790.5/3–3154
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Director of the Office of British Commonwealth and Northern European Affairs (Raynor)
Subject:
- Possible Broadening of ANZUS
Participants:
- Mr. F. J. Blakeney, Minister, Australian Embassy
- Mr. H. Raynor, Director, BNA
Mr. Blakeney called this afternoon at his request and stated that stories had appeared on the Australian radio and in the London [Page 401] Daily Express to the effect that high-level consideration was now being given in Washington to broadening the ANZUS organization.
Mr. Blakeney said he was calling under instructions of his Government to inquire if this report was true and to request consultation on the matter should this be the case. In this connection he referred to the fact that on the question of U.K. participation the three partners in ANZUS had followed a unified and firm line. Should there be any plan to change the position on the U.K., the Australians, for obvious reasons, would not want to see a public lead on the matter come from the U.S. alone. He added that the whole question, of course, was especially delicate in Australia at this time (obviously a reference to the forthcoming general election in Australia in May). I said, referring to the Secretary’s speech1 in New York which referred to the question of possibly internationalizing in some way the situation in Indo-China, that I was sure that study and thought was being given to this general subject in Washington. I said, however, that insofar as I knew there was no reason to think that a broadening of ANZUS was being given any particular attention although obviously in any study such as [that?] which I mentioned it would no doubt be included as one of a number of possible alternative methods. I added that personally I would seriously question whether that alternative would be the answer particularly in the light of our understanding, that neither Australia nor New Zealand would want to see ANZUS broadened but would prefer, should other regional arrangements in the Pacific be determined to be feasible, to see them built up separately.
Mr. Blakeney indicated that while he had seen no recent Australian Government position on this matter that he personally felt that the interpretation I had given of the Australian position was probably correct.2 Mr. Blakeney wondered if the arguments which in the past had always dictated against the establishment of a Pacific regional organization had now disappeared with the implication that he did not think they had evaporated. This observation was put in the form which did not seem to require a response on my part.
At the end of the conversation I reiterated to Mr. Blakeney that what I had told him at the beginning was correct insofar as I was informed but that it was, of course, a possibility that there was thinking or studies on the matter of which I was unaware.