“SOMEBODY LIED'

Timaru Herald, Volume CLVIII, Issue 23288, 25 August 1945, Page 5

“SOMEBODY LIED'

Representation At Tokio Australia Gets Its Way (10.25 p.m.) SYDNEY. August 24. Commonwealth Ministers are frankly unable to understand how Lord Addison, Secretary for the Dominions, 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 partially true. What Lord Addison does not explain—and what he had 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 fibbed 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, it is stated, is that somebody lied. When 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. Tire Minister for External Affairs. Dr. H. V. Evatt. in a statement issued to-day, said: "On August 17 Mr Chifley 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. Facts of Case 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 so-called British ‘initiative’ in the matter was unsatisfactory, and in reply Australia nominated General Sir Thomas Blarney as a ‘direct’ representative of Australia and not as ‘attached’ to the British representative. He claimed that Australia was entitled to be represented in her own right as the 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. The Australian Government then took un 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.” Dr. Evatt said, regarding the Japanese Government’s request that the privileges and prerogatives of the Emperor should not be prejudiced, that Australia expressed her view's promptly and clearly. The facts show that little consideration could have been given to our very strong submissions as to the treatment and immunities of the Emperor. Unsatisfactory Position “Again there is the matter of the Council of Foreign Ministers,” said Dr. Evatt. “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. 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 the right 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."