S16 JUN1967
LIBRAN
VISIT TO CANADA A. D U. K.
YORK, U. S. A.
; DDRES iY HE RME MINISTER, MR. HAROLD HIOLT
TO THE F~ r-,. ST iL. ETR IC COUICIL AT THE ALDORF HOTEL
9TH JUIE, 1967.
" 7e are, in Australia, a community with a
strone European tradition and history but we find
ourselves increasingly involved in Asia, and whether we are
classed by the geographer as part of asia or not we
increasingly think of ourselves as involved in its
problems and concerned with its potentialities. And so
I want to speak particularly about the region of Asia
in general. It is misleading, in a sense, to sreak of the
problems of Asia as if Asians are oneset of people. There
are wider differences of anpearance, hauits of life,
historical uacksroun. and culture to be found in Asia than
is to be found in a-iv other area of the world. I have
just come oack from i tour not the first by any means
but my first to the four countries, Cambodia, Laos,
Taiwan and Korea.
I was particularly struck with these differences
which existed in countries with adjoining boundaries or
which w'ere located close to each other. The dissimilarities
were more obvious than the similarities. Yet, I suppose
it is not so surprising when one thinks of the history of
the British Isles and The marked differences in language,
in approach in temperament, in physique, hajit of life
of the people of E. land, Scotland, Ireland and . ales.
The differences are even more manifest in the
countries of Asia. do well to bear this in mind, because
so many of those who speak about the region adopt broad
descriptions which i thLnk could be quite misleading and
dangerous if they are to form the basis for policy-making.
Even the people of the area, themselves, talk about settling
things the Asian way, repudiating, at times the efforts
being made by others outside the region to deal with their
problems as thouh settling thin s the Asian way meant
that all Asians tried to settle things in the same way.
I would be very surprised to learn that the
people of South Korea settle things the same way as the
people in India, or the Indonesians the same way as the
Burmese, or the Chinese even the same way as the Vietnamese,
and so on. Therefore we do well to remember that we are
speaking of a very diverse range of peoples with different
problems and often different aspirations, and certainly
different attitudes to the problems of life.
Then, we get the other sort of cliche which is
popularised in some of the left wing and more doctrinaire
ournals such as the Iew Statesman, which occasionally
is taken up by thi politicians who hold that it is wrong
something immoral to have white faces either in uniform
or in industry on the mainland of Asia.
Many of you represented here today are on the / 2
-2-
mainland of Asia in industry, and you will find to varying
degrees that your presence is welcome there that you can
do a great deal to assist in the prosperous growth of the
people of this region.
But more particularly I speak today about the
question of havi n white faces in uniform on the mainland
of Asia, and to challenge the proposition that this is
either in some way immoral or unwelcome to the people of the
region. I would go so far as to say that the contemporary
trend is entirely in the opposite direction. Nowhere is
this better exemplified than in the recent experience of the
United States of America. Even some Americans, I think
would ue surprised to learn how many security cormitments your
country has gladly accepted in the countries of Asia and
around the periphery of Asia. Those commitments cover
South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, the Philippines and
now actively in South Vietnam.
In Australia and New Zealand we have our
associations with you of a security kind in the AlZUS Pact
and the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation, where again
we co-operate on a multilateral basis to combating communist
infiltration and aggression in the region.
But that is not the end of the story. Your military
participation has not only been welcomed by these countries,
in some instances it has nreserved them from being overrun
by the forces of communism. This is particularly true of
course, in South Korea. I am proud to say, were the
first country to declare ourselves alongside you when you
made that historic decision to intervene and help in checking
communist aggression there.
I think of this as one of the two critical and
historic policy decisions made by the people of the United
States in contemporary times. The other was the Marshall
Plan, which for the first time that I can recall in human
history, set out in a disinterested way to assist other
nations to build up their economic strength, reconstruct
after the devastation of war and build again a secure place
in the expanding world.
The jesson of the Marshall " lan should have been
taken up by ticse countries who were assisted as a result
of it to establish themselves again in economic strength.
I find myself dissatisfied with the extent to which they
have taken up their share of the burden of helping to improve
the lot of the rest of mankind, less fortunately placed. The
United States continues to set a fine example in this particular
direction. The other historic decision which I believe opens
up a new watershed of human history, a new phase in the
history of man, was the decision and all that has since
flowed from it, to intervene in the crisis which developed
in South Korea. Had you not decided that way at that time,
South Korea would, of course have been overrun and been
part of the Chinese Communist dominion. There would have
been no South Vietnam conflict because not having chosen
to intervene at one point, it would not have seemed worth
the cost an the struggle to intervene at the other.
I question whether Taiwan could have been held
from communist incursion. Down through that whole region
of South-East Asia there would have been no effective / 3
check on communist penetration. I know there is a school
of thought which believes that because these people have
strong national sentiments they would not have welcomed the
Chinese. That may be so. But they would have proved
incapable of resisting the incursion of the communist
philosophy and the so-called wars of national liberation,
which are not national in sentiment and certainly do not liberate.
As far as the national aspect was concerned that
would have been submerged by the general Peking-oriented
nhilosophy of communism. So far as lioeration was concerned,
they would not have been free.
I; e would have been faced with a very different
kind of world from that which, with reasonable fortune,
and by our own endeavours, we can sustain in the future.
It is my conviction that we would not have had
the favourable turn of events in Indonesia had the United
States not been present in strength in South Vietnam. There
in Indonesia, you not only had a very strong communist
party but the administration was leaning increasingly
towards it, and I question whether there would have been
the encouragement for resistance to these forces in
Indonesia had they not seen that America was in strength in
South Vietnam, determined to resist communist penetration
and further communist expansion through the area of South-East
Asia. That gave them heart to take un the struggle
themselves, and you have now a reasonable prospect that
Indonesia a potentially rich country of more than 100,000,000
people will be, if not part of the free world camp at least
a co-operating member of the international community
developing its resources for its own uenefit and that of
international trade generally in the years ahead.
As you turn around the neriphery of Asia you
find a receptiveness to people from beyond the mainland.
I could instance country after country. In Thailand there
are protective forces of the United States and even a
small representation from my own country. In Malaysia we
are more strongly represented with the British and other
Commonwealth forces. In Korea, Vietnam and Taiwan there
has been substantial assistance, military and economic,
by the United States.
There is an increasing tendency to co-operate in
such institutions as the Asian and Pacific Council in the
Asian Development bank, in ECaFE, in SEATO and in the Colombo
Plan. I feel that, in view of the conjecture going on
about the British position East of Suez in future years
acknowledgement should be made of the contribution of the
United Kingdom, first in combating the communist inspired
guerillas for many years in what was Malaya, and then in
more recent times, with considerably expanded forces helping
to resist, and successfully doing so over a period of three
years the confrontation of Malaysia by Indonesia, This
underlines, I believe, the importance of a continuing British
presence in the area. Around the whole arc of South-East
Asia, the only area in which the United States has not taken
up a defensive obligation has been in relation to Malaysia
and Singapore. This area they have regarded not
unreasonably as a Commonwealth and primarily a British / 4
-4-
responsibility. 3ut on that matter there will be further
discussions before the final British decisions are taken.
-e can all sympathise with the United Kingdom's
view at a time when the country is under very heavy economic
pressure. But over recent weeks, there have been in two
areas East of Suez in Hong Kon and in the Gulf of Aqaba
dramatic illustrations to the British Government of its
involvement, in a world role whether it wishes it or not.
The rioting in H ong Kong and the short war in the Middle
East have shown thit Britain is directly concerned in a
significant way.
There are, I know some in this great and
powerful country who would like to leave the problems of
the world where they are. Just as in the long, long ago
there were many who felt you should stay out of Europe.
But you didn't stay out of Europe, because you responded
to the call of free men for help in desperate days, and
now as the new area of crisis has moved to Asia you are
committed again in strength and to a different type of war.
The undeclared war. But war nevertheless.
I was in South Korea very recently, and was
heartened by what I found there. There is a tendency
to think of these countries as small countries, weak
countries not very much worth bothering about. But
most of the world is made up of relatively small countries.
There are great powers, of course and their
aggregate populations are a very substantial portion of
the world as a whole. But if you examine the membership
of the United Nations there are many countries which are
not all that large but which do have a significance in the
scheme of thin. s. South Korea has 30,000,000 fine,
vigorous, to uh, industrious people and it was heartening
to me to see how they had taken on the problems of
industrial development.
Whether you look there, whether you look at
Taiwan whether you look at Malaysia, Thailand or even at
neutral Cambodia, where Prince Sihanouk has personally
directed himself to the task of economic development you
will see progress being made. I was shown with some pride
the new port of Sihanoukville. There the Cimbodians are
trying to secure, for the first time, an outlet to the
sea instead of having all their goods come through what
has in the past proved dangerous territory along the Mekong
River. In each of these countries there is something to
see of growth and progress. In Malaysia Tun Razak, the
Deputy Prime Minister, outlined to me the developmental
objectives of his country. In Thailand you can hear the
same story. In Taiwan which like Korea can noint to one
of the highest rates of increase in gross national product
to be found anywhere in the world, there is much to see
which most of the western world knows little about.
Unfortunately most of the countries of Western
Europe know very little about the developments which are
occurring in this area. I cannot recall, for example, any
senior member of the British Cabinet going through this area
over recent years. Some may have touched in Singapore or
Kuala Lumpur. But none has made a run of an instructive
kind. If you were to speak of most of the countries of
iiestern Europe, you would get the same kind of result.
Yet, east of Suez, there are currently nearly
three fifths of humankind, and they are stirring as they
shake off the shackles of the past, as they find
themselves capaule of resisting the aggression of the
past. These are the things that have held them back,
not lack of auilities, not lack of skills, not lack of
culture. Most of them have cultures and skills older
than those of your country and mine. But, for the first time
in centuries they are getting a chance to exoress themselves
in a constructive and positive way.
This holds tremendous promise for us all. I
was canvassing this with the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr.
Pearson. Canada has a Pacific border but that nation
has been oriented for most of its history to the North
Atlantic and North America. The Canadians are pretty
capable international traders, and when they see the
potentialities in Asia I do not think they will long
persist in that kind of orientation. At least they will
devote some of their view to what can happen across the
Pacific. I give full credit to your own administration
for their recognition of Asia. The first senior America
representatives I can recall passing through my country,
who had made their own personal assessment of what was
happening in this area of the world, were Governor Dewey
and John Foster Dulles. These men paved the way.
Your own President made the first historic visit
of a United States President to the region and to Australia,
and his recognition of the area's potentialities has been
shared by the administration.
There is hope in this for mankind as a whole.
My own country since the 1950' s has built up its export
trade east of Suez from 15 percent Pf our exports to more
than 40 percent of our exports. Japan, with whom we had
virtually no trade right into the 1ite 1940' s now ranks
as the largest purchaser of Australian goods in value in
the world and it is rapidly rising.
The potentialities may Je better understood by
some comparisons. India, with forty-two times our
population, only possessed twice our gross national product
in value. Indonesia, with nine times our population, only
rates one third the value of our gross national product.
As these countries build their economies, with assistance
from the stronger countries of the world, they will in the
years ahead show tremendous growth.
My country is committed to growth. believe
we are favourably placed with those of you who have
already come to help and share to serve as a springboard
to the burgeoning economies of Asia. W. e hope more of you
will come. Those of you who do will, I am sure, stay
happily with us and build the greater Australia of the
future. But this prospect, can only be secured if we
are firm in our resolution to resist aggression where we
find it in that area of the world and elp the Asian
people to be free. These people aspire to a better order
of life and are prepared to work for it and give their
skills to it. / 6
-6-
The United 3tates, with its ima-inative realistic
anpreciation of the problems and potentialities ol the
region, is contributing to the hopes expressed by us in
our declarations for freedom at Manila.
CANLE . IA. ~ i