SnSed* States''of'“oreat VTtMn *or

Anzac Agreement Under Fire

A R . EMA ? K A? LE 1 and , Pi<iu ant Slt ua- A tion has developed following the recent Anzac Agreement. Dr. H V.

Evatt Australian Minister for External Affairs has been defending himself querulously against attacks made upon him by various critics of external affairs, most prominent of whom is Sir Keith Murdoch.

Back in October, Dr. Evatt made a statement concerning the present and future political set-up in the South Pacific. It was a wide-visioned and statesman-like survey of a rather complex situation. There are so many different, criss-crossing interests involved in any survey of South Pacific Territories control (there are 14 separate administrations, controhed in different ways from London, Washington, Paris, Canberra, Weilington and Suva) that practically every “public man” who has tried to discuss them in recent years has made an ass of himself. Dr. Evatt did net. His outline of the situation, and his discussion of it, were clear and authnritativp auinomauve.

The arrangement of the conference between Australia and New Zealand was the next logical step in what Dr.

Evatt was seeking to accomplish. The conference took place in January. A summary of the Agreement was published in February “PIM.” It fitted in neatly and logically with the various statements made by Dr.

Evatt.

But the Agreement was no sooner signed and published than criticism began to be heard, not in Australia or New Zealand—where public opinion

concerning Pacific affairs is too dull and uninformed to be worth noting. anyway —but in Washington and London. , , It appeared that the somewhat elaborate Anzac plan for dealing with South Pacific affairs had been drawn up by Australia and New Zealand

SnSed* States''of'“oreat VTtMn *or

l d hp S {£ to ph ( National Committee French National

*m wSt if not

of S the Anzac those ° f 0 outsnoken comment in Th P Americans the United. States. The Terri- ° f t £p o horrible enemy w^EuroDSn^evS have known were Z the wav in t ,^ al A 1 ic ! fvau^ tf^nH ot isrPw Zealand

reference to

dispose of S p*pVß° American Australians and New Zealanders, had treea ana freeing There was some similar comment f n London London, of d « ourse deeply interested—so many f arP British 01 tne ferntones are T£UT little was said in Australia until O that exceedingly able journalist, sir Keith Murdoch, head of the Melbourne Herald group, published an article in which he’ criticised the action of the two Dominions in holding the conference without prior consultation with Britain and the United States, and pointed out that the terms of the Agreement “had been

widely criticised and censured in America.”

Sir Keith, quite correctly, said the worst features of the Agreement were its assumption that all existing sovereignties are immutable except those of enemy possession; and, with regard to the Carolines and Mar shalls, its demand that no change should be made without Australian and New Zealand consent.

Sir Keith proceeded to suggest that, so far from existing boundaries being maintained, the island of New Britain (whereon is the good port of Rabaul) and the French island of New Caledonia might pass into the possession of the United States, as part of a plan which would make available to the United States all possible facilities for the future polic ing of the Pacific. Sir Keith can see —as any man of vision can see—that there is no future in the South Pacific for the white communities, including Australia and New Zealand, unless they have the protection of the United States and/or whatever inter national body is set up by the United Nations after World War II to guar antee world peace.

According to newspaper reports, Dr. Evatt replied angrily that “no Australian Government would enter tain for one moment the suggestion that Australia should hand over the Australian territory of New Britain to the United States”; and he said that Australia had guaranteed, in 1940, the sovereignty of France in New Cale donia.

DR. EVATT evidently was caught unprepared. The stupidity of his statement is not worthy of him. New

Britain is not an “Australian terri tory”—it is part of the Mandated Territory of New Guinea. Australia probably will be given administrative authority over the islands covered by that Mandate; but, for that, they must await the end of the war and certain international conferences— and no one knows that better than Dr. Evatt himself.

The Australian promise about New Caledonia was given in 1940, long before the whole Pacific situation was altered by the American-Japanese war.

Surely Dr. Evatt, and his co- Ministers, can see that the future of all these South Pacific Territories will be decided, not by little Australia and even littler New Zealand, but by Washington and London, in con sultation; and that the wishes of the United States most certainly will be the final, determining factor. The American system is based on the same kind of justice that rules in Australia and New Zealand; and so the South Pacific decisions will be made by Washington and London, finally, after consulting the wishes of Aus tralia and New Zealand. It is palp ably ridiculous that Australia and New Zealand should proceed to arrange the future set-up in the South Pacific, without consultation of United States or Great Britain. Can these small-time politicians of Can berra and Wellington not realise that the total population of Australia and New Zealand, together, is barely equal to the population of London or of New York?

IT is an astonishing thing that a man with Dr. Evatt’s reputation for adroitness should have placed himself in such a position. It was assumed by everyone interested that, when he convened his Anzac Confer ence and proceeded to formulate the Anzac Agreement, all the proposed steps had been personally explained by Dr. Evatt, in 1943, in London and

Washington. As he apparently acted without consultation, and presumably for the glory of Evatt, he has placed himself off-side in regard to South Pacific post-war consultations, and has made Australia and New Zealand look ridiculous.

The incident gives point to the oft repeated argument that, from the administrative viewpoint, it is a wrong thing that the Pacific Territories should be tied to the tails of little people in Canberra and Wellington.

The politicians of Australia and New Zealand, especially the political products of the trade unions, have a most exaggerated idea of their own stature, and love to strut as “states men of the young nations.” The only time they ever got themselves into correct focus was in those black months of early 1942. The unfor tunate thing is that nowadays, while Washington and London remember us still in terms of 1942, Canberra and Wellington like to imagine them selves as the equals of London and Washington, and even think they are competent to go ahead by themselves —as per the Anzac Agreement.

Captain R. O. Freeman, of the First Battalion, Fiji Defence Forces, has been gazetted temporary Major.

Second-Lieut. M. T. Khan (Honorary Captain) has resigned his commission in the Fiji Military Forces.

Sgt. Observer Ross Buckley, formerly of Fiji, who was reported missing on air operations some months ago, has now been “presumed dead” by the RNZAF Headquarters. The body of a fellow crew member was found washed up on the coast of Denmark.

Lieutenant Tony Phelps, son of Mr. and Mrs. A. I. Phelps, of Suva, Fiji, has been reported killed in action while serving with the First Fijian Battalion. He was only 23 years old and his cheerful good nature had endeared him to many. News of his death was received with sincere regret by a large circle of friends.