Australia Does Not Understand Statement By Dominions Secretary

Northern Advocate, 25 August 1945, Page 4

Australia Does Not Understand Statement By Dominions Secretary

SYDNEY, This Day

Commonwealth Ministers are frankly unable to understand how Lord Addison, Secretary of State for the Dominions, can make the extraordinary claim that London took the initiative in securing Australia’s representation at Tokio, which automatically carried with it recognition of Australia as a major Pacific Power. Lord Addison’s statement said: “My attention has been called to reports received through Australian press channels that the British Government had- net supported Australia’s desire to be represented in the Japanese surrender and armistice negotiations. “Arrangements for these matters are in the hands of the United States Government, but any suggestion that the Eritish Government did not fully support Australia’s request with the United States is totally unfounded. The British Government, on the contrary, took the initiative in pressing for Australia's representation.'’ Not Impressed

It is reported that Lord Addison’s statement does not impress anybody at Canberra. His statement that the Eritish Government supported Australia’s claim is, however, partially true. What Lord Addison does not explain—and what •he 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. It was when the matter was raised in Washington,that it was found that the excuse offered by British officialdom had no foundation in fact. The plain position is that somebody lied. When it was represented to London that somebody was libbing, 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 for External Affairs (Dr. H. V. EvattL in a statement issued yesterday, said: “On August 17 the Prime Minister (Mr Chifiey) stated that in the opinion of the Australian Government its war effort against Japan had not had 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.” Evatt’s Version

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 that 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 matter 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. * • Regarding the Japanese Government's request that the privileges and prerogatives of the Emperor should not be prejudiced, Australia expressed her views promptly and clearly,” Dr. Evatt added. “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.

Subordinate Status “Again, there is the matter of the Council of Foreign Ministers. From that council at present Australia, a principal belligerent against Japan, is excluded, even in ■ relation to the Japanese settlement, . while China is included without having been a belligerent in Europe. In our view„.this is unsatisfactory and we know that our opinion is shared by New Zealand. Cnee 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,” said Dr. Evatt. “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.”