Australians Demand Stronger Evidence Of Foreign Policy

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26982, 18 January 1949, Page 5

Australians Demand Stronger Evidence Of Foreign Policy

From C. R. Mentiplay, NZPA Special Correspondent,

Rec. 8.30 p.m. SYDNEY, Jan. 17. Reactions throughout the Commonwealth to the speech made by Dr H. V. Evatt, Australian delegate to the United Nations General Assembly, last week on his return to Australia from Europe reveal some important trends in Australian thought. First, many Australians do not agree with him that the United Nations in its present form can ever be an effective instrument for establishing a stable peace.

Secondly, it is not generally accepted that the British Commonwealth of Nations is stronger than ever before. Some authorities state that to believe so is to invite a rude awakening.

Thirdly, the demand for a concrete foreign policy which is not a closed book to the man in the street is undoubtedly growing and is being widely expressed in forthright terms. Fourthly, reports of fighting in the Asiatic countries on Australia’s northern doorstep, and even more disquieting evidence of the political and national awakening of nearly 1,000,000,000 Asiatics, are causing Australians to ask for stronger evidence of the Australian attitude to the yellow and brown races than are provided by the “ White Australia ” policy.

“All who shared the high hopes raised at the San Francisco conference would like to believe with Dr Evatt that the United Nations is an effective instrument for preserving world peace,” says the Sydney Morning Herald. “ Few can, or dare to do so. “The fact of the organisation’s present importance cannot be glossed over or argued away,” continues the Herald. “In a matter so vitally affecting national' safety it would be'suicidal folly to allow faith and idealism to obscure realities. Australians need to be on their guard against Dr Evatt’s myopic attachment to the United Nations and his extravagant eulogies of its achievements.” The Sydney Telegraph paints a gloomy picture of the strength of the British Commonwealth as follows: “Britain is at loggerheads with the Jews in Palestine, with the Arabs because of the Jews, with America because of the Arabs and Jews, with the Indonesians, with the Indians, Pakistani, Singalese. and Australians because of the Indonesians, with the Communists in Malaya and China, and with the Russians generally./ “At the same time.” the Telegraph adds. “Australia is at loggerheads with Asia over the ‘White Australia’ policy and with Britain, Holland, and others over the Asiatics’ right to kick the white men out of their hemisphere. South Africa has racial troubles. Ireland has told the Empire to ‘go jump in the lake.’ The Indians and Pakistani object to being included in the British Empire, and reserve the right to call themselves republics like Ireland ab any time. The Chileans and Argentinians push us around in the Falklands. The Jews shoot down our planes—even the Egyptians order us out. If that is being stronger than ever before, then all our history books should be burned publicly.” The demand for clarification of Australia’s attitude is echoed by a large section of the press and Opposition and hinted even bv Labour supporters. “ The situation must be dealt with factually and objectively," says the Sydney Sun. “ Nobody wants the same kind of childish noises we received on Dr Evatt’s return this week, when he assured us that the United Nations had already prevented World War 111. All over the world Dr Evatt and men from our External Affairs Department have been grandiloquently telling the world generally how to run itself. This policy makes our country of 7,500,000 people look very ridiculous and quite pretentious.” Referring to Dr Evatt’s speech, the Melbourne Herald says: “He must.be pressed to recognise that foreign policy is not elucidated by repeating that Australia stands for close co-operation with other British countries and for the aims of the United Nations Charter. It is the means to the end that constitute policy, and these means should be explained. 1 ’