761.00/10–1945
The British Ambassador (Halifax) to the
Secretary of State
Washington, October 19,
1945.
My Dear Secretary of State: Mr. Bevin has asked me
to send you the enclosed copy of a message addressed to him by Field Marshal
Smuts15 concerning Russia’s
policy as revealed at the Council of Foreign Ministers. In agreement with
Field Marshal Smuts, Mr. Bevin wishes you to have it for your personal and
very confidential information.
Mr. Bevin asks me to explain that he feels you may like to see what, in his
view, is a wise and understanding message which reflects the great
experience and mature judgment of its author. He has told the Field Marshal
that he entirely agrees with his views and, in particular, with his comment
on Russian bargaining procedure and how to meet it.
Yours sincerely,
[Enclosure]
The Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa
(Smuts) to the British Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs (Bevin)16
Much as I regret the breakdown of the Council of Foreign Ministers, I
thoroughly approve course followed by you. While great power unity is
admittedly essential to the success of the future peace, it must neither
be secured by a process of appeasement for the sake of unity nor must it
ignore lesser interested powers in reasonable consultation and
discussion. This principle of discussion on the widest basis was
expressly conceded by Russia at San Francisco after a prolonged struggle
and is embodied in a vital clause of the Charter. To refuse to concede
it to China and France, under present circumstances in the discussions
of the Council of Foreign Ministers, is a clear breach of the spirit of
that principle in the Charter. Russia is a hard bargainer and is
evidently prepared to haggle over questions of procedure and all other
minor matters of interest to herself so long as she can achieve her
aims. For this purpose she refrains from laying all her
[Page 566]
cards on the table, and, after having
secured points favourable to herself, proceeds to raise and fight hard
over other points in which the Allies are particularly interested. The
proper course to pursue with her is to be quite frank and to make no
single concessions until all the relevant matters have been tabled,
discussed and disposed of as a whole.
Her claims for the Dalmatian Islands to go to her protégé Yugoslavia were
readily conceded, but when subsequently the Dodecanese were claimed for
Greece she avoided a decision. At an earlier stage at Teheran and
Potsdam huge slices of German and other territory were conceded to her
and her protégé Poland but when subsequently our claims were advanced in
the Mediterranean area she put up an obstinate fight. No concession to
her should be finalised unless and until concessions demanded in the
interests of other Allies have also been disposed of. This is the only
way to deal with a realistic bargainer like Russia and I think great
power unity is more likely to be achieved in such a way than by making
piecemeal concessions without our securing a quid pro
quo at the same time.
We are now in the awkward position that, while Russia has largely
succeeded in her territorial objects, she now fights for a position in
Africa where we are bound to resist in our, own vital interests, and we
are placed in the false position of appearing to pursue a dog in the
manger policy and exclude her from Africa. I hope that we shall firmly
resist her claim to African trusteeships, and that the United States of
America will understand the danger of this infiltration into other
Continents besides what she is already virtual mistress of. Russia has
her reward for her enormous efforts in Europe. Why should the British
Commonwealth not have theirs for their immense efforts in Africa and the
Mediterranean Basin and elsewhere? We are prepared also to concede to
the United States of America much of a free hand by way of strategic
bases in Pacific. She should loyally support us in our vital African
interests.
The future of the world will depend in large measure on present
territorial arrangements and on safeguarding the vital communications of
a scattered maritime group like the British Commonwealth. It should be
appreciated by America that ours is not a mere selfish interest but a
vital necessity of future world balance and world peace.
It is in this sense that I support your stand in the Council
wholeheartedly. South Africa’s claim for a real voice in the peace for
which she also made great sacrifices is not only based on justice but
was also made to give an opportunity for reconsideration of these
territorial questions as a whole and not piecemeal.
