MISSION TO LONDON AND WASHINGTON

Dr. Evatt's analysis
My mission to London followed upon an invitation from the United
Kingdom Government for Australia to be specially represented while
the Council of Foreign Ministers settled the proposed treaties of
peace between Allies and enemy powers in Europe.

The Council had limited its membership to five powers only, viz.

United Kingdom, United States, Soviet Russia, China and France. It
was soon evident that there was no plan to call together a peace
conference composed of all the active belligerents who had
participated in the Allied victories. Accordingly, it became my
duty to invoke, on behalf of Australia, the principle that all
Allied Nations, who, like Australia, had a record of active and
sustained belligerence against the Axis, were absolutely entitled
to participate in the framing of the peace.

War-time procedure of Big Three
During the war period we had consistently protested against the
tendency of the major Allies to make binding political and
territorial commitments without adequate and, sometimes, without
any consultation with other active belligerents. A notable
instance was the Cairo Declaration. Although vitally affecting the
future of the Pacific Australia's knowledge of the declaration was
obtained only after the final press communique was issued.

Similar instances could be cited in relation to the European
Armistice arrangements. There was even an attempt to exclude
active belligerents from the Japanese surrender arrangements, but
Australia's strong protest resulted in the participation of all
belligerents in the instrument of Surrender.

Belligerents' right to share in peace settlement
Australia had always loyally accepted decision of major powers in
relation to supreme direction and overriding strategy of the war
itself, but we regarded it as quite unjustifiable to extend this
wartime practice into the very different period of the peace
settlements.

Accordingly, I urged in London, on behalf of Australia, that all
the Allied Nations who had been active belligerents had a just
claim to share with major powers in framing of the peace.

Australia's policy gained public support from Canada, New Zealand,
South Africa and several European nations. In particular Australia
demanded that all the conclusions of the major powers as to the
terms of the peace settlements should be regarded as provisional
only and submitted to a subsequent peace conference of all the the
belligerents for full and free discussion, review and amendment.

Australia's submission accepted
It is unnecessary to give a detailed account of the fluctuations
of all the negotiations; it is sufficient to say that Australia's
submissions were accepted in principle and are now substantially
embodied in the proposals of the recent Moscow Conference. [1] The
principle is of vital importance to Australia for a democratic
method of arriving at the peace is just as important as the actual
terms of the peace, and it would be utterly unjust to deprive any
of the belligerent powers of a fair and proportionate share in
making the peace settlements with the enemy or enemies against
whom they fought and prevailed. Therefore, the primary object of
my mission to London was achieved and Australia will now be
afforded a full opportunity of participating in both the European
and Pacific peace settlements.

FAR EASTERN COMMISSION

After my mission to London was completed I was appointed by the
Government to represent Australia in Washington in the
establishment and preliminary working of the Far Eastern
Commission to which was assigned the duty of recommending the
post-war armistice policy to be imposed upon Japan. Although no
formal constitution had been adopted either for the Far Eastern
Commission or for the Control Council for Japan it was decided
early in November to commence work on the policy for Japan.

Early achievements of Commission
Consequently, no less than ten nations, all of whom had
participated in the Pacific war, were represented on the
Washington Commission, and the only absentee was Soviet Russia. I
had the honour, as representative of Australia, of being appointed
Chairman of the important Policy Committee of the Commission. The
recommendations of this Committee were all adopted in substance by
the full Commission for final consideration and approval of the
ten Governments represented. [2] This unanimity at the level of
the Commission was achieved only by unremitting labour undertaken
in the spirit of genuine international cooperation. In the
circumstances, the achievements of the Far Eastern Commission in
Washington were very considerable.

Proposed veto on Commission decisions
Unfortunately, all the good results thus achieved by the Far
Eastern Commission are now threatened by the proposal of the
Moscow Conference of three Foreign Ministers to give each of four
nations, viz. United Kingdom, United States, Russia and China the
individual right to veto decisions of the Commission of eleven
nations. This proposal is out of keeping with the spirit of
deliberations of the Commission at Washington. The veto would mean
that each one of four powers would be entitled to overrule the
unanimous views of the remaining ten nations of the Commission.

Australian objection to veto procedure
In such a connection the application of the veto procedure is most
repugnant to us. It was universally recognised at Washington that
Australia has taken a leading part in the policy planning of the
Far Eastern Commission, moreover, Australia has a stake in the
future of the Pacific far greater than any European country can
have, and our contribution to the victory over Japan is not less
proportionately than that of any of the four powers which now seek
to confer upon themselves this very undemocratic special
privilege. If this proposal is pressed by Soviet Russia it will be
most prejudicial to the continued success of the Commission.

Australia as a Pacific power
I should add that both Mr. Attlee and President Truman expressed
to me a lively faith in the future development of Australian power
and responsibility throughout the Pacific area. The President
stated that Australia's future Pacific role must be one of full
and active partnership with the leading Pacific powers. On its
part the United Kingdom Government is equally conscious of the
fact that in relation to the Far East and the Pacific a special
status must be accorded to Australia, because in that great area
the very fate of our people will be ultimately determined.

Status of Australia increased
I have covered shortly the two main objects of my mission to
London and Washington. Australia's foreign policy in connection
with these and related matters has been put forward with vigour
and frankness. One result is that both in Britain and America
Australia's prestige to-day stands very high indeed and our
stature as a nation of the world is being developed and increased
without in any way weakening the bonds of kinship and kingship
which indissolubly unite us to the people of Britain. Finally, I
desire to acknowledge the sympathetic understanding and support
both of the special objects of my mission and of the general
Australian viewpoint on foreign affairs displayed by the Press,
not only of Australia but of Britain and the United States.