Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Wednesday, 27 February 1952


Mr WENTWORTH (Mackellar) . - There are three curious features of the arguments that have been advanced by the opponents of this bill. The first is the curious nature of the assumptions that they have made. The second is the curious nature of the mis-statements of fact that they have made, and their omission of significant facts. The third curious feature is the peculiar pro-Soviet pattern into which their arguments have fallen. Speaking of the third proposition first : I do not believe that all honorable members who have spoken against this bill really know that they are acting in the interests of Soviet Russia. I know that they have been misled in some respects, and I intend to say something about the leader and the led. In doing so, I hope to make clear some of their curious omissions and so-called facts.

A curious assumption that they have made is that there is any long-term interest for a nation which does not survive. The honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Freeth) said that we would in no circumstances countenance extermination. However, that does not prove that extermination will not be practised against us. More than 2,000 years ago in Carthage, to which he referred, there might have been long-term counsellors who said, " Look at the long-term trade position. Look at the past glories of our arms. Look at this and that ". But that was all nonsense in the face of the murmur from across .the Mediterranean - delendaest Carthago - Carthage must be destroyed. We must remember that genocide, as such, is a settled feature of Soviet policy. So far that policy has been mitigated by the fact that the Soviet in its progress to what it believes to be world domination has needed the heavy labour of the countries that it has overrun, and did not want its policy to be too clearly known in the countries which it hoped to overrun. But any one who has studied closely the Marxist texts and who knows the truth of Stalinist policy will realize quite clearly that if by any chance the Soviet should ever achieve world domination, whether by peaceful penetration or after a war the result will be the same. We shall be on the receiving end of the application of a genocide policy, a sobering thought which may not have occurred to the less responsible honorable members of this House.


Mr Curtin - We shall still have the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth).


Mr WENTWORTH - I imagine that under such a genocide policy, I would not survive for long and even anybody who lias Communist inclinations should not fancy that he would survive either. One of the dominant features of this policy is that among the first people to be liquidated are the professed friends of' the Soviet. We and the rest of the free world face this threat of total extermination. No long-term policy makes sense for those who do not survive and our first concern is with survival. Those who have advanced a view based on another assumption are suffering from the failure of having learned too little, and, as a poet has written, too little learning is sometimes dangerous. The situation that we now face is one which no white race has had to face in the last 2,000 years and anybody who tries to read it in the terms of subsequent history will misread it. Our first business is to survive, so let us sweep aside this naive nonsense that the Soviet threat is only transitory and that there are longterm plans beyond it. Unless we overcome the Soviet threat, no long-term considerations will lie before us either os a nation or as individuals, or for our children.


Mr Ward - What a grim prospect.


Mr WENTWORTH - As the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) rightly has said, it is a grim prospect. There is no safety. We can tread only the path of least danger. Every path has dangers and if we waste our time in trying to find an illusory path which will offer complete safety we shall be destroyed. In a contest, an enemy is likely to try to develop a feint and to pretend that that feint is the main blow. That is what is happening now. A feint which contains a threat is being developed to conceal the main blow and those who exaggerate that feint and its significance, whether they know it or not, are, in point of fact, playing the enemy's game.

Having said that about assumptions that must underlie any argument against the treaty I shall go nearer to the actual facts which lie before the House. Everybody will remember that, on the 5th August, 1945, the first atomic bomb was dropped on Japan. Four days later, on the 9th August, Russia declared war on Japan and five days after that, on the 14th August, Japan surrendered. Russia's activities in the war against Japan were merely token activities. From that point Russia manoeuvred very cleverly in order to get a part in the administration of Japan. In December, 1945, at the Moscow Conference it achieved its aim. Russia was able to arrange for the constitution of the Far Eastern Commission on which it had the power of veto and it was also permitted to play a part in the Allied government of Japan. Although the published documents are conveniently vague, there can be no doubt that the right honorable member for Barton (Dr. Evatt) played a considerable part behind the scenes in the furtherance of Russia's designs and the pay-off was a little sop to his personal vanity. When the Allied government was set up in Japan, to our shame be it said that not once, but on numerous occasions, the Australian representative, who was no doubt carrying out the instructions of his department, sided with Soviet Russia against the United States and sometimes against Great Britain. But the position was that, just as the United Nations organization is unworkable because criminal Russia sits on the judge's bench, so the Far Eastern Commission and the Allied government in Japan itself were unworkable because inside their fabric was the nation which was trying to destroy their purpose.

What was the Soviet plan? Let ms diverge here to remind honorable members of what the Soviet plan had been at an earlier time against Germany because I believe that the plan that was thought out in regard to Japan followed the pattern in Germany after World War I. In stating that the rearming of Germany was due to American financiers, honorable members opposite are repeating the false theories that have been put into their minds by Marxist propaganda. The rearming of Germany was carried out with the assistance and under the direction of Soviet Russia. During that time the German Communist party was declaiming most loudly against the Treaty of Versailles. There are many things, to prove that. I quote an extract from the manifesto of the Central Committee of the Communist party in Germany which was published in October, 1932-

The chains of Versailles weigh more and more heavily on the limbs of the German working-class masses, and increase the exploitation and robbery of the masses. A socialist Germany will tear up the shameful Treaty of Versailles. Only a socialist Germany in alliance with the freed millions of the Soviet Union would be in a position to ward off successfully any and every attack on the part of Trance, Poland and other imperialists Workers in town and country, you must therefore strengthen our revolutionary army of freedom in its struggle against the Versailles Treaty. Only the coming socialist Germany will give the oppressed German population in Austria, Alsace-Lorraine, South Tyrol, &c, the possibility of attaching itself to Germany.

The Communist party was the prelude to Hitler in Germany. Honorable members should not accept any statement to the contrary. The development of the Russian policy there was simply this: The Allies had a legal framework of control over German armaments. Russia's idea was to pose as the salvation of the resurgent Germany and to get the German masses on its side. It very nearly succeeded in doing so when it consented to the shameful pact of 1939 with Hitler. Only the fact that Hitler turned on his ally before he was strong enough saved the world from going down. Whether it would have fallen to Germany or to Russia is a question which history will never be called upon now to decide. The Russian-German policy was to support a system of control which could not be maintained and to use the German Communist party to protest against it.

In Japan, Russia plans to repeat that performance. It wants to get Japan for an ally by using people such as some of the honorable members who have spoken in this House to exacerbate Japanese feeling and to provide talking points so that the Japanese people will say, " These people are your permanent enemies. You must side with us ". The Russians are using the position, as they did in Germany, in an endeavour to drive a wedge between the Allies. The Communists are always clever at using for their purposes the instruments that come to their hands. They are trying to drive a wedge between the United States of America and the British Empire, and sometimes those who are most pro-British and most loyal fall for the Soviet line. The world cannot survive against Soviet Russia if a wedge is driven between the British Empire and the United States of America.

Russia's other objective is to get into Japan. I have pointed out how, largely as a result of the policy that was sponsored by the Leader of the Opposition when he was Australia's Minister for External Affairs, the Russians gained a foothold in Japan with the power of veto. They want to keep that foothold for the purpose of confounding the peace. In those circumstances, we need above everything else a treaty that will keep Russia out of Japan, will permit us to station our troops in Japan and will enable us to use Japan on our side with the assurance that our troops that are stationed there will prevent its defection and at the same time will give to us the greatest psychological help in getting Japanese opinion on our side rather than on the side of Russia. This treaty does exactly those three things.

Listening to this debate, I have been amazed to note that honorable members have talked very largely of the treaty without referring to the two ancillary documents which go with it. In the first place there is the Pacific pact, which will be debated later in this House, and to which I need not refer now. However, in addition to the Pacific pact there is the security arrangement between the United States of America and Japan which, in Article .1, grants to the United States of America the right to station troops in Japan. Article 2 forbids anybody else that right and under Article 4 it cannot he abrogated without the consent of the United States of America. So everything that the honorable member for Angas (Mr. Downer) has asked for is given as a result of the arrangements which are ancillary to this treaty. Apparently he was ignorant of the facts. It is interesting to read the opinions of Mr. A. A. Gromyko, a prominent Russian, who has said of this treaty -

Its real meaning is that agreements are already being forced upon Japan under which she undertakes in advance to give her territory for the establishment of American army, naval and air bases in accordance with the aggressive plans of the United States of America in the Far East.

Leaving out the adjectives that every Soviet propagandist uses to excess, that means, in point of fact, that what they objected to was that this treaty would afford us a lever over Japan. The treaty must be read in full to be understood properly and I direct particular attention to Articles 5 and 22, neither of which lias so far been the object of much comment in the House. Under Article 5, Japan agrees to settle its international disputes in accordance with the treaty, to refrain from any action' which might be a threat to the United Nations, and to give to the United Nations every assistance in any action it may take, in accordance with the Charter, against other nations that may be at variance with the United Nations. Under Article 22 - and this is an important matter - Japan gives, in advance, its concurrence to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice over every matter in dispute that arises out of the treaty. Here we have a position in which Japan, in advance, consents to use its troops for the purposes of the United Nations, and to avoid any action against the United Nations. It gives to us every treaty security for that contract and allows the stationing of American troops in Japan to guarantee the performance of the contract. Could the honorable member for Angas on his own thesis ask for anything further?

The one thing that is not provided for in the treaty is the entrance of Russia into the system of control, and it is because the entrance of Russia into the system of control is not provided for that all this fuss and bother is being raised by the Communist party and echoed by a number of people who are not Communists and who should know better. What alternatives have we? Remember, this Japanese position, as the honorable member for New England (Mr. Drummond) has pointed out, is only a part of a much vaster world position. One of the most important feature of this Japanese settlement is the analogy of France. Without this settlement we should not get France " on side ". If we do not have France with us, then the world will be lost anyway. Honorable members opposite may not realize the depth of feeling that exists against Germany in France as a result of past wars. Yet France has just voted for the rearmament of Western Germany, knowing that only by that means and the use of Western Germany to keep the Communists out, can Europe itself survive.

We should consider not only the short term, but also the long term objectives. Let me remind honorable members that in Indo-China France is waging a war against the Communists that is comparable in magnitude with the Korean operations. Let me also remind them that, as a result of arrangements that were made by the Leader of the Opposition when he was Minister for External Affairs in the Chifley Government, when the American defence screen was thrown back from Manus Isalnd, the IndoChinese threat is now outside that screen and there is nothing between us and it. Fulfilment of the American defence plans in relation to Manus Island would have held us safe against the threat from IndoChina, but to-day we lie naked and open to it, apart from the interposition of French forces. This treaty is an integral part of defence arrangements that include France. So our choice is clear enough. Let me remind the House that we are not really debating this proposed ratification as an issue, because the treaty will be ratified by the United States of America whether this House votes in favour of it or not. The only question at stake on the vote of this House is whether or not Australia is to come in under the umbrella. Australia can exclude itself from the protection of that umbrella by means of the vote of this House.

It is a part of our democratic right to say that we do not want the protection of American help, but it would be a folly that I should hesitate to describe as democratic, to discard that help. The Leader of the Opposition advanced a legalistic argument on why we should stand pat on our rights under the existing decisions of the Far Eastern Commission. That was a very peculiar argument to come, from him, because I have in my hand a document that he published in August, 1947, on this particular subject. At the foot of page 135 of that document is a footnote in relation to the adoption by the Far Eastern Commission of a paper on the basic postsurrender policy for Japan which states that at the time of adoption of that paper Australia made the following reservation : -

The policies laid down in this paper are subject to and without prejudice to discussions which will take place during the negotiations of the Peace Treaty with Japan and the provisions of the Peace Treaty with Japan.

The Leader of the Opposition, who made that reservation himself and published it, said then that the decision of the Ear Eastern Commission was not a binding agreement. Yet he has the impertinence to base his whole argument against the ratification of the treaty on the assumption that it was a binding agreement. I forgive honorable members who were misled by him, but I find it difficult to forgive him. Other honorable members who erred may not have known all the facts, but is it conceivable that the Leader of the Opposition did not know them? After all, what would be the result of an acceptance of the argument advanced by the Leader of the Opposition? It would be that the Russian power of veto would be maintained over the making of any conceivable treaty with Japan. That is exactly what Russia wants. Once again we find this curious and, as it were, fortuitous coincidence of the deceptions and obscure workings of the Leader of the Opposition's mind, with the real interests of Soviet Russia. If this had been one single instance of that, we might have taken it to be only a coincidence. But it is not one single instance. It is a part of a chain, the links of which are too numerous for me to deal with in the time at my disposal, but which are perfectly plain to the consciences of honorable members opposite. The same man who betrayed us over Manus Island, who opened us to the Communist threat from Indo-China and deprived us of American aid, who is trying to bring about a state of affairs in which even French protection in Indo-China will be withdrawn, who conspires for the recognition of Soviet China, we now find advancing the same thesis that Mr. Gromyko advanced. And here is the peculiar thing, that not only does he advance the same thesis, but he also even twists the facts so as to make them accord with Mr. Gromyko's argument in relation to the Potsdam Agreement. He said last Thursday night, in commenting on the Potsdam Agreement -

The terms of surrender of Japan were set out in the proclamation of 26th July, 1945. . . What did the terms prescribe? The three major Allies, United States of America, Great Britain, and Russia, addressed them to Japan in the form of an ultimatum.

That is a falsification of the facts. That ultimatum was addressed to Japan by the United States of America, Great Britain and Nationalist China, and not by Russia. That falsification by means of the inclusion of Russia, which only subsequently adhered to the agreement and later adopted the ultimatum, is in line with the falsifications of Gromyko's own speech. Why do these things happen? One would think that the Leader of the Opposition was sufficiently versed in these facts to know what actually happened. Yet we find him twisting not merely his conclusions, but also the facts that he must, or should, know, in order that they may accord with the arguments that the Russians adduced and in order to lead to the conclusion that the Russians want him to reach. It is all very well for the Leader of the Opposition to come here and coo very gently in regard to this treaty, because he knows that more strident voices will be raised elsewhere. At this stage he may be giving only the bass accompaniment, while the theme is played for him by such creatures as his brother, the Honorable Olive Evatt, that paranoiac pro-Russian who happens to be Chief Secretary of New South Wales and carries the torch for Stalin in the McGirr Labour Government. This is team-work of quite a high order insofar as skill is concerned, but of quite a low order-







Suggest corrections