( Oceanic) Pact
p. 13 · Read in the full issue
Factors Behind the Pacific ( Oceanic) Pact
IN mid-April, it was announced in Sydney by Mr. Spender (surrendering the portfolios of External Affairs and External Territories, and departing, via London, to become Australian Ambassador in Washington) that in Melbourne on April 18 he would make a statement of historic interest to Australia.
But the statement was never made. The news broke first in Washington on April 18—an announcement by the President that it was the intention of the United States to complete, with Australia and New Zealand, a Pact of mutual defence in the Pacific. It was given big space by all newspapers. Mr. Spender, in a few words merelv confirmed it Washington columnists said that the Pact, at that stage, had not and could not be given shape. But the Australian Government had wanted an official announcement before Election Day (April 28).
President Truman obliged.
United States must have an early Peace Treaty with Japan. Russia opposes it savagely, unless Communist > China is admitted to the Treaty discussions. USA will not have Red China at any price.
Therefore, so as to get a Peace Conference and so as to complete a Treaty without the Reds, USA is bringing in the sovereign States of Australia and New Zealand. They will help USA in discussions with Britain and Holland, the only other nations to actually fight with USA against Japan in 1941-45.
The military help which Australia and NZ can give USA under a Pacific Pact is negligible. Then, why did USA bother about a Pact? In the words of a Washington commentator: “This is the price the USA will pay to obtain the Dominions’ consent to a Peace Treaty.”
Some reports mention Philippines as in the Pact; others omit the Philippines. The explanation is that the British Ambassador argued feverishly in Washington while the Pact was being discussed there with Mr.
Spender (Australia) and Mr. Holland (New Zealand. He said: If Philippines are to be in it, so also should Malaya and Hong Kong . . . Finally, they agreed to call it an “Oceanic Pact,” thus bringing in Philippines and leaving out Britain’s Asiatic mainland colonies, The British Socialists remain critical of the Pact; and it is still called a Pacific . . , , Washington was very glad to see the of the Menzies Government on A P nl 28. If the Australian Socialists had won. they would have fought tooth and V l6 re-arming of Japan, *^f£^ ctlve rrc 0 A tbe f °rfcA all • S f picture, as USA sees it. USA insists that Japan must be allowed to re-arm against the Red Asia mena ce.
The Pact ac^uad y was shaped in Can berra by Mr. Dulles (USA), and the Ex ternal Affairs Ministers of Australia and New Zealand—P.C. Spender and F. W.
Doidge.
Strong sections in Japan continue to demand permission for Japanese to emigrate to South Pacific islands, es pecially New Guinea. This embarrasses USA, because Australia is opposed, at all costs, to Asiatic immigration into New Guinea.
Japan’s population increases by 1 h millions each year. Some British com mentators say there is room for millions of Japs in British North Borneo, it was indicated early in May that Indo- China (French) was discussing with British Commissioner-General Malcolm MacDonald the idea of including Indo- China and Malaya in a Pacific Pact; but there was no comment from USA, Aus tralia and NZ.
The Government of Indonesia said on April 27 that it was not in the least interested in the idea of a Pacific Pact, in international affairs, Indonesia is try ing to follow India; and Mr. Nehru, of India, is trying to steer a middle course between USA and Russia.