Foreign Relations of the United States, 1977–1980, Volume XXII, Southeast Asia and the Pacific

280. Telegram From the Embassy in Australia to the Department of State and the White House¹

Canberra, December 5, 1980, 0231Z

12114. White House for the President. Subject: A Report on My Tour in Australia.

(Confidential–Entire text)

1. This message, barring some circumstance unforeseen as of now, contains “a final comment” after my nearly four years as Ambassador to Australia. Herein are also two recommendations—restated from earlier communications.

2. I’ve urged that careful consideration be given to naming a career diplomat to succeed me. More than ever I am persuaded that advice is sound. See Canberra 11325.²

3. I am without doubt that it is in the interest of improved Australian-American relations that a third political officer be named for this post. The opportunity, both for valuable service to DOS and the learning process for the officer chosen, would be a significant one. The principal contribution to be made by an additional officer would be to enhance the Embassy’s ability for in-depth reporting and analysis not now possible because of the volume of work and the demands made on the two officers covering a part of the world which is busy and of increasing importance to the United States. See Canberra 08987,³ para 22.

4. On a variety of occasions—both orally and in writing—I’ve been critical of a process of communication which often bypasses the Embassy. I will admit that the Embassy ultimately is made privy to the substance of communiques between GOA and USGov. But the point of the criticism is to note the damage to morale amongst the Embassy staff and a lessening of respect by the Australians for the role of the U.S. Embassy. And, of course, it does appear wasteful, to say the least, to have in place an expensive apparatus which is not fully used.

5. I expect it might be considered normal for an Ambassador, on completion of his tour, to leave a record of his personal impressions of his host government and its people. In lieu however of an analysis of Australia and Australians, let me call attention to a volume entitled “Australia Through American Eyes 1935–1945” (University of Queensland Press 1979). This little book contains observations by two American diplomats, J. Pierrepont Moffat and Nelson T. Johnson.⁴ Both were perceptive. There is, of course, a risk in generalizing when describing a country and its people. I recognize also that there have been changes in the intervening 45 years and that there are many Australians today who do not fit the Moffat-Johnson descriptions. Nevertheless, to assist me in recording my impressions, reached after nearly four years in Australia, I am supplying a few passages which, subject to those two caveats, remain relevant today:

—“It was perhaps inevitable that there would be conflict between Australia and the United States over international trade, given, on the one hand, Secretary of State Cordell Hull’s almost religious faith in the benefits of free trade and, on the other, Australian devotion to protectionism and the principle of imperial preference . . .”

—“What, then did these men say about Australia in their official and private letters to Washington?

—Irrespective of what party was in Government or the state of industrial relations at the time, the diplomats almost invariably began by referring to the emphasis placed in the Australian ethos on not working too hard, on not striving for excellence by happily accepting mediocrity with the cheerful cry of ‘she’ll be right’, and on class conflict rather than collaboration. The fact that Australian coalminers and waterside workers could insist on their full quota of holidays, and even go on strike, when the very survival of the country was in jeopardy evoked as much bewilderment as scorn; but these extreme cases, which were seen not as Moscow-inspired but as authentically Australian, did not concern them so much as the general lack of enterprise and incentive, the universal desire to get the maximum reward for the minimum effort, and the social and economic legislation which protected and promoted these attitudes. According to Johnson, ‘the average Australian desires a high standard of living but he expects the state to give it to him, while by contrast the American desires a high standard of living but expects to work for it’.”

—“(Mr. Moffat’s) harshest strictures were directed at businessmen who, he said, lacked initiative and enterprise and relied too heavily on the government. Indeed the real complaint not only of Moffat but of most North American diplomats in Australia, was that the whole society had too readily accepted working-class values and mores. It was one thing for trade unions to seek shorter hours, more holidays and higher pay for less work: but it was much more reprehensible for the rest of the community quietly to acquiesce in, and indeed echo, these demands.”

—“Johnson was no less concerned with Australia’s apparent lack of a work ethic. In his despatch to Roosevelt, he portrayed the Australian desire to live in a ‘legislatively planned social paradise’, with an ever-improving standard of living and without fear of external threat, and the ‘implacable hostility between labor and employer’.”

—“. . . in the mid-1940’s, as in the mid-1930’s, the senior American diplomatic representative in Australia was lamenting that, for all her potential for independent nationhood, Australia was still far too closely tied to the mother country from who the United States had broken in 1776.”

—“. . . What Australians regarded as worthy achievements towards the goals of social security and an egalitarian society seemed to many Americans indications of idleness and shiftlessness.”

—“I do not know whether I have been more struck by the similarities between the American and the Australian or the differences. I incline to believe that the similarities are more superficial and the differences more fundamental. You find here the same zest, the same enthusiams as with us. There is not however the same insistence on first rate work. The philosophy of ‘good enough’ is too prevalent in this country, and its ramifications extend far beyond mere workmanship. It is responsible for the five-day week in the government service and in many businesses; for the multitudinous holidays; for the virtual shutting-off of all business between Christmas and New Year; for the sacredness of the vacation . . .”

—“Beauty means little in their life and luxury less. The furnishing you see in almost every house is incredible. Electric lighting, for instance, is particularly bad, with blazing bulbs projecting out of the ceiling, instead of shaded lights and lamps. The shops are well stocked with good stuff but it is hard to find the best. There are no exhibitions of luxury articles exposed in the windows, as there is no demand. The average Australian probably does not go so far as to despise art and luxury, but ‘it is all right for others’ properly summarizes his views.

“Without the graces of life, the Australian has many very real compensating virtues. He is frank to a degree and does not resent frankness in others.”

—“First and foremost let me say that it is proving most interesting, and we are very happy in the outdoor existence, the free and easy hospitality, and the chance to take some interesting trips to the interior. It is an experience I would not have missed for anything, for Australia is building up a new type of civilization, which I suspect to be the civilization of the future—an equalitarian one, towards which we are slowly and relentlessly being driven in America and even Europe, and which our children, or at any rate their children, will regard as normal. It is a civilization built up on the theory that work is only an accessory to the main purpose of life—which is a wholesome use of leisure; that the accumulation of wealth is agreeable, but not worth too great a struggle, and is apt at best to be transitory, with the government taking the greater share; that ‘good enough’ should be one’s dominant philosophy and not an insistence for ‘the best’; that what we would call “the art of graceful living’ is effete and outmoded, and that formality is incompatible with sincerity, and finally that artistic pre-eminence and scholarship are pleasant accomplishments, but should not be considered as an end in themselves, but merely as an accompaniment to the more important attributes of pre-eminence in games, sport and good fellowship.”

—“Unquestionably the most serious defect in the Australian character—one that if not corrected will, I fear, prevent her ever achieving first rank is the prevalent philosophy of ‘good enough’.

—“Even in the shops it is very rare to be able to buy the best quality of anything; good enough, serviceable products are all that the public understands or requires.”

—“In the course of decades, the Australian has thus become markedly dependent on the government for aid and assistance. Apart from the normal instances of government help he expects—and receives—grants, bounties and subsidies to help him export most of his primary products (again excepting wool). But in return he submits to governmental interference in a way no other Anglo-Saxon would stand.”

—“On the whole the brainiest type of Australian does not go into politics. In this respect the parallel with the United States during most of the nineteenth centry is an apt one. The rough and tumble of political life does not appeal to the successful citizen, nor are the younger men of means as yet imbued with the ideal of public service.”

—“Any discussion, however brief, of Australia’s defense policies brings us right into the realm of external relations. Admittedly Australia cannot defend herself, although she is awakening to the pressing need of improving her situation in this respect.”

I would add that the present day Australian, while perhaps a bit more sophisticated than was the case in the Moffat and Johnson times, continues to search for his place and remains torn between “the Queen” and “the realities”. “The Queen” will win, “for a while longer”, is my prediction.

6. I have now reviewed Secret Canberra 10061 (US goals FY ’81 and Secret Canberra 03581 FY ’82 goals).⁵ What I had to say in those two messages was relevant at the time and this is true as to Secret Canberra 11492⁶ and 11792.⁷ Reference to these telegrams is for the purpose of incorporating them in this “final comment”.

7. I have been guided during my tenure of office by President Carter’s mandate to me as contained in his letter of October 25, 1977⁸ which said in part:

“Cutting the cost of government is of particular concern to me. The size of our representation abroad must be related to a stringent appraisal of policy and program requirements, and the number of personnel of all agencies must be kept at the minimum necessary to achieve our objectives. I consider this to be one of your most important goals. You should inform the Secretary of State when you believe that the staff of any agency or program is in excess of our needs. Routine implementing personnel actions remain the responsibility of the parent departments and agencies.”

I have now concluded it is not a simple task to reduce the “cost of government”. It is a disappointment that my efforts have not been more productive. But I must confess that [if] some of the suggestions and ideas, submitted by me from time to time in response to the President’s mandate, been implemented it would not necessarily have been in the best interest of U.S.-Australian relations. If for no other reason this is so because some of my proposals failed to take fully into account the resulting impact on Australia. Australia is hypersensitive about any American move, especially ones related to Australia and there would not have been a full appreciation that the effort was to reduce the cost of government. Witness the reaction to closing the Consulate in Brisbane.

7. I would be very remiss if in “my final comment” I failed to note that during my time as a United States Ambassador I have been deeply and favorably impressed with the quality and depth of support given me by members of the Foreign Service, other members of my staff and those in the Australia-New Zealand Desk in DOS. All have been diligent, and all have demonstrated a high degree of loyalty to our government. Their support for me has been generous and total and not free of constructive criticism when such was due. I have been witness to a sense of professionalism which I believe characterizes the Foreign Service and as I return to private life I will take much pleasure in saying just that whenever the occasion permits.

8. It is my hope that the Department will continue to attract those for whom excellence is the only standard for it is upon the strength and vitality and commitment of State Department personnel that our nation depends in large part as it goes about the business of leading the Free World.

Alston

1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D800582–1037. Confidential; Exdis.
2. Telegram 11325 from Canberra, November 10, called for a career Ambassador for Australia. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D800537–0925)
3. Telegram 8987 from Canberra, September 5, reported on an inspection of the Embassy. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D800425–0821)
4. Moffat was the Consul General in Sydney during the late 1930s and Ambassador to Canada from 1940 and 1943. Johnson was Ambassador to Australia from 1941 to 1945.
5. Neither found.
6. Telegram 11492 from Canberra, November 14, projected policy and issues over the next 2 months. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D800545–0531)
7. Telegram 11792 from Canberra, November 25, outlined Alston’s views on U.S.-Australian issues to be discussed with the transition team. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D800564–0186)
8. The letter is in Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Brzezinski Material, Agency File, Box 19, State: Authority and Responsibility of Ambassadors, Letters A–E, 10–11/77.