I have the honour to refer to my note of 10th January [1] in
regard to the invitation extended by your Government to the
Australian Government to participate in the Far Eastern Commission
on the basis of certain specified terms of reference which were
agreed upon at Moscow by the inviting powers.

Our further consideration of the invitation has deepened the
apprehension we feel in regard to the inclusion of the veto power
in these terms of reference. The work of the Far Eastern Advisory
Commission at Washington was characterised by the manner in which
policy decisions were arrived at by the members as a result of
full consultation of all the member countries which had
participated actively in the war against Japan. This democratic
procedure was followed so successfully that the representatives of
ten [2] Nations reached in a comparatively short time substantial
agreement on a statement of basic policy. The same spirit of co-
operation was visible in the work of the Policy Committee, of
which I was Chairman. We are anxious to be assured that full
consideration will be given to the decisions already made.

The veto procedure is quite alien to a body which has to carry out
an armistice, the principles of which have already been agreed
upon. Indeed the retention of such a power could easily nullify
much of the valuable work already performed by the Commission.

It is further pointed out that the U.S. and U.K. Governments were
quite prepared to abandon the veto system and in several proposals
put forward with their support there was no inclusion of an
individual veto for any state or states.

The Australian Government is of the opinion that the nations
invited to participate in the work of the Far Eastern Commission
should be given an opportunity to discuss the terms of reference
including the veto power at the next meeting of the Commission. In
the meantime, it feels that the work of the Commission should
continue on the understanding that the recommendations already
made at Washington will be submitted for approval by the
governments concerned.

My Government desires to point out that the implication of the
veto provision is that in relation to the Pacific and South East
Asia, Australia's status is to be regarded as in some way inferior
to that of other powers. Australia is not only a member of the
Security Council but its sustained and decisive contribution to
victory against Japan-fully recognised by your Government-entitles
it to be regarded as a party principal in all Pacific affairs. it
is specially pointed out in relation to the United States that the
President himself was good enough to assure me in relation to
Pacific affairs that Australia's future relationships to the
United States would be based on the principle of full and active
partnership. The proposed veto is, in our view, quite inconsistent
with such a relationship.

H.V.EVATT