations.”