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 CASEY - A lot of good that would do.


Mr CALWELL -- If the Minister is in such a state of despair about this matter, why did he engage in any negotiations or send any Australian representative to the peace conference? Why not let us face up to the fact that the Japanese will, in any event, become very strong in the Pacific, and let them have now all that they will demand then? It is common knowledge that after this treaty has been ratified Japan intends to raise the matter of our immigration law. Leading Japanese have said that. The Japanese will demand to be treated under our immigration law in the same way as Europeans a.re treated under it. They will demand also the right to come into New Guinea.


Mr Casey - A Labour government gave away Manus Island.


Mr CALWELL - How can the Minister make that statement when the Minister for Air has suggested that eight members of the Government should be afforded facilities to visit Manus Island in order to be better able to appreciate its defence value to Australia? Now, he does not know that the Australian flag is flying over Manus Island ; he says that a Labour government gave it away. He has said that a Labour government sold Australia. If anybody sold Australia it was honorable members opposite who left this country unarmed against Japan after the outbreak of World War II. The Minister and his colleagues left Australia so defenceless at that time that there was scarcely a smear of petrol around Australia when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour. In support of the argument that I have used that the Japanese will want to come into New Guinea, I quote the opinion of Mr. W. Teeling, Conservative member for Brighton in the British House of Commons, who visited Japan with a United Kingdom parliamentary delegation. He said -

The only way to solve Japan's main problem - over-population - is to permit emigration southward. The Japanese should be permitted to go to Dutch New Guinea, China and Siam

Another statement which was published in the, Australian press last year was to the effect that the Japanese believed that they could settle 5,000,000 of their people in New Guinea. The general headquarters staff of the American Army in Tokyo were reported to be encouraging that plan. So, because Japan will be a menace again, because Japan will want many of its people to emigrate to Dutch New Guinea, and because the Minister is already giving them fishing rights off the Australian coast and encouraging them to re-enter the pearling industry, we say that all the schemes that are put forward and all the arguments that are advanced by this Government in support of the treaty are unworthy, and should be rejected.

We also say that the Japanese have treated the occupation authorities with shrewd and oriental cunning. They have been able to make it appear that they have fulfilled all the requirements of the surrender agreement, but in actual fact, they have maintained most of their big industries intact. The Zaibatsu interests have not been broken up, and anybody who says that they have been dispersed does not know the real position. The Americans invited the Japanese Government to draft for the approval of SCAP a plan for the destruction of the Zaibatsu. That plan was submitted, and rejected. The Yasuda Holding Company then submitted a plan on behalf of the larger holding companies which comprised the Zaibatsu, and it was approved by SOAP. It was merely a pretext to show that Japanese big interests had been distributed, as the surrender agreement demanded that they should be. The Japanese Government, in connexion with that pretended break-up of the Zaibatsu interests, proposed a man named Iijuma as chairman, but he was rejected by SCAP because he had already expressed the view that it would be a mistake to dissolve the Zaibatsu. Subsequently, Susayama, who had formerly been employed by the Yasuda Holding Company, was appointed, and he pretended to control those great concerns in the interests not of a few people, but of the great masses of the Japanese people. However, the nature of the control was exposed by Professor Macmahon Ball, who said -

I had personal knowledge, while in Japan, of some " purged " presidents who continued to direct their companies from their homes, where their former subordinates would respectfully gather daily to make their reports and get instructions.

We believe that once Japan is released from Allied control, once the occupation forces have left, and once Japan feels that it is on its feet again, the old gang will be back in control, just as the old Nazi gang is coming back into control in Germany. Fresh evidence is available daily that former Nazi generals are coming back into power in that country and that former Fascists are coming back into power in Italy. Therefore we in Australia should be particularly careful of anything that we approve, even if we cannot affect the ultimate course of events, in relation to Japan.

The Minister and some of his supporters have argued that the Japanese will most assuredly be so westernized, so democratized, so humanized, and some persons have gone so far as to say so Christianized that they will never again do the things that they did in the last, war. The Minister himself has the childlike simplicity to believe that Japan has lost the Pearl Harbour mentality, and will never again attack a nation and declare war afterwards. Most people do not share his view. The Prime Minister, in his own statement in Foreign Affairs, has shown that there is a real and general fear in Australia that the Japanese are neither reformed, nor is the present generation at least capable of sufficient reformation to be trusted in the comity of nations, if I may borrow a term which has been use( by the honorable member for New England (Mr. Drummond). But the Japanese, who are a shrewd and calculating people, have no doubts about their bargaining powers. The Premier, Yoshida, has said that the Japanese recognition of Nationalist China would not bar the way to economic and political relations with Communist China. He stated -

I do not care whether China is red or green. China is a natural market, and it has become necessary for Japan to think about markets.

The authority for that statement is a Sydney newspaper, and that news item was published on the 3rd January of this year. But Yoshida, under pressure from Mr. John Foster Dulles, had another think, and issued the following statement : -

Japan wants to sign a treaty with the Chinese Nationalists as soon as legally possible. Japan has no intention of signing a peace treaty or a trade treaty with Communist China.

Immediately Yoshida made that pronouncement, Japanese businessmen almost unanimously opposed it, Japanese newspapers were uniformly critical of it, and British diplomatic circles were reported to be disappointed with it. The Minister has not admitted it, but the British Foreign Office, for reasons best known to itself, wants a close association with Communist China. -If the common and prospective enemy about which the Prime Minister talks is Russia, then the Minister for External Affairs should tell us whether he proposes to maintain an Australian Embassy in Moscow. He should also tell us whether he lias made representations to the present British Government to withdraw recognition of red China. If he has not made such representations, he should explain to the House the reasons for his omission to do so. It is necessary for this Government to put itself in the clear in regard, to Communist Russia. It cannot maintain its own Embassy in Moscow, and see the British Government maintain Embassies in Russia and red China, and then tell us that it is completely opposed to all Russian machinations, and that this document, which we are asked to ratify, will give us a guarantee almost of immunity from Japanese attacks in future.

As I have already said, there is a risk in this treaty that we .shall have a combined Soviet-Japanese Moe against ns, and also a risk that if the Allies are successful in a war against Russia Japan will turn against us and come southwards. The Minister thinks that it is worth while to run those risks. The Opposition thinks that we should not run them. .Therefore, although we cannot affect the course of events, we certainly are not prepared to give our approval to something which we believe is a repudiation of Australian sentiment, and is not wanted by the Australian people. I am satisfied that when the history of this country covering the present period is written, the Labour party will be the only party in Australian politics that will not have to bear the obloquy and opprobrium that will most certainly attach to all those who support and endorse this unfortunate, ill-fated and indefensible document.







Suggest corrections