Document: Labor Party leader Dr
H.V. Evatt speaks in the House of Representatives debate on ratification
of the ANZUS Treaty, 28 February, 4 March 1952.
Source [link within this page]:
Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates,
House of Representatives, Volume 216, pp. 599, 751-52.
Comments:
Between 1946 and 1949, as Minister for External Affairs
in the Chifley Labor Government, Evatt had worked unsuccessfully to
commit the United States to a defence arrangement with Australia. In
the parliamentary debate on the ANZUS Treaty Evatt conceded the essential
harmony between Spender’s achievement and his own objectives while
in government, declaring that “the conclusion of some such pact
has always been a cardinal object of the policy of the Labour party”.
Yet he also expressed reservations about ANZUS. With Australia’s
acquiescence in a soft peace settlement with Japan, he maintained, “too
heavy a price” had been paid for the alliance. He also insisted
that ANZUS would “link Australia’s foreign policy with that
of the United States of America”, in such a way that the independence
of Australian foreign policy would be threatened. And he saw it as a
deficiency that Britain had been excluded from the alliance; he pledged
that the next Labor government would seek to extend the pact to include
the UK.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(28 February 1952) Although Australia
is destined to be a great country in the Pacific, it will never be great
if it has fears of being great. The Opposition will support the proposed
pact, but we want an assurance that it will not be merely a paper agreement.
To a substantial extent, the Pacific pact will link Australia’s
foreign policy with that of the United States of America. Australia
should have its own foreign policy, which should not be merely an echo
of the policy of another nation. This is of vital importance. We have
had to struggle against the attempt that has been made to exclude Australia
from arrangements under peace treaties. When we finally succeeded in
obtaining a voice in the deliberations of the nations that took part
in the Pacific war, the draft of the peace treaty with Japan was developed
along the line of Japanese disarmament. But, as the honorable member
for Angas (Mr. Downer) has mentioned, that has been torn up, largely
through the initiative of the United States of America. I am not saying
that every policy that America dictates is wrong, but we must be partners
and not merely satellites or agents of another nation. The Pacific pact
will be a step in the direction that we have always favoured, but the
tragedy of it is that it is linked up, because of a separate bill, with
a situation that the security of the South Pacific may well be endangered
by the very thing with which this agreement deals.
(4 March 1952) I propose to discuss several matters that
I think the committee should consider before the bill is finally passed.
First of all, I make it perfectly clear, as I have done before, that
the Opposition supports the agreement. I point out again, though it
is unnecessary for me to do so because of what was said during the second-reading
debate, that the conclusion of some such pact has always been a cardinal
object of the policy of the Labour party. The only criticism that can
be levelled against the agreement from our point of view is that Japanese
rearmament is too heavy a price to pay for such a pact. The Government’s
contention, with which I agree, because the facts are clear, is that
the pact has been made primarily for the purpose of resisting Russian,
or Communist, or Chinese militarism. Nevertheless, as a result of the
rearmament of Japan, a second danger will be brought into the Pacific
because Japan is a proved aggressor …
America’s leadership was fully recognized during
the war. In fact, Mr. Curtin was attacked by many of his opponents because
co-operation with the United States of America was a feature of his
Government’s policy. But while recognizing American leadership,
Australia must express an individual point of view and maintain its
own foreign policy. If that is not to be the position, this pact may
turn out to be disastrous for Australia and New Zealand as well as the
United States of America. It will not so turn out if Australia maintains
an independent policy based on belief in the principles of the United
Nations … This pact carries out the policy at which the Labour
Government aimed, but it does not go far enough. I should have liked
to see a broader agreement, one that was not limited to three nations.
For instance, the United Kingdom should be a party to this pact because
of its great possessions in the Pacific. The next Labour government
will attempt to extend this pact to include the United Kingdom. I am
in agreement with what has been said by my colleagues in another place,
that is that it is the duty of Australia to defend its own territories,
and not to shelter behind another nation no matter how great and powerful
and friendly that nation might be.