IMMEDIATE

Trusteeship Japanese Mandated Islands.

1. Your UN.277. Following is statement you are to make at first
opportunity when discussion resumes. Begins:

'Since the question of the future of Japanese mandates first arose
in the Council, the Governments of the United Kingdom and
Australia have desired to make certain that the proposal of the
United States to assume strategic trusteeship of these islands is
endorsed by the nations which made substantial contributions to
victory over Japan.

2. On the merits of the question of disposing of the mandates the
attitude of Australia has never been in doubt. Over and over again
the Australian Minister for External Affairs has indicated that
Australia supports the proposal to make the United States sole and
exclusive trustee over these island territories which were gained
at such sacrifice by the United States. [1] I want to make it
clear at the outset that the Australian Government for its part
has consistently supported and now warmly supports in the interest
of peace and security the control and administration by the United
States of the Japanese Mandated Islands and is in accord with the
view that the United States should continue de facto
administration.

3. The method of securing the United States objective which was
proposed by Australia and the United Kingdom as most just and
democratic was to approve the proposed agreement but to postpone
its operation until the successful belligerent nations had met
formally together for the making of a Peace Settlement with Japan.

4. This attitude was adopted both by Australia and the United
Kingdom not for the purpose of delaying the question of disposing
of the islands, but solely for the purpose of maintaining the
vital principle that all terms of what may fairly be called 'the
final settlement with Japan' should be approved, not by a few
nations only, but by all nations who contributed to the overthrow
of this enemy with substantial military forces. These nations
included some who were not members of the Security Council.

5. The position has been materially altered since the proposal of
Australia was supported by the United Kingdom. The Security
Council has agreed to Australia's suggestion that the nations
which fought against Japan shall be admitted to the Security
Council itself for the purpose of stating their views on the
United States trusteeship proposal. The result of this will be to
extend the [Security] [2] Council for the time being into a small
replica of the Conference of Nations which would be entitled, as a
matter of justice and democratic right, to participate in the
final settlement with Japan.

6. This being so, the Security Council is now in a position to be
assured that it would be in accordance with the wishes of the
belligerents against Japan that the proposal of the United States
should, in principle, be given effect to.

7. For these reasons and in the interests of a unanimous decision,
Australia and the United Kingdom have decided not to press the
proposed Article 17.

8. Therefore, having regard to the Security Council's approval of
Australia's desire to widen the representation of nations before
this Council so as to include all the nations who contributed with
military forces in the war against Japan, and also to the fact
that the Council so enlarged and broadened will fully endorse the
United States proposal, my instructions are to support it. The
United Kingdom I understand takes the same view.' [3] Ends.

It should be possible not merely to obtain United Kingdom support
but also to obtain their agreement to making this statement on
their behalf as well as on behalf of Australia.

You should not support any amendments of the United States draft.

See our telegram 148.