763.0221/11–3051: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the Embassy in Austria 1
1416. Reurtel 1882, Nov 292 Dept urges you to exert maximum pressure on Brit and Fr prior quadripartite discussion but doubts if arbitrary distinction can be drawn between occupation and defense functions of tripartite forces in Aust. Hope Brit and Fr approval your plan (Legtel 1903, Nov 303) not predicated on US bearing defense costs in some way since no reason to believe this can be done. As counter to Brit and Fr argument that Aust shld bear fair share of West defense it seems more cogent to reason (1) Aust already paying share in form of onerous Sov exactions from Aust econ in addition to allocations for occupation costs, (2) US public opinion does not understand why US pays entire bill for keeping Aust out [Page 1085] of Sov bloc. Therefore they shld assume part of costs needed to achieve their security objectives in area as they are now doing in Yugo. Dept does not believe threat to withdraw forces since these wld be more expensive to maintain at home than in Aust.
Dept does not recommend this issue be discussed quadripartitely but continues to believe weakness of Brit and Fr position is failure to render accounting for occupation expenditures paid for by Aust and sees no further reason to spare Brit and Fr feelings on non-occupation or luxury expenditures. Feel sure Finan Min wld be glad to provide additional instances of dubious practices.
- Drafted by Rutter and cleared by Williamson.↩
- Telegram 1882 reported Donnelly’s suggestion to the French and British High Commissioners on November 29 that they consider separating costs directly chargeable to occupation requirements from costs which could be considered of defense nature. (763.0221/11–2951)↩
- Telegram 1903 informed the Department of State that the French and British High Commissioners expressed enthusiasm for separating costs along the lines recommended by Donnelly during a meeting of the three Western High Commissioners on November 30. (763.0221/11–3051)↩