No. SFL92. [1]

The full report of the proceedings at San Francisco is being
prepared and will be despatched for your information. [2] My
object in cabling you most confidentially is mainly to give you
some pieces of background information. The United Kingdom
Delegates here departed quite frequently from the basis which was
agreed upon or which appeared to be obviously common ground during
the London talks. These matters covered for instances the powers
of the Assembly, the question of the veto on peaceful settlement,
the veto on constitutional amendment, the pledge in connection
with higher standards of living and full employment and other
matters to be dealt with in London. In connection with the veto of
peaceful settlement the United Kingdom view even departed from
that expressed by them both in London and in the Technical
Committee here by Cadogan. In the end they yielded to the Soviet
although I am certain that if a firm front had been shown the
Soviet would have come practically all the way towards the
Australian and New Zealand proposal which the large majority of
the Conference desired, that is to limit the veto to Military and
economic sanctions under Chapter 8B of the Dumbarton Oaks Draft.

That I was right on this was subsequently shown when Russia
yielded on the question of giving the Assembly the absolute right
to discuss anything and everything comprehended within the broad
scope of the Charter. On this point of the Assembly's powers, our
proposals were originally adopted by a very large majority but
then in Sub-Committee Dingle Foot [3] tried to whittle down the
Committee's decision. Accordingly the matter had to be referred to
the Committee again and decisions on principles had to be
reaffirmed. This kind of thing went on repeatedly in other
Committees. The attitude of some of the United Kingdom Delegation
down the line was hopelessly reactionary. Webster [4] and Mabane
[5] were notorious instances. Fraser clashed bitterly with
Webster.

The long and the short of it bears out what you have repeatedly
said that despite generalities uttered at the top level, the
Foreign Office in practice, does not desire to accord to Dominions
any room for freedom of policy in International affairs, and most
curiously Australia, New Zealand, Canada and India were
continuously putting forward views to which the United Kingdom and
South Africa had committed themselves in London but subsequently
repudiated at San Francisco. As you now know on some of the most
important of these issues, our views prevailed whereas on others
compromises were effected.

I also wish to refer to the question of trusteeship. There the
whole situation was inadequately handled. On this question
Stanley's views expressed in December last [6] were reasonably
liberal. Then came the secret Yalta Protocol on Trusteeship with
the Dominions Office not only failing to inform us on the point,
but saying by implication that the question would still be kept
open during the London talks. Then came the London talks
themselves with strong United Kingdom opposition both to any
declaration of trusteeship for non self-governed colonies and the
Australian and New Zealand plan of compulsory reporting of
compulsory statistics. At San Francisco, however, after very many
meetings which were an enormous strain upon Fraser and myself,
declarations were agreed to and no less than seven of our
proposals were embodied in the final Trusteeship Charter. To our
amazement, both Cranborne and Halifax, in their public statements,
suggested that the principle of the Declaration had resulted from
the initiative of the United Kingdom, and no mention was made by
them in their press statements of Australia's leading part. Three
British newspapermen immediately asked to see me to find out the
facts. I told them the facts broadly, but by common consent they
were treated as off the record because an open wrangle with the
United Kingdom was to be avoided. Cranborne took strong objection
to my seeing them at all in a letter to me marked 'Personal and
Confidential'. I replied in a letter similarly marked, pointing
how unfairly we had been treated, how the public had been misled
and how he himself had seen certain Australian newspapermen giving
them leads on our attitude on trusteeship at an early stage of the
Conference causing embarrassment which, had crystallised in public
criticisms from Menzies in Australia and an actual censure motion.

[7] I also took occasion to point out that in many respects the
London decisions had been departed from and that we had been
placed on many difficulties as a result.

Presumably the matter would have ended there but for the fact that
someone leaked part of the story to an Australian newspaperman
employed by Murdoch [8] who alone sent something short but quite
distorted to Australia.

The incident is not so important in itself as it is an indication
of the fact that Imperial talks of the kind we laboured at so hard
in London are of little value if no real effort is made by the
United Kingdom to act in accordance with them, and we are
approaching another Big Three Conference with no adequate pre-
knowledge of what is to be discussed.

The matter will become more difficult still as Churchill is now
the leader of a Party Government [9] and his speeches in the
Campaign have of course inevitably produced an atmosphere of far
keener criticism in Labor circles in Australia.

On this and associated questions careful and constructive thought
is required. In spite of the difficulties I have mentioned,
Australia and New Zealand with the steady assistance of India and
Canada have succeeded in introducing many liberal features into
the Charter and it may well be that because of this the United
Kingdom Authorities will be more inclined to seek prior
consultation in the future and to stick to what is agreed upon at
such consultations. I would like your thoughts particularly about
whether it would not be wiser to have direct communication with
the Foreign Office rather than the Dominions Office as the
Trusteeship affair seemed to indicate that on occasions there is a
good deal of interceptive comment introduced by the Dominions
Office into the bare narration of facts from the Foreign Office.

[10]