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, 30 June 1949


Mr BLAIN (Northern Territory) . - The bill proves to me that the shapers of Australia's foreign policy have mistaken ideas about the prospects of bringing about world order or world government. Before I develop that theme by reading certain extracts from the quarterly review, Foreign Affairs, which is published in the United States of America, I wish to associate myself entirely with the forceful remarks of the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron). They impelled me to rescue from my room before it was posted to my campaign director in the Northern Territory, Mr. Harry Hickey, a page from the Sydney Sunday Herald of the 26th June on which are reproduced photographs of Hungary's Rajk, Bulgaria's Dimitrov, Roumania's Pauker, Hungary's Rakosi, and Yugoslavia's Tito, all of whom are Communists. They represent the forces of barbarism. J regard it as an insult to honorable members that they should be called upon to consider and vote upon a bill of this character. It deals with a crime of which no Anglo-Saxon nation could be guilty. That our Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Evatt) should have condescended to subscribe, on Australia's behalf, to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, is an insult to the Australian people. The convention itself is an insult to all AngloSaxons all over the world. I admire the Minister for External Affairs for trying to solve the problems that beset the world, but, in this instance, he is sailing on the wrong tack. He should have scorned to have anything to do with the convention. None of the crimes that are enumerated in it could ever be committed by the Anglo-Saxon race. I return to my theme that there is something wrong with our foreign policy when it expresses the mistaken idea that we shall be able to bring about world order or world government. In order to strengthen that contention I quote the following words from an article published in Foreign Affairs : -

The trustful acceptance of false solutions for our perplexing problems adds a touch of pathos to the tragedy of our age.

The tragic character of our age is revealed in the world-wide insecurity which is the fate of modern man. Technical achievements, which a previous generation had believed capable of solving every ill to which the human flesh la heir, have created, or at least accentuated, our insecurity. For the growth of technics has given the perennial problems of our common life a more com pi px form and a scope that hu grown to be world-wide.

Our problem is that technics have established a rudimentary world community but have not integrated it organically, morally or politically. They have created a community of mutual dependence, but nut one of mutual trust and respect. Without this higher integration, advancing technics tend to sharpen economic rivalries within a general framework of economic interdependence; they change the ocean harriers of yesterday into the battlegrounds of to-day; and they increase the deadly eflicacy of the instruments of war so that vicious circles of mutual fear may end in atomic conflicts and mutual destruction. To these perplexities an ideological conflict has been added, which divides the world into hostile camps.

If I quote a few more words from the article, we may determine the line of demarcation between the ideology of the barbarian races and the ideology of the Anglo-Saxon race. Those words are as follows: -

The notion that world government is a fairly simple possibility is the final and most absurd form of the " social contact " conception of government which has confused modern political thought since Hobbes. lt must certainly he obvious by this time that the conception of a state of nature in which all men were at war with all, and of a subsequent social contact through which mcn established a power over themselves to avoid mutual annihilation, is pure fiction.

The Minister for External Affairs has played a big part in the United Nations. He has returned to Australia and placed this bill before us with the feeling that he is thereby doing a good job. I do not doubt the sincerity of his ethics, but his wisdom was lacking when he decided that the parliament of an Anglo-Saxon nation should ratify this convention. I direct the attention of honorable members, especially those with tendencies to the left, to the following statement that was published in the Sunday Herald last week-end -

There are few, very few public men like Archbishop Beran left in the satellite States of Eastern Europe. The Communist-dominated Government of Czechoslovakia has made it clear that if the Roman Catholic Church does not submit nf its own accord, the Government will try every means to make it disappear in that country . . . There are few, very few public men like Archbishop Beran left in the satellite States of Eastern .Europe. Soon there may not be Archbishop Beran. Events in Prague during the week have shown one thing. President Clement Gottwald and his Government have lost patience.

I endorse the sensible utterances of the honorable member for Barker. Thank goodness there is a man in the House with both his feet on the ground. I cannot agree with what the honorable member for Henty (Air. Gullett) said about our not having the right to punish the people who committed criminal offences against humanity during the war, not only the Germans but also our barbaric little eastern friends, the Japanese, of whom I dare not say much, because I do not trust myself to use moderate terms in describing them. I content myself with saying that we cannot grant them the dignity of being called a nation. The honorable member seems to think that it is not right to punish the senior men in the defeated enemy nations for their war crimes.


Dr Evatt - He wants to punish the little men and let the big men go free.


Mr BLAIN - Yes. The high positions occupied by the senior men in the enemy nations gave them the opportunity to express themselves in favour of barbarism or humanity, and they chose barbarism. They have been punished not in a spirit of viciousness but as an act of justice.







Suggest corrections