CANBERRA, 6 March 1947

GENERAL DISCUSSION ON THE BACKGROUND OF AUSTRALIAN POST WAR DEFENCE POLICY

1. INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS BY PRIME MINISTER
(1) Purpose of the Meeting
My letter notifying Ministers of the intention to hold this
meeting stated that its purpose is to have a general discussion on
the background of Post-War Defence Policy.

(2) Statement by Minister for Defence
To focus attention on the main problems, I asked the Minister for
Defence to circulate a summarised statement.

(3) Not Intended to take Decisions
As the purpose of the meeting is a discussion as to courses of
action, it is not intended to take decisions. These can only be
taken by Cabinet, and the usual procedure, before Cabinet
considers matters of Defence Policy, is to have a meeting of the
Council of Defence, of which the Chiefs of Staff are also members.

As there have been changes in the Ministers of two of the Services
and the Department of Munitions, I thought it would be useful to
have a preliminary meeting of Ministers so that we could clear our
minds by an exchange of views before making a more detailed
approach to the specific problems of Post-War Policy, as, for
example, the strength and organisation of the Forces.

We can, if necessary, have a further discussion before these come
before the Council of Defence, so that the Ministers will be clear
in their minds as to the broad outlines of recommendations which
should be made by the Council of Defence, having regard to
considerations of Government policy.

Another advantage of this meeting is that it will provide a brief
view of what is entailed in the whole field of Defence Policy
which embraces the Services, their material requirements as
covered by the Munitions and Supply Departments, and the functions
of the Defence Department relating to matters of policy.

(4) Procedure
I would ask the Minister for Defence to traverse the main points
of his statement. I would suggest that the best and most
expeditious course would be for him to read the brief summary of
each Part. If he will pause after each one, we can have a
discussion on that Part before proceeding to the next one.

2. BASIS OF AUSTRALIAN SECURITY-STATEMENT BY MINISTER FOR DEFENCE
ON PART I OF SUMMARISED STATEMENT

The Minister for Defence read the summary of Part I of the
statement as follows:-

'The security of Australia rests on a blending of the collective
security provided by the United Nations and the British
Commonwealth, and of the Forces to be maintained for the inherent
right of individual self-defence.

Since world collective security will be of slow growth, reliance
must primarily be placed on co-operation in Empire Defence and the
development of regional security in the Pacific with the United
States. The crux of the latter is a military plan for the
reciprocal use of bases in the Pacific. Progress may be slow
because of American political susceptibilities to commitments.

The provision of adequate machinery for Co-operation in Empire
Defence and the determination of principles relating to regions of
strategic responsibility and for the implementing of measures of
co-operation, are fundamental to progress. It should later be
possible to link up the regional systems by a coordinated plan.'
He then proceeded as follows:-

'As we shall deal in a later Part with measures and machinery for
Co-operation in Empire Defence, the most important consideration
in this Part is the question of collective security under the
Charter and, in particular, the possibility of a regional
arrangement in the Pacific with the United States.

External Affairs Policy and Defence Policy are inseparably linked
in this, and the Minister for External Affairs will no doubt give
us an outline of his views. The Prime Minister will recall that
the relation to an overall military plan of the use of Manus and
other bases by the United States was discussed in Washington by
Dr. Evatt after the Prime Minister's Conference in London.

Now that our Trusteeship Agreement has been approved and the
United States has submitted its own relating to the islands
formerly held by the Japanese under Mandate, I would suggest that
the Minister for External Affairs might give us his views as to
the prospects of resuming negotiations with the United States for
a plan for the reciprocal use of base facilities.'

3. COLLECTIVE SECURITY AND REGIONAL SECURITY IN THE PACIFIC-
OBSERVATIONS OF MINISTER FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
The following is a summary of the main points of the statement by
the Minister for External Affairs:-

(i) In the early stages of the negotiations for the use by the
United States of bases in the Pacific, the inclination of the
United Kingdom Government was to yield to the United States
request and allow them the use of bases and facilities in British
territories in the Pacific, e.g. Guadalcanal, Solomons, Manus,
Western Fiji, Western Samoa, Phoenix Group, Christmas Is. This was
to be unconditional and without obligation by the United States to
give reciprocal rights to the use of United States bases in the
Pacific;

(ii) At the Prime Ministers' Conference in London in May 1946,
Australia and New Zealand took the view that this was not the
correct approach to the problem. Whilst we wished the United
States to have base facilities in the Pacific, it was considered
that the aim should be to agree upon joint use of all these bases
in accordance with a common plan for the defence of the area as a
whole. This basis of approach was agreed to at the Conference;

(iii) In his initial discussions with the United States Secretary
of State (Mr. Byrnes) and Admiral Nimitz [2], both were doubtful
about the possibility of acceding to this request. They believed
that the assumption of any defence obligation in a new area would
be difficult to justify to Congress and the American people.

Following further discussions in July, 1946, he had proposed an
alternative plan providing for the use by Australia of United
States base facilities (to be specified) as well as the use by the
United States of base facilities (to be specified and to include
Manus). Admiral Nimitz seemed receptive to this plan.

(Note: The Australian Government (at a meeting of Cabinet on 8th
April 1946) prior to the Prime Minister's departure for the London
Conference, had laid it down that the principle of reciprocity was
fundamental to the granting of facilities for the use of bases by
the United States.)
(iv) A few weeks ago, the American Ambassador in Australia raised
the question again on the basis that United States should give
Australia reciprocal rights to the use of United States bases and
facilities in Pango Pango (Eastern Samoa) and Canton Is. in return
for the use of bases and facilities at Manus. The United States
would not accept any financial responsibility for Manus. The
Ambassador was still in touch with his Government and he proposed
to visit the United States next month to see if the matter could
be developed further on these lines.

(v) Whilst the Minister for External Affairs recognised that the
proposed arrangement did not go as far as we would have liked, and
was, perhaps, of doubtful practical value for Australian defence,
nevertheless it was a recognition of United States willingness to
make an arrangement on the principle of reciprocity and it
represented an initial step in the direction of co-operation with
the United States in the Pacific, which it was Australia's aim to
foster. The United States were reluctant to give Australia any
rights in American basis north of the Equator, and they did not
wish to get entangled with us in any regional agreement for
security in the South West Pacific. The existence of a United
States screen in the islands north of the Equator was, of course,
an important factor in our security. He hoped that arrangements
could be made for Admiral Nimitz to visit Australia to discuss the
proposals on a Service level, to be followed by conversations on
financial and technical aspects. Whether these conversations could
be extended to cover wider problems of regional security was
problematical, but could be considered at the time. The trend of
United States opinion was against participation in regional
arrangements in the Pacific, until the peace settlement had been
negotiated and the most that could be obtained from the United
States in present circumstances, was a symbolical gesture of this
kind. The Minister was inclined to favour the proposal and when a
firm proposition had been made, he would bring the matter before
the Council of Defence and Cabinet;

(vi) In regard to collective security, although the functioning of
the Security Council is subject to the operation of the veto by
any one of the five Great Powers, the Minister for External
Affairs did not think that the world system of collective security
would break down. He believed that the United Nations and Security
Council will be a factor of the very greatest importance in the
prevention of future war. The very magnitude of scientific
developments might very well tend to consolidate and preserve a
world system of collective security.

[matter omitted]