[Editor: This article, regarding John Curtin at a press conference in London (including his comments on the White Australia Policy), was published in The Daily Advertiser (Wagga Wagga, NSW), 6 May 1944.]
Prime Ministers in London
Allied plans for post-war settlement discussed
Empire Secretariat
Mr. Curtin faces barrage of questions
London, Friday (A.A.P.). — “The Dominion Prime Ministers in London are now examining Allied plans for the rehabilitation of Europe after the invasion of the Continent, which means that all plans for the great assault have been fully reviewed,” says the diplomatic correspondent of the “Daily Mail.” “One point believed to have been made absolutely clear in this second world war is that there will be no repetition of the great mistakes made in the first. Allied troops this time will march into Berlin and occupy the German capital.”
“The Prime Ministers will consider the question of freeing the occupied countries and eventually restoring to them free and independent government in the light of the discussions already held between Britain, USA and Russia,” continues the correspondent. “The Foreign Secretary (Mr. Anthony Eden) yesterday told the Premiers that a European Advisory Council had almost completed its first draft to date, recommending methods for dealing with Germany after she is defeated, a plan of military occupation of German territory, and means whereby Germany will be prevented from starting another war.”
“The Times” diplomatic correspondent says: “The European Advisory Committee’s armistice terms have been submitted to the Dominion Prime Ministers, partly based on arrangements made with the western and northern governments established in London for the restoration of a proper civilian administration of occupied territories. The effort to bring unity within Greece and Yugoslavia is being maintained. A Government official problem in this respect remains in the Polish-Russian rift. The Dominions previously were fully informed and consulted on all these tasks and it is hoped that one of the results of the present discussions will be general approval and agreement on the actions the United Kingdom may take in its dealings with foreign countries.”
The correspondent directed attention to Mr. Curtin’s observations at the Press conference to-day that in the new order countries with the greatest power had the resources but bore the greatest responsibilities; also Mr. Eden’s statement in the House of Commons recently that the maintenance of peace depended on a close and intimate understanding between the nations of the British Commonwealth, the United Nations and Russia.
BUSHMAN’S ANSWER
“Recognising this solid basis of power” states “The Times” diplomatic correspondent, “those participating in the conference will exchange views on how the wider organisation envisaged by the Moscow Declaration can be built up to maintain and develop the wartime partnerships with the powers now pulling firm to the limit of their potential strength, like China, and with powers which have been overthrown and are only now recovering their strength, like France.”
Asked at a Press conference yesterday at the Ministry for Information, whether Australia expected having a say in dealing with Japan after the war, the Australian Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) leaned forward to say in a very deliberate voice, “Australian bushmen would say ‘my oath.’”
One of the largest attendances of the war was at the conference and Mr. Curtin, who was received with applause, was subjected to a wide range of questions, most of which were directed at his plans for an Empire Secretariat. Mr. Curtin answered frankly and fully, at times invoking considerable laughter with amusing replies.
The Minister for Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken), who presided, received considerable applause when, immediately after his entry, he noticed a BBC microphone and said, “Who put this terrible looking instrument there. Whoever it was, please take it away. Mr. Curtin intends speaking with complete frankness and we will not have any record made of his remarks.”
REGIONAL SECURITY
At the conclusion of the conference Mr. Bracken called on the gathering to rise and cheer Mr. Curtin.
The first questions put to Mr. Curtin related to his plans for a permanent Empire Secretariat. “The British Commonwealth of Nations itself is the most effective structure of regional security the world has known,” he explained. “But in order to have continuity of study within the Empire there ought to be an organised Secretariat for the collection of information, such as each Government maintains within its own territorial jurisdiction.”
Mr. Curtin answered the objection that too much power might be concentrated in the Secretariat by pointing out that the officials, who could be seconded from High Commissioners’ staffs, would have no more control over policy than the heads of departments under the ordinary governmental system. “I am not speaking of a super-state, but better machinery,” he added. “Consultation between the Empire Governments is infinitely better during the war than before the war. I am hoping that after the war it will be just as much better again.”
To Canadian pressmen who inquired his attitude if the Prime Ministers were not unanimous in accepting the system of continuous consultations Mr. Curtin retorted, “I am prepared to go on what we can get. If I cannot have four brethren then three is better than none.”
Questioned concerning regional security arrangements Mr. Curtin said: “Australia has no grandiose ideas about her own importance. We realise that the biggest post-war planning lies with the nations with the biggest resources — Britain, USA, China and Russia; but the Pacific is a vast area strategically and certain parts of it should not be left as potential areas from which aggressors might strike. However, the allocation of strategic spheres of responsibility may well be left to the peace conference.”
PACIFIC BASES
Questioned on his attitude to the American acquisition of Pacific bases, Mr. Curtin said: “Why say American; why not British or Australian? Temporary use of particular bases does not necessarily imply the transfer of sovereignty and international goodwill.”
“All are welcome,” said Mr. Curtin, when questioned on migration. He added that the Australian policy envisaged a rapid addition to her numbers. “We will welcome migrants who are prepared to work and who believe that the advancement of social standards should come from their own endeavors, but there are no nuggets of gold to be picked up in the streets of Melbourne.” Mr. Curtin added that in the future migrants should disembark in Australia owing the country nothing. Their fare should be entirely paid for by the Government, thus enabling them to make a complete new start.
Asked his views on “the increasing tendency to regard the use of the word empire as a crime,” Mr. Curtin said: “I do not care what you call it. I am not ashamed to say I support the British Empire. Call it the Commonwealth of Nations if you like. It means the same thing.”
WHITE AUSTRALIA
When Indian pressmen asked for his views on Asiatic migration Mr. Curtin emphatically declared that the words “White Australia” did not appear on any Commonwealth Statute. The immigration restrictions were solely designed to guard against cheap slave labor. “What do you think of Gandhi?” asked the pressmen. “When I think of some people I have seen in Australia’s Parliament, I regard him as a very handsome man,” said Mr. Curtin, who added, more seriously, “I have no opinions to offer about my contemporaries.”
When asked whether he thought Eire, which had not participated in the war, should join with the other Dominions in planning the peace, Mr. Curtin retorted: “Among the warriors there is a mutual respect for one another; but I think you had better give me notice on that question.” Mr. Curtin similarly refused to be drawn into a discussion on India’s status. He answered a question as to whether Australia would support a League of Nations with an emphatic “Yes.”
Questioned about the desirability of extending Empire preference Mr. Curtin said: “A fellow who gets preference thinks it a good idea. After all, it is merely a reciprocal tariff policy, and there is no reason why bi-lateral trade agreements between Canada and Australia should not be unilateral.” Mr. Curtin added that he saw no reasons for misgivings about post-war Anglo-Australian trade relations, notwithstanding the expansion of Australian secondary industries. “We know what Britain’s problems will be and we are anxious to assist,” he said.
Source:
The Daily Advertiser (Wagga Wagga, NSW), 6 May 1944, p. 1 (Second Edition)
Editor’s notes:
A.A.P. = (abbreviation) Australian Associated Press (an Australian news agency)
See: “Australian Associated Press”, Wikipedia
BBC = the British Broadcasting Corporation, established in October 1922; known as the British Broadcasting Company, until it changed its name in January 1927; also known as “The Beeb”, “Auntie”, and “Auntie Beeb” (slang terms)
See: “BBC”, Wikipedia
Brendan Bracken = Brendan Rendall Bracken (1901-1958), 1st Viscount Bracken, a magazine publisher, newspaper editor, and politician; he was a member of the British parliament (1929-1945), and served as Minister of Information (1941-1945); he was born in Templemore (County Tipperary, Ireland) in 1901 and died in London (England) in 1958
See: “Brendan Bracken”, Wikipedia
Commonwealth = of or relating to the Commonwealth of Australia
Dominion = (in the context of the British Empire) one of the British Dominions (Australia, Canada, the Irish Free State, Newfoundland, New Zealand, South Africa), being those countries of the British Empire which were self-governed
Eire = (also spelt: Éire) Ireland (being the Irish Gaelic name for Ireland)
See: “Éire”, Wikipedia
Empire = in the context of early Australia, the British Empire
See: “British Empire”, Wikipedia
League of Nations = a worldwide intergovernmental organisation, established in 1920 (following the First World War, 1914-1918), and in operation until 1946; it was a forerunner to United Nations organisation
See: “League of Nations”, Wikipedia
Moscow Declaration = the “Declaration of the Four Nations”, being a declaration signed by representatives of the USA, UK, USSR, and China in 1943, during the Second World War (1939-1945), agreeing to establish “a general international organization … for the maintenance of international peace and security” (i.e. the United Nations organisation, which was founded in 1945)
See: 1) “Declaration of the Four Nations on General Security”, United Nations Department for General Assembly and Conference Management
2) “Moscow Declaration of the Four Nations on General Security: 30 October 1943”, Stalin Churchill Roosevelt: The Common Struggle Against Fascism (a site hosted by the Federal Archival Agency of Russia, regarding the “Grand Alliance” of the Second World War) [page archived here]
3) “Declaration of the Four Nations”, Wikipedia
4) “Moscow Declarations”, Wikipedia
5) “Moscow Conference (1943) ”, Wikipedia
6) “United Nations”, Wikipedia
Statute = an Act of parliament (a law) in its written form (i.e. a law published as a formal document)
See: 1) “Act of parliament”, Wikipedia
2) “Statute”, Wikipedia
United Nations = the Allied countries during the Second World War (1939-1945), which fought against the Axis countries (the term is distinct from the United Nations organisation, which was founded in 1945)
[Editor: Changed “Brenden Bracken” to “Brendan Bracken”, “High Commissioner’ staffs” to “High Commissioners’ staffs”.]
Leave a Reply