Slap In The Face

American View of the Australian- NZ Regional Agreement

From a resident of the United States, who undertakes a great deal

of 'publicity work — lectures, radio

commentaries, and so forth : THE agreement signed, in January between New Zealand and Australia is a tremendous slap in the face to those of us who have held the attitude of our essential co-operation as para mount.

In the vernacular of the comic strip, “Is my face red!’’ I realise the colour of my face has no interest for the peoples or Governments of Australia and New Zealand. But complete disregard of the place or interests of the people across the Pacific suggests a lack of vision.

Ail our words and efforts to friendship have been badly sabotaged by this British- Commonwealth-of-Nations attitude. Of course, you are British, with loyalty and dignity, but can you be exclusive in this attitude? Have we in our relations proved so unworthy that we may not sit with you—but rather be outsiders, against whom prejudicial action may be taken as regards Pacific bases in the Pacific, inter national airways and so on?

If this were believed, in final analysis, to be the only possible official attitude — which I deny—certainly January 21 was not the time to swagger with bravado and “who gives a damn” down the high ways of the Pacific. I know this will seem absurd; but to carry out, at this time, a reciprocal attitude, the United States would have to withdraw all troops from the combat areas of the Solomons, New Guinea, etc. No such idiocy is contem plated.

I have no slightest interest personally in Pan American Airways. But it seems manifestly unfair that the exploratory work of this business organisation should be accepted without any sense of liability to that company. Your new regional agreement has indicated that, if within the two countries international airways. cannot be set up, they shall be set up within the framework of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

WHAT is happening to Australian thought? Is it possible that the American has been found quite good enough to co-operate with fully in battle, but not satisfactory to live with when that war shall have come to its bloody finale?

No American is unmindful of the recip rocal lend-lease afforded us by the Aus tralian and New Zealand people. Every American must be grateful for the bases, the tropical training bases, the hospitals and the personal hospitality of the peoples of Australia and New Zealand.

The very foundation for your own excellent (I cannot exaggerate my belief in its excellence) plan for future Pacific control, as outlined* in the “Pacific Islands Monthly” of January 17, must be , a Pacific Council of Australian, New Zea land, French and United States compe tent authorities. For this to have been apparently outlawed by an action signed by New Zealand and Australia, within four days of your date of publication, is irony.

To put it rather bluntly (and Austra lians always seemed to me in those days when I enjoyed the sun of Australia to like honest directness) this matter of mutual exclusiveness seems to me the sort of thing which, at least partially, has the responsibility for starting the war.

No people offended more than the

Americans by their isolationism. We were late for our military duties because of this. That has been largely defeated as an attitude in America. There are insular remnants of this attitude, but few of them are official and they are unimport ant.

Now, Australia and New Zealand in a very blunt (and but thinly friendly to other Powers) agreement, seem to be try ing on the glove of isolationism from other Pacific Powers. It is a very un comfortable and embarrassing glove, we may tell you—we, who have worn it restlessly.

Petty-Officer Freeman Jackson, younger son of Mr. and Mrs. Rayne Jackson, of Sabu Sabu, Fiji, was recently married in Auckland to Miss Jessie Doherty.