890.0146/11–1346: Telegram
The Ambassador in Australia (Butler) to the Secretary of State
[Received 11:38 a.m.]
269. I was asked by Dr. Evatt to see him at his office yesterday. Counselor Russell accompanied me. Evatt discussed following matters:
- (1).
- Manus Island. Evatt insisted that he discussed this question with Secretary Byrnes in presence of Messrs. Hickerson and Searls, though he does not say just when this occurred last July nor exactly what was agreed upon, if anything. He expressed desire for arrangements for mutual use of facilities there and for discussion as to financing same, saying that, to satisfy his Parliament, Australia must have arrangements for at least token right for mutual use of facilities in at least one American base.
- (2).
- New Guinea trusteeship agreement. Evatt expressed feeling that suggested American revisions were altogether too elaborate, and, as such, would lead to future complications; that Australia could not agree to most of them. He desired agreement along broad lines. He felt that suggested revisions simply reiterate obligations in UN Charter which had already been accepted in letter and spirit by Australia and were therefore redundant and in one or two cases, notably anti-slavery clause, even insulting to Australia. He especially referred to desire of Australia to use discretion in applying matters of admission into [Page 681] mandate of certain races, and to govern same as a C mandate in the same way as part of Australia. He did not believe that the “open door” could apply to a C mandate. He said that Australia would perfer to go on under the old pre-charter arrangement rather than accept most of the suggested revisions to the New Guinea trusteeship agreement. He pointed out that the Australian attitude in the New Guinea trusteeship agreement was in line with recent US attitude re the Marshalls, Carolines and Marianas which Australia was prepared to support. As regards “states directly concerned” he said Australia did not oppose regarding USA as one such, mentioning inferentially that USA based its claim to be such on rights acquired in the Versailles and other treaties. He expressed formally his belief that all trusteeship agreements should be submitted to all states directly concerned, though in each case their special interests must be as certain dand [garble] weighed, and he said that as regards the New Guinea agreement Russia had not been consulted as not being considered a state directly concerned. He said it was fortunate that the agreement was not one for a strategic area but was an ordinary one going to the General Assembly “where the veto was not in force.”61
[Here follows discussion of other subjects of interest in United States-Australian relations.]
-
This telegram was repeated to Secretary Byrnes at New York (attending the Council of Foreign Ministers) in Secdel 1154, November 14, 1 p.m. In a memorandum dictated at New York on November 15 Secretary Byrnes said: “Dr. Evatt did discuss with me his idea as to Manus Island. Hickerson and Searls were present.
“It was Evatt’s thought that an arrangement could be made for our use of facilities at Manus Island in exchange for the right of Australia to use the facilities at Guam. My recollection is that Hickerson and Searls agreed to the use by Australia of facilities at some islands in which Evatt was not interested. We took the position that we could not answer as to Guam until I had conferred with Bevin as to the mutual use of facilities because I had previously discussed such a proposal with Mr. Bevin.
“Evatt correctly states the view he expressed at that time, namely, that Australia must arrange for the use of facilities in at least one American base in exchange for our right to use the facilities at Manus Island. We did not enter into a discussion as to financing the maintenance of facilities at Manus. …” (811.24590/11–1546)
↩