245 Evatt to Bailey and Makin

Cablegram [UNY]404 CANBERRA, 25 November 1946


Your UN.781. [1]

1. Berendsen has adopted correct approach [2] which should be fol-

low[ed] by Australian Delegation which should have strongly supported New Zealand. Reference your paragraph 12 vote on draft as a whole should be in Assembly.

2. Please convey following message to Berendsen:-

'I have seen report by our Delegation of your reply at fifth meeting of Trusteeship Sub-Committee One. You have put the position clearly and directly and I have instructed the Australian Delegation to give you complete support.

In my view any weakness or concession now would be a mistake and we should all stand firm and stand jointly on texts as submitted.

Dulles might be encouraged in his suggestion that in the event of disagreement drafts as they stand should go to Assembly to be voted on as a whole but I do not think that Australia will run the risk of Assembly defeat provided timely support is requested.

Drafts of all mandatory powers would stand or fall together.

In my judgment New Zealand has no cause to consider proposals put forward as you have already gone some way I personally think too far to meet objections and in your reply you need merely stand firm on draft after making points once again so well made by you last Friday. Regards.'

3. But Dulles' own attitude in filing modifications to Australia's draft is indefensible especially in view of messages received through Bailey that he approved our general approach. Fact is clear that administering authority must be trusted in order to become a trustee. Australia's record in New Guinea was outstanding and has never been questioned except by a few trouble makers at present conference. It needs no apology. What is now needed is strong counter attack. It is not much use talking of stone age and pleading or suggesting that we are willing to modify long established policy on trade or migration which would have converted New Guinea into a sphere of Japanese influence. All this I pointed out frankly at San Francisco. Berendsen's attitude is direct, courageous and sound.

1 Dispatched 23 November, it reported responses in committee to the proposed amendments to the N.Z. draft trusteeship agreement and discussion of procedures.

2 Berendsen criticised the proposed amendments on the grounds that the amendments were ad hoc responses to a document drafted after months of consideration and based on years of 'enlightened administration', and added that the N.Z. Govt could not be forced to amend its draft.

[AA:A1838/2, 852/13/4, ii]