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
Thursday, 4 April 1957

Mr ANDERSON (Hume) .- All members on this side of the House were in complete agreement with the very fine statement on foreign affairs made by the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Casey). I. think that each word that he uttered is capable of very close analysis, and any statement that he made cannot be questioned. It should also be possible for the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt), who is the leader of the alternative government, to withstand very close study. I have made a close study of it, and it seems to me that throughout his address there is an unbroken thread of ideological thought. He introduced various arguments about the rival oil cartels. He talked about powerful shipping interests. He spoke, in a way, against the profit motive. The whole of his speech was a direct attack on the capitalist system. He even suggested that Colombo plan moneys should be used against fascist aggression in certain countries. We know that the greatest enemy of the Communist system is not capitalism. If you want to insult a communist, you call him a fascist. Curiously, the Leader of the Opposition seemed to direct his hatred very much against the fascist system. I want to stress this, because of this ideological and doctrinaire view that he has upon foreign affairs; and foreign affairs determine our survival in a very difficult world. lt struck me as unusual that there was a daring allusion in the right honorable member's speech to the possibility of Russia having oil interests in the Far East. I may be biased, but I felt that it was intended to divert attention from the real issue. Russia's interest in oil is dictated, not by the desire for oil but rather by a desire to break down the economies of the Western nations. That is the point Russia wants world domination. If Russia can break the economy of the Western world, she is well on the way to achieve it. 1 think his speech should be examined with a certain amount of care. We know that the enemies of one's friends are one's own enemies. His case requires examination, because it is curious that he should single out Thailand for a strong attack. He has stated that Thailand is a reactionary nation. Thailand is a very strong opponent of Communism. He has accused Thailand of having a military dictatorship. So, also, has Egypt. But in all his utterances on Egypt, and they have been many, he has never called Egypt reactionary.

A very strong case was made out by him and by every speaker from the Labour party for the recognition of red China. Even the honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard) said that we should recognize red China. Let us examine some of red China's aggressions in recent times. In the Korean incident, red China took an aggressive part against another nation. North Viet Nam is now a satellite of red China. But what about Tibet? Tibet is a nation which had no relationship, from the standpoint of ethnology, with China at all. When Tibet was occupied by red China, not once did the right honorable defender of minorities get up in this place or in any other place and attack red China. Why was that? Why, too, has the honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard) defended the actions of his leader? Tibet was occupied -by red China. Red China is a proved aggressor in these modern times. Yet the Labour party still wants to recognize red China. What is the significance of red China? Communism and socialism are creeds which are opposed to spiritual guidance. Once any socialist creed is established in a country, it immediately attacks religion. Hitler attacked the Lutheran church. Mussolini attacked the Vatican.

Red China attacked the centre of Buddhism. That is the reason behind the attack by red China on Tibet. The Leader of the Opposition did not mention Tibet, yet he desires us to recognize red China.

Now I should like to discuss the Middle East, because this is the main seat of conflict in the world. The Leader of the Opposition said -

.   . the whole of the Middle East situation, including the Suez crisis, is the struggle of the world monopolies to control oil supplies, ls that seriously disputed?

That is what he said was the cause of trouble in the Middle East - the present point of world conflict. He went on to say -

That explains the attempt to get control of territories in the Middle East. The struggle of cartels to keep their rivals out of the scene - it has been obvious during the last twelve months since World War II.

That is the basic factor, according to the right honorable gentleman - the war of the oil cartels, lt is a mischievous statement, because it precludes any general conception which is supported by irrefutable historical evidence. The Arab world has never accepted Israel. The right honorable member also completely ignored the military pact made by Colonel Nasser with three Arab nations around Israel. That pact was known to everybody in the world except the right honorable gentleman, who said that the source of conflict was the war between oil cartels. But Nasser created this pact. He arranged an alliance under an Egyptian general so that he and his allies could have unified military control against Israel. Does that tie up with the oil cartel war?

Suppose we analyse the thing more closely. What the right honorable member really meant was that one long-sighted member of the oil cartel must have bribed Nasser to purchase arms, because we know that a vast quantity of Russian arms were supplied to Nasser. According to his argument, that must obviously have been at the instance of an oil cartel. Also, this oil cartel caused Nasser to carry out a constant, misleading and frenzied radio campaign against Israel and the Western democracies. I suggest that that was given as the cause of conflict in the Middle East by the leader of the alternative government. It is just plain nonsense, and it is mischievous. But there are people ia this country who believe it because, after all, the Labour party has some supporters. I have quoted the reasoned statement of the Leader of the Opposition on this question. Of course, that line suits the Brisbane conference of the Australian Labour party. : o; the intervention by Great Britain and France in Egypt, there is more and more justification as time passes. I am entirely in agreement with that action, because there are occasions when the vital interests of a great nation are affected, and it must take action. The action, in that case, anticipated the landing of Russian volunteers. What would have happened if 50,000 Russian volunteers had landed in Egypt when Israeli forces reached the canal? Would we ever have got them out of Egypt? That is a point the Opposition might answer later. It is interesting to note from the Eisenhower doctrine the recognition that there are vital interests in the world, and America realizes it is necessary sometimes to take limited military action in respect of them. Under that doctrine, the United States Congress has agreed that the President of the United States of America may take military action without reference to Congress. Therefore, the United States agrees that, in certain circumstances, it may be necessary for America to do what the United Kingdom and France did as the result of a quick decision. Indeed, the United States is taking such action in the Formosan Straits. Does any one think for one moment that the United Nations would have intervened if Britain and France had not taken the action that they took? I cannot believe that it would have done so. It must be remembered that, in the entire conduct of their operation, Britain and France were from day to day prepared to withdraw if the United Nations acted. But had the Allies withdrawn, the United Nations would not have acted; we should have been presented with a fait accompli, and the Russians would have been astride the world's most important waterway.

The Leader of the Opposition would have us replace our present foreign policy by a policy of complete reliance on the United Nations, as is evident from the manner in which he attacked our participation in the South-East Asia Treaty Organization. What is the United Nations?

If one examines its structure one finds cause for concern. It has 80 member nations, of which eight are subject to military dictatorships headed by persons who, in the jargon of the Communists, are reactionaries. Cuba, the representative of which proposed the resolution attacking the United Kingdom and France, is governed by a military dictatorship. But that is not all. So far as I can ascertain, although 1 find it difficult to assess the position clearly, at least 32 of the member nations do not rank as democracies by our standards. By " our standards " I mean the standards of Government supporters. There are 32 United Nations member countries that do not have what Government supporters regard as a democratic form of government. They are either dictatorships or have a form of one-party government similar to that in Russia and its satellites.

The record of the United Nations must be considered very carefully. Has it a record of action? The only occasion on which it acted was an occasion when the Russian representative was absent from the Security Council. However, I shall deal with that in more detail later. The Leader of the Opposition - I think in an endeavour to give an air of respectability to his speech - quoted from a letter written to Marshal Stalin by Sir Winston Churchill, then plain Mr. Churchill, on 29th April, 1945.

Mr Duthie - It was a good letter, too.

Mr ANDERSON - It was a very fine letter. The Leader of the Opposition spoke very enthusiastically cf the sentiments expressed by Sir Winston Churchill, but he failed to read the next sentence of Sir Winston's letter, which is as follows -

I hope there is no word or phrase in this outpouring of my heart to you which unwittingly gives offence.

The letter in question was an appeal to Marshal Stalin brought about by fears and worries over the occupation of Poland by the Russians. At that time, the news filtering through indicated that Polish patriots were disappearing in large numbers, and Sir Winston Churchill appealed for Stalin's co-operation in the most moving and beautiful language of which he is capable. The letter in question appears in volume VI. of " The Second World War ", by Sir Winston Churchill. Had the Leader of the Opposition turned the page he would have seen the result of the appeal to Stalin, which was reported by Sir Winston in these words -

I now received a most disheartening reply from Stalin to the lengthy appeal I had made to him on April 29.

That was the net result of Sir Winston's impassioned appeal to the dictator of Russia.

Mr Duthie - Is the honorable member trying to water down what the Leader of the Opposition said?

Mr ANDERSON - I am not trying to water it down. I am merely trying to show the kind of people with whom we have to deal in the Communist world. Sir Winston Churchill's letter was written at a very disquieting time when large numbers of Polish patriots were disappearing from Poland. The satanic actions of the Russians had led to the destruction of the Polish liberation army in Warsaw which had held back the brutal Nazis. The Russians destroyed these magnificent patriots in Warsaw by deliberate delay. It was not known at that time that 10,000 Polish officers had been murdered in the Katyn Wood. Responsibility for all these outrages may be laid at the door of this murderous fellow Stalin and his regime. These were only a few of the 15,000,000 people who were killed by the Russians. In view of the conduct of the Russians, and their attitude towards Sir Winston Churchill's appeal, can we rely on anything that they say? Can we rely on anything that the Communists anywhere say? Can they ever stick to the truth? It is interesting to note that a favourite technique of the Communists and their fellows is to attack the very things that they want to introduce. The socialist attacks monopolies because he wants to introduce monopoly. In the same way, Soviet Russia attack colonialism because it seeks world domination. The Communists do everything back to front. Since the Australian Labour party adopted the philosophy of democratic socialism, its adherents attack all those things that they wish to introduce, such as privilege and monopolies.

Let us examine the history of Russia since 1940. Since that year, Russia - allegedly an anti-colonial power - has partly or wholly absorbed eleven nations, including Esthonia, Latvia and Lithuania, with a total area of 264,200 square miles, and a total population of 24,396,000. The colonial satellites brought under Russian domination since 1940 contain a total area of 4,890,947 square miles, and 707,306,000 people, if Communist China is included. If it is excluded, there are ten colonial satellites with a population of more than 100,000,000. The Russians accuse Great Britain of being a colonial power. What has been the history of the Western nations since the turn of the century? Great Britain alone has raised to independent nationhood fifteen nations with a total area of 6,472,407 square miles and a total population of 549,404,000. Those countries are completely self-governing as a result of the efforts of this so-called colonial power. It is interesting to note that every country granted self-government by Great Britain has maintained the free democratic system that we in Australia uphold. France has granted self-government to ten nations which now have completely free democratic rule over a total of 49,467,000 people. The Netherlands and the United States also have given independence to former colonies. The powers that Russia stigmatizes as being colonial have followed a policy of granting self-government to colonies, whereas the Russians have continually enslaved even more people. I trust that honorable members will now understand clearly the Communist technique of always attacking the thing that they want to introduce. It would be well worth while for members of the Australian Labour party to examine Labour's policies and see whether the cap does not fit them.

My time is short, but I should like to make one further point before I resume my seat. I have said on previous occasions that we must expect this constant struggle between the Communist powers and the Western nations to continue for many years. The honorable member for Grayndler (Mr. Daly) made a very fine and impassioned speech in support of the United Nations. I support that organization myself up to a point, but I think that it is a waste of time to place much reliance on it so long as Russia continues to take part in its councils.

Mr Duthie - What is the alternative?

Mr ANDERSON - The Russians should be directed by the United Nations to act in accordance with United Nations resolutions. Russia was instructed by the United Nations to withdraw from Hungary. It should be instructed to act in accordance with that direction, and if it does not withdraw, it should be expelled from the United Nations. Only if that is done do I see hope for a brightening of the future prospects of the world. One has only to consider the frequency with which Russia adopts the veto to understand how impossible the present situation is. Russia has resorted to the veto on 67 occasions in opposition to the policies and will of the rest of the world. France has used the veto four times, the United Kingdom twice, and Nationalist China once. What is the position in Communist countries? It is well for the people of Australia to understand clearly what is happening in Hungary at the present time. Each day in Hungary, a few people who are against the regime are arrested. No socialist state has yet been able to survive if it has allowed an opposition to exist. I have in my hand a report that scores of freedom fighters-


Order! The honorable member's time has expired.

Suggest corrections