OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR AUSTRALIA IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
Australian News and Information Bureau, Australia House,
Strand, London, W. C. 2 Telephone: TEMple Bar 2435
ADDRESS BY THE RIME MINISTER OF AUSTRALIA.
THE RIGHT HON. R. G. hENZIES, M. P.,
TO THE PARIEANTARY PRESS GALLERY
AT THE HOUSE OF CO1MMONS
Oi WEMIESDIY, 18TH MAY, 1960.
Addressing a luncheon gathering of the Parliamentary Press Gallery, at
which he was the guest of honour, Mr. Menzies said, in part:-
" I want to say a few words to you about two matters. The first is the
one that is most in our minds today. I can't help thinking, after all this
bogus argument that's been going on about spies, all this humbug, this pious
horrpor at the discovery of the spy over Russian soil, that I seem to remember
hundreds and thousands of them from there over our soil, or on it, or in it!
But when this Summit meeting had at long last been arranged, I venture to say
that all of us, not being too starry-eyed, hoped for some result; not for the
pacification of the world by one single stroke that is not possible, you
can't reconcile the differences of a decade, or perhaps in some respects a
century, by a single master stroke of statesmanship but vie did all hope in
our own simple fashion that when the great leaders met, they vould earn. estly
direct their attention to one or two problems, hoping that by disposing of
even one, there might be a prospect held out to the world that common sense
and true co-existence, tolerant co-existence, might come about.
". And therefore it's been a very grievous blow to us if, as the latest
nevs suggests, this Gonference has ended before it began. That I think is
a shocking thing. It's useless for somebody to tell me that Khrushchev has
scored a great propaganda success. I have a firm belief that most of the
people in the world ordinary, sensible, honest, honourable people, regard
this manoeuvre with contempt. It's a very great mistake to think that this
clever stuff really lodges in the minds of millions of people in the world
who honcstly want peace. This has been a shabby thing.
" How mueh we expected that vhen they met they vwould be able to begin
with say, a discussion about nuclear tests, a -mtter on which so much
progress, not enough but so much, had been made at Geneva. This is the kind
of thing about which one felt that the catalyst could be provided by a meeting
at the Summit; some simple, broad direction which would at any rate have
produced a moratorium in that field and perhaps a moratorium in the field of
the Berlin problem.
" And then the incident of the flying man in the sky occurred. It vas
seized on. I repeat, one would almost have thought that there never had
been a Soviet spy in the history of modern times. We've had a few in
Australia. I daresay you've had hundreds here. And for a man under those
circumstances to prefer a manoeuvrc of propaganda to the pacification of the
world is, I think, a shocking thing. I hope that everybody, every sensible
honest person around the world, will be shocked by it.
" We're accustomed to the move and counter move of political tactics,
but we despise them whun the issue is the issue of the safety of the nation.
We have enough proportion to put aside the manoeuvres under those
circumstances. There is a time for debating points. I've used a few
myself in Wy time, and enjoyable enough they arc when the opportunity
presents itself. But whcn the wholc world is waiting for the first breaking
of the tension that has existed fur the last ten years, a debating point is
a contemptible thing.
2
" I've been asking myself why this was done. hen I first read about
the alleged shooting down by a rocket of an aircraft flying at a vast height
the remarkable result of the shooting down being that the pilot is held safely
and that the contents appear to have come down very neatly in an ascertainable
form, and in an ascertainable place I thought, ' Well, of course, Khrushchev
will have a bit of fun over this; he will recognise that there were poor
tactics on one side and he will respond by what he regards to be good tactics.'
But little did I believe. that this would be used as a means of defeating
a conference of preventing a conference from ever occurring. I'm still not
without hope, I would not be surprised if I were rung up at dinnertime and
told that, by some accident, they had met again. I don't know I've had no
information but one always hangs on to some hope about this matter. I
thought, ' Well, as a tactical-exercise this is understandable though it's
silly', until I realised that on their own story the plane had travelled,
before it was intercepted, for the better part of a thousand miles over Soviet
territory. That perhaps is the most interesting feature of the whole thing.
That, I would venture to believe, must have created great feeling in Moscow
and great feeling among such people as knew of it, because, you see, if a
plane capable of delivering a nuclear bomb can fly for the better part of a
thousand miles over Soviet territory, then the vulnerability of Soviet
territory becomes demonstrated and the efficacy of the deterrant is thereby
increased. Lnd if we look at it in that way then of course we can begin to
S understand why this was not perhaps just a manoeuvre but the genuine expression
of a passion and perhaps of a fear. Otherwise the whole thing is beyond
comprehension. " Now, going back to the propaganda aspect of this matter, I have most
staunchly supported the idea of a Summit meeting. I pay grcat tribute to
the Prime Minister of this country for having done so much I think more than
anybody else to bring it about; and I hope that we won't fall into the error
of saying ' Well, you wanted it, you made a great point of it Lnd it's
failed,' and then sit back in our corners and become critical. Because it
still remains true that unless these leaders meet at the Summit, and that
right early, the world may pass into a more terrible phase of existence in the
next ten or twenty years than it has known before. And so we must naintain
hope, we must keep our ideas up, we must still be for the Sumiit, we must
still be for personal contacts. And if I'm right in my own guess, the
leader of the Soviet Union will very soon become aware that right around the
world there is a feeling of bitter disappointment and a critical feeling about
the attitude that he's taken. And, if that's so, well, we may meet again
another day. And so long as the heads of the governments of the world will
meet and be prepared to talk as if they were human beings, and not mere
advocates hired by some established interest, then there is hope for the world.
" I would like to make a comparison between these astonishing events
or non-events in Paris, and the meeting of Prime Ministers of the
Cor. mmonwealth. There are still people who think that a Prime > inisters'
Conference in the Cormonwealth is a species of committee of the United Nations;
that it has the shape and character of an international conference. It has
nothing of the kind. We don't meet to judge; we don't meet to have all the
tiresome machinery end motions and amendmcnts and people running up and down
in the lobbies. We don't go in for that kind of thing. We meet. We've
had, this time, some matters to cormune about full of explosive material
end we concluded our meeting with a spirit of complete good temper, with our
knowledge expanded, with, I think a high degree of mutual tolerance; nobody
looking for some spectacular triumph at the expense of someboOy else, but all
of us looking to be able to establish that this Commonwealth of ours is one
in which you're not thinking of tactics, but in which you talk quietly in a
friendly way, you learn more, you're able to disagree at the table, and then
go out and have a drink together afterwards. This is in the highest possible
tradition. And I am delighted to say that the new members of the Conmmonwealth
respond to this traditional idea as rapidly as anybody else at the table.
" What a contrast that is to the other business! Taking a trick!
Trying to humiliate your opponents! I little thought the day would come
when, on the greatest platform in the world, with the greatest powers in the
world, assembled through their ' number one' people, I would find the state
of affairs in which the leader of one govcrnment accepted, what raight be
thought to have been the hurmiliation of saying, ' Well, we won't do this again',
and that he should then find himself led on to apologise ' Unless you
3
apologise I can't talk to you any longer'.
" Really, I think that in the place of the President, being less wise and
perhaps less guarded in my remarks, I might have offered to exchange apologies
' Yes, I'll apologise for this one, if you'll apologise for all yours'. And
in this atmosphere of mutual apology, they 1night have got to work on the real
thing. " But we must remain optimistic, we must hope; we must not allow
ourselves and this is all important to become divided under the jeers of the
other man who will say, ' f2a, I scored the point; I scored the point; I made
you look silly. Good afternoon to you'. That's the very state of affairs in
which France, the United States, Great Britain, could easily be persuaded to
have a post-mortem and to say, ' Well, you shouldn't have done this, or you
shoul 2n' t have said that'. Divide and conquer is just as modern now as it was
in the days of the Romans.
" If there's one lesson to be got from all this, it is that so far as the
other three great Powers are concerned the United States, and Great Britain
and France they must instantly and persistently keep together, evolve their
ovl ideas, exhibit their ovnm united strength, improve their united strength;
not by way of threat but in order to mlce it clear that the people who believe
in a free life are not easily driven into fragments by a shabby Soviet manoeuvre."