th“vfe“t' thaf whilf
pp. 7-8 · Read in the full issue
Willing or Unwilling, Australia Must Lead in the South Pacific
THE significance of recent events in Australia are of interest to all dwellers in the Pacific Islands. Aus- .raha, whether she likes it or not, as she pows m strength, is being forced to take in increasing share in responsibility for SlaSfc e o C m o munmef 0d goVernment 0f the The pressure comes from three facts vnicn, It not yet officially recognised, are generally accepted. They are: • Australia, and whatever Islands she controls, are the only real barrier between he Smith Pnmfip lanHc tha ne oouiri e-acinc lanas ana the count- CSS millions of Asia, who now are lookng greedily in this direction. • As Britain is increasingly weakened rom within by the Socialist canker, she s shedding her Imperial responsibilities n the Pacific; and, for defence reasons lustralia is obliged to assume these. • Already, there is an understanding 1 mutual assistance and defence between Australia and the United States; and, in hat connection, Australia is expected by America to assume all Possible responibility for the defence of the Southwest nd (in partnership with New Zealand) he South Pacific TTntil ttt-ov. tt j Until Woild War II and, more specially, until most of Asia came under he domination of the Red Muscovites— mstralia officially was reluctant to accept ny developmental responsibilities in the slands. In her view, she had all the olonising work she wanted within her wn vast borders. The events of the last iecade have changed all that. Long beore the surrender of Japan, it was aparent that there was no future for Euro- 'cans in the Pacific, except under Amerian protection. Which reminds us of lanus.
mstrXn tocllisf'Government °were
dominated by its sectional hatreds and complexes; but even its best friends can not explain its extraordinary action over the Manus Base. This is taken from page 396 of a new book by James A Mich ener, just published in America- Guinea man can p. ssib ,y cotepre aJhS “17 ‘ tt ,e ‘ "eaS naval establishments in history. It was a city larger than Sacramento. It had naval stores warth a ha,f billion dollars, i was at Manus i'eyTe and U thJ ra Jn£?« arinK H V* e J n l vasion °J i-eyie, and in the endless roadstead I saw 26 carriers, dozens of battleships and actually hundreds of lesser craft. Vet the great anchor age—absolutely protected by coral reef—looked
empty
“ America requested permission to retain the ba * e ' at her ex P ense - Australia refused, why, "" b a ody kI V OWS - Manus was of only minor im- Australian defend ™?\* a i bso,ute . ,y , vital 1° incredible wealth of Manus. aifd barrel to Chinese wholesalers and carried off to make Hong Kong fortunes, “Now the once great base is a shambles" an echo of the protecting bastion it might have be .!"- 1 have heard men in New Guinea stutter speaking ° ¥ f f the fo »y- There 1 °” ly one sav,n e S ra <*: ‘lf we ever get into trouble again, your blokes’ll be able to use the anchorage—if somebody else doesn’t grab it first.’ ” the appointment of a man skilled in ** international affairs as her new, full-time Minister for Territories and by creating a new post of Special Adviser to the Minister, the Australian Government has indicated its acceptance of new obligations, and a new orientation of Pacific affairs. The changes are of direct and special interest to Papua-New Guinea; but they have a wider applica tion, and affect all Territories eastward.
th“vfe“t' thaf whilf
son for holding the Papua-New Guinea area is related to defence, the best basis for defence is a strongly-established Aus tralian economy in the Islands. Hence, private enterprise must be encouraged in every reasonable way—though not neces sarily to the prejudice of native interests and welfare.
In this way, the new Minister has been set a pretty task—that of reconciling the Ward-Murray Socialist set-up (which frankly placed native welfare first, to the exclusion of all other interests) with this later conception of Australia’s obligations.
He also must keep the fanatics of the Trusteeship Council out of the picture.
In the past, encouraged by the absurdities ol Evatt-Ward idealism, they have been permitted to take too big a part n the formulation of F-NG policies.
Judged by his writings, the new Minis ter himself holds some rather strong views regarding the welfare of primitive, native races; in this regard, he and Professor J.
K. Murray probably will find themselves in agreement on many points. But Mr, Hasluck is looked upon as a man who can keep his head out of the clouds and his feet on the hard, unimaginative earth; and there is not much room for idealism in either the world picture or the Pacific picture to-day.
IF Mr. Hasluck, as Minister, controls the Australian-Pacific scene, he will find Mr. J. R. Halligan, his new Adviser, of very real value to him, and to Aus tralia. Few know the Islands’ background better than the competent, much experienced and incorruptible “Reg.”
However, he will bring to all Pacific prob lems the one-track mind of the Public Service bureaucrat and the trained accountant; and, because Pacific problems demand to-day a large dash of vision and imagination, as well as realism, it would be a calamity if the scetfe were dominated by the former Secretary of External Ter ritories Department. But a balanced
combination of Hasluck and Halligan might open a new, and a comparatively happy era, in the South Pacific.
AT this stage, all developments in rela tion to the future of the British Solomon Islands and the New Heb rides Condominium assume first interest.
Talks on this subject which last year took place at high Ministerial levels in London and Paris apparently have got nowhere.
They were inspired by the restless and imaginative Mr. Spender; and now Mr.
Spender is gone to another sphere. Critics deprecate the suggestion that Australia should have a direct responsibility in the two archipelagoes—Australia, they say, will acquire nothing but headaches in either group, which are economically of little value.
That is perfectly true. But the British economy in both Hebrides and Solomons already is 90 per cent. Australian: and. if Australia holds eastern New Guinea and the Bismarck Archipelago and guards western New Guinea for security reasons, she cannot logically remain indifferent to Solomons and Hebrides. Guadalcanal proved that, in 1942-44. Solomons and Hebrides are closer than New Guinea to the industrial, economic and administra tive heart of Australia.
What applies to New Guinea applies equally to both Solomons and Hebrides —namely, if they are to be our line of de fence, they must be strongly integrated with our economy. That means develop ment by the encouragement of private enterprise. The outlook for any kind of development, in either Territory, under present administrative conditions, is pretty hopeless. Under Australian en couragement, it could improve. It should not be forgotten that Australia is the owner of very large areas of good land in the New Hebrides—the gift of the late Sir James Bums.
New responsibilities for Australia in Solomons and Hebrides could be expen sive and embarrassing—but, sooner or later, those groups must come completely within the Australian orbit.
CONTACT with New Hebrides would bring another problem to Australia —namely, the future of the French Colonies in the South Pacific, especially New Caledonia and the French side of the New Hebrides. If—as so many thinkers insist—there must be eventually a struggle between Europeans and Asiatics for pos session of the South Pacific territories, to what extent can the English-sneaking nations denend unon the French for co operation in defence preparations, and support in the ultimate contest?
Consideration of this question involves a mental survev of conditions in the French Colonial Empire, and of political
developments in the Mother Country. It is true that Britain, like France, is torn and weakened by Socialist activities and conspiracies; and still we do not despair of Britain. But there is a fundamental difference between the two Empires. Even if Britain were paralysed by the Reds, the younger Britains in Canada. Australia, New Zealand and Africa would carry on, as allies of the United States; but there is no self-contained French nation out side of France.
IN Dutch New Guinea, and in French' New Caledonia and Hebrides, the young Australian Minister for Ter ritories has, so to speak, one or two in ternational headaches.
Some of those headaches, presented from another angle, may come to focus in that new body, the South Pacific Commis sion, with its headquarters now in French territory. When the new Secretary- General takes office, shortly, this body will look to Britain for administrative machinery, to Australia for a large slice of its revenue, and to France for accom modation; but where will it look for in spiration?
If the Commission is to live usefully, it must have inspiration and drive from at least one of the six nations that created it. So far, the main inspiration has come from its own Research Council, and the drive from the young Secretary-General who now has departed. That is not enough.
There is a great job to be done by the South Pacific Commission; and 1951-53 will be its testing-years. All the nations concerned are friendly and co-operative; but, unless Australia, as the chief South Pacific nation, is dominant in this thing —and dominant because she is really in terested and enthusiastic —the Commis sion will not survive.
ALL this applies particularly west of the Date-line. Eastward of that, Aus tralia’s responsibilities continue, but they are shared substantially with New Zealand.
To a degree not generally recognised, educational, medical, defence and trans portation services, provided and directed by the smaller Dominion, extend all over Fiji, Western Samoa, Tonga and Cook Islands; and. within a few weeks, a new New Zealand air service will link French Oceania with Suva, Auckland and Sydney.
There are signs of a close and increas ing co-ordination of Australian and New Zealand policies in relation to Pacific affairs. Even as this is written. Prime Minister Holland of New Zealand is in consultation with Prime Minister Menzies in Australia; and both of these British anti-Red Governments to-day seem to be in closer and happier contact with Wash ington than they are with London.