Anzac Agreement

20. Both governments agree that the creation of the International Air Transport Authority should be achieved through an international agreement. 9. Subject to the two clauses above, the two governments are working to reach agreement on the terms of a ceasefire to be concluded. 26. Both governments assert that the interim administration and the final elimination of hostile areas in the Pacific are of crucial importance to Australia and New Zealand and that this elimination should take place only with their agreement and under a general Pacific regime. 21. Under the system established under such an international agreement, the two governments, Mr. H. V.

Evatt, the Australian Minister of Foreign Affairs, had criticized the 1943 Cairo Declaration on the transfer of Japanese areas in the North Pacific, without consultation or warning to Australia and New Zealand. Evatt wanted to make Australia a dominant power in the South Pacific; The integration of British colonies in the Western Pacific and indefinite security responsibility for Portuguese Timor and the Netherlands, East India. Faced with Britain`s weakness, the United States was the alternative. [4] Evatt is the initiator of the talks that led to the agreement. [5] Australia, New Zealand and the United States Security Treaty was an agreement signed in 1951 to protect the security of the Pacific. Although the agreement has not been formally repealed, the United States and New Zealand no longer maintain security relations between their countries. 8. Both governments agree that the final peace settlement for all our enemies should be reached with all countries after hostilities after hostilities. Although Britain continued to defend the security of Australia and New Zealand as a Commonwealth leader, it was not invited to join the agreement. There were several reasons for this omission.

An important concern was that the extension of the invitation to the United Kingdom would have forced the signatories to pave the way for other European powers with colonial interests in the region. Another was the fact that British troops were already in service in Europe and the Middle East, not to mention the commission with the rest of the Commonwealth, making it unlikely that they would actually intervene in the South Pacific in the event of a security crisis. Britain also faced internal instability in its Asian colonies, including Malaya and Hong Kong, prompting the United States to sign an agreement that could force it to intervene to resolve British colonial problems. In any event, the British have already committed to the security of the United States through NATO and Australia and New Zealand through the Commonwealth, so their participation in a Pacific security agreement with the United States, Australia and New Zealand would have been somewhat superfluous. All parties felt that, if the INSTITUANT TREATY WAS finally extended to other powers, the United Kingdom would be among the first to join. The agreement was well received in Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. However, in Australia and the United States, the pact has been criticized. [5] The United States rejected the Canberra Pact, as it was concluded without consultation, and the pact clearly drew strategic boundaries in the Pacific, which the United States considered elusive for its interests. [8] The Prime Ministers of New Zealand, Peter Fraser, and of Australia, John Curtin, were subjected to a very humiliating disguise on the part of the Secretary of State of Hull in a sign of American discontent. In addition, New Zealand forces were in fact sidelined in the Pacific Operating Room. [9] The United States Security Treaty is the non-binding agreement reached in 1951 between Australia and New Zealand and, separately from Australia and the United States, to cooperate in military affairs in the Pacific, although the treaty is now regarded as an association agreement for conflicts around the world.