Hostname: page-component-6d856f89d9-mhpxw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T05:07:40.691Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The “Exclusion” of the United Kingdom from the Anzus Pact

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2009

Dean E. McHenry  and
Richard N. Rosecrance
Get access

Extract

The signing of the ANZUS Pact represented a confluence of attitudes. Australia and New Zealand were disturbed at the liberal Japanese peace treaty, while the United States wanted the treaty to go through with as little opposition as possible. All three countries were afraid of the march of communism in the Far East. The ANZUS Treaty made the Japanese peace settlement palatable to the Pacific Dominions, and at the same time it improved the channels of military cooperation in the Pacific. The significance of ANZUS lay as much in what it did not say as in its formal provisions; the United Kingdom was not included in ANZUS, and its absence gave rise to an extended debate in several countries. There were objections from certain Australian and New Zealand political leaders, and in the United Kingdom the Conservatives lamented “exclusion” while the Labor government declared “… it would not have been unwelcome to us if we had been included in the proposed pact”.

Type
Articles
Information
International Organization , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , Summer 1958 , pp. 320 - 329
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 1958

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The genesis of ANZUS is discussed and analyzed in many different sources. The authors have found the following particularly useful:Harper, N. D., “Pacific Security as Seen from Australia,” International Organization, 05 1953 (Vol. 7, No. 2)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “Australia and U. S. Pacific Policy 1951–54,” Australian Policies toward Asia, Melbourne, Australian Institute of International Affairs, 1954Google Scholar; Ball, W. Macmahon, “The Peace Treaty with Japan,” Australian Outlook, 09 1951 (Vol. 5)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Sissons, D. C. S., “The Pacific Pact.” Australian Outlook, 03 1952 (Vol.6)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Britain, Great, Parliamentary Debates, H. of C., 1951 (Vol. 486)Google Scholar, cc. 2007–8 (Mr. H. Morrison).

3 The authors have derived this conclusion from conversations with officials of the Australian Department of External Affairs.

4 new Zealand, Parliamentary Debates, 1956 (Vol. 308), p.126Google Scholar.

5 August 10, 1954, cited in Casey, Richard G., Friends and Neighbors, East Lansing, Michigan State University Press, 1955, p.109.Google Scholar

6 The New York Times, October 12, 1954.

7 Gaitskell, Hugh, “As Britain Sees the Churchill Visit,” The New York Times Magazine, 06 27, 1934Google Scholar.

8 The New York Times, September 16, 1955.

9 “Pacific Deadlock,” Twentieth Century, 12 1952 (Vol. 1952), p. 466–467Google Scholar.

10 Manchester Guardian Weekly, October 16, 1952.

11 Australia, Parliamentary Debates, H. of R., 1955 (Vol. 1), p. 199 (Mr. Osborne)Google Scholar.

12 See, for example, The Times (London), 08 6, 1952Google Scholar; Round Table, 03 1953 (No. 170), p. 196–8Google Scholar; and The New York Times, September 13, 1953.

13 Australia, Parliamentary Debates, H. of R., 1952 (Vol. 218), p.1378–1379Google Scholar.

14 Great Britain, Parliamentary Debates, H. of C., 1933, c. 973Google Scholar.

15 The New York Times, July 24, 1953.

16 New Zealand, Parliamentary Debates, 1953 (Vol. 300), p. 1215 (MrAlgie, )Google Scholar.

17 The Times (London), 10 17, 1953Google Scholar.

18 Australia, Parliamentary Debates, H. of R., 1953 (Vol. 1), p. 1978 (MrJames, )Google Scholar.

19 Freedom, September 2, 1953.

20 New Zealand, Parliamentary Debates, 1951 (Vol. 295), P. 353Google Scholar.

21 Ibid., p. 349 (Mr. Eyre).

22 Killen, E. D. L., “The Anzus Pact and Pacific Security,” Far Eastern Survey, 10 8, 1952 (Vol. 21), p. 137–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 Webb, Leicester, “The South-East Asia Collective Defence Treaty,” mimeographed paper, Canberra, Australian National University, n.d., p. 7Google Scholar.

24 The New York Times, September 29, 1953.

25 “Australia and U. S. Pacific Policy 1951–4,” Australian Policies Toward Asia (Part 3), Melbourne, Australian Institute of International Affairs, 1934, p. 8Google Scholar.

26 The New York Times, September 13, 1953.

27 New Zealand, Parliamentary Debates, 1953 (Vol. 300), p. 1405 (MrMurdoch, )Google Scholar.

28 “Australian Foreign Policy,” Current Affairs Bulletin, University of Sydney, 10 11, 1954 (Vol. 14, No. 13), p. 202.Google Scholar

29 New Zealand, Parliamentary Debates, 1951 (Vol. 296), p. 7.Google Scholar

30 Ibid., 1956 (Vol. 308), p. 11 (Mr. Shelton).

31 Ibid., 1953 (Vol. 299), p. 179 (Mr. Mathison).

32 Ibid., 1951 (Vol. 295), p. 210 (the Reverend Mr.Carr).

33 Round Table, 12 1952 (No. 169), p.86–87Google Scholar.

34 Manchester Guardian Weekly, October 16, 1952.

35 Quoted in “Australian Foreign Policy,” Current Affairs Bulletin, 10 11, 1954 (Vol. 14, No. 13), p. 196Google Scholar.

36 Australia, Parliamentary Debates, H. of R., 1953 (Vol. 1), p. 195 (DrCameron, Donald)Google Scholar.

37 Quoted in Munro, Leslie K., “New Zealand and the New Pacific,” Foreign Affairs, 07 1953 (Vol. 31), p. 634CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 “Australian Foreign Policy,” Australian Quarterly, 06 1951 (Vol. 23), p. 15Google Scholar.

39 Hancock, W. K., Australia, London, Ernest Benn, 1945 ed., p. 211Google Scholar.

40 Monk, W. F., “New Zealand Faces North,” Pacific Affairs, 09 1953 (Vol. 26), p. 227CrossRefGoogle Scholar.