role in the

Australia's role in the South Pacific

By R. W. Robson

In a leading article on the question of South Pacific

security, the Sydney Morning

Herald on January 21 Uiafaod the ball into Canberra’s court.

The article said that it was to be hoped that the Australian Prime Minister, Mr. Gorton, when passing through Fiji in late January, would “take the opportunity to make his own assessment of a situation with which Australia must be increasingly concerned”. This was the question of the effects on Australia’s South Pacific lines of communication that would follow from Britain’s East-of-Suez withdrawal in 1971.

It was “disturbing”, said the Herald, that no mention had so far been made of this problem, and the leader continued: “Fiji lies athwart those communica tions and is an important air staging point. Fiji’s security is the direct responsibility of the British Com mander-in-Chief Far East. In less than three years’ time there will be no Far East Command and the only British troops east of Suez will be a token force in Hong Kong.

“Who but Australia can take over the British responsibility? New Zea land’s interest in South Pacific security is as great as Australia’s, but New Zealand is too insignificant militarily to make more than a token contribution to it, as she does in South-East Asia.

“There is, of course, no question of stationing troops in Fiji. From a purely military point of view it is a matter of acknowledging responsibilty and seeing that there are the means to discharge it. But there are other considerations.

“Very soon Britain is going to pull out of Fiji and leave its peoples to paddle their own canoe. If this transition to self-rule is not to be marred by communal strife between Fijians and Indians—a situation which, because of Fiji’s strategic importance, Australia could not tolerate—now is the time for Aus tralia to give Fiji substantial help in correcting the economic disabilities which lie at the root of race anta gonisms there.

“We cannot rely on a withdrawing Britain to secure what is for us a

(Continued on p. 159)

permanent interest.”

That this leading article was written at all, and so plainly, in an influen tial newspaper, is significant.

Ever since the British Empire fell to pieces and the East-of-Suez with drawal was decided upon, articles in PIM have been pointing out that Australia must face up to the realign ments of her vital security and trade interests on her northern and eastern frontiers.

Hitherto, Australia has looked after her New Guinea territories, while the islands eastward have generally been under British administration. Who, or what, will take Britain’s place?

Australia wants no more extra territorial headaches. She has since the war refused to acknowledge her growing obligations towards her north-eastern neighbours, and in the eyes of Canberra, Fiji especially is an embarrassment. If proof is needed, let anybody ask a question of the Prime Minister or Minister for External Affairs, and note the skill with which they slide from under (note the answers to questions asked Mr. Gorton, on p. 31).

But Britain’s East-of-Suez policy means that Australia can no longer evade her responsibilities to Fiji.

Of course, Fiji could be thrown over prematurely to self-government, as was done with Mauritius and British Guiana, where conditions are similar to those in Fiji, and where, once British control was removed, a large immigrant population created political chaos and economic disaster. If that happens in Fiji, Aus tralia will suffer grievously, because over 90 per cent, of Fiji’s economic structure is owned by Australian corporations.

The problem of the future of these South Pacific archipelagoes cannot be longer ignored by Australia. Sooner or later Britain, Australia, New Zea land and Fiji must get together and seek a solution, no matter how tough the task.

If Canberra will pick up the ball that the Herald has kicked to them, and examine it, and arrange for the next move, there may be some real progress made in settling the problems of the South Pacific.