AUSTRALIA’S ROLE

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 21801, 25 August 1945, Page 5

AUSTRALIA’S ROLE

TOKIO SURRENDER DR. EVATT CRITICAL ATTITUDE OF BRITAIN (10 a.m.) SYDNEY, Aug. 25. Commonwealth Ministers are frankly unable to understand how the Dominions Secretary, Lord Addison, can make the extraordinary claim that London took the initiative in securing Australia’s representation at Tokio—which automatically carries with it recognition of Australia as a major Pacific Power. It is reported that Lord Addison’s statement does not impress anybody at Canberra. His statement that the British Government supported Australia's claim is, however, partially true. What Lord Addison docs not explain—and what lie has denied —is that when the matter was first raised by Australia, Britain’s reply was that the request could not be granted because of objections by the United States. If the Australian Government had been content to be fobbed off in that way, nothing further would have been heard of the matter. ' No Foundation in Fact It was when the matter was raised in Washington that it was found the excuse offered by British officialdom had no foundation in fact. The plain position, it is stated, is that somebody lied. Wiien it was represented to London that somebody was fibbing, all objections to Australia’s representation at the Tokio surrender disappeared. Commonwealth officials claim that Britain had wanted all the surrender and armistice negotiations on behalf of all sections of the British Empire to be conducted through the British representative.

The Minister of External Affairs, Dr. H. V. Evatt, in a statement issued yesterday, said: “On August 17 Mr. J. B. Chifley stated that, in the opinion of the Australian Government, its war effort against Japan had not sufficient recognition in the armistice negotiations. All the facts bear out the correctness of this claim. It was not until after the Prime Minister’s statement that Australia’s status at the general surrender was recognised as that of a full belligerent.” Dr. Evatt said the facts of the surrender were these: “The British Government proposed on August 12 that an Australian services’ representative should attend the surrender, but only as ‘attached’ to the British service representative. This proposal, representing the so-called British' ‘initiative’ in the matter, was quite unsatisfactory, and, in a reply on August 12, Australia nominated General Sir Thomas Blarney as a ‘direct’ representative of Australia and not as ‘attached’ to the British representative. "We claimed that Australia was entitled to be represented in her own right as a principal Pacific Power in the war against Japan. The Dominions Office replied on August 17 Fiat the United States Department of State had rejected Australia’s claim and that General Blarney could only ‘accompany’ the British representative at the surrender. “Thereupon, the Australian Government took up the. mattc-r direct with General MacArthur and the United States acting Minister in Canberra. The result was that the United States Government acceded to Australia’s claim to be represented directly.’’ Attitude to Emperor Dr. Evatt said that in regard to the Japanese Government’s request that tiie privileges and prerogatives of the Emperor should not be prejudiced, Australia had expressed her views promptly and clearly. "However, the facts show that little consideration could have been given to our very strong submissions as to the treatment and immunities of the Emperor,” said Dr. Evatt. “Again there is the matter of the Council of Foreign Ministers,”- continued Dr. Evatt. “From that council at present 'Australia as a principal belligerent against Japan is excluded, even in relation to the Japanese settlement whilst China is included without having been belligerent in Europe. ‘ln our view this is unsatisfactory and we know that our opinion is shared by New Zealand. Once again, we will be in danger of being presented with cut-and-dried decisions in which we will have had no real participation and no effective voice. There is a deplorable tendency now that the fighting is over to relegate Australia to a subordinate status and either not to consult it at all or to consult it in a perfunctory way and not on a footing of equality. “This process .will have to be arrested not only in the_ interests of Australia but of the British Commonwealth as a whole. Clearly, the whole situation should be reviewed at once, with a view to according Australia rights to an effective voice in the peace settlement to which she is entitled by reason of her outstanding contribution to the overthrow of our deadly enemies.”