Your telegram D. 538. [2]

We have given consideration to the contents of your telegram and
to your and Hull's views on question of colonies. At the moment we
do not propose to offer any exhaustive comment, but we think it
important that you should be acquainted with preliminary
observations on the matter.

[The text of a statement on colonial policy made by Evatt to the
House of Representatives on 3 September 1942 has been omitted.]

3. As colonial policy will be one of the main questions affecting
post-war relations of United Nations, as well as one of the chief
tests by which the readiness of the United Nations to apply the
principles of the Atlantic Charter will be judged, we feel that
the initial approach to the matter should be on the widest
possible basis. An approach arising mainly from a desire to meet
current criticism in the United States is in our view far too
narrow. Because it would be essentially defensive it could hardly
provide a satisfactory basis for reaching a genuine accord of view
with United States Administration. The question should be
presented to the United States, and in due course to other
principal Powers interested, as an integral and highly important
part of the whole range of questions affecting the post-war
international order in which it is essential that the British
Commonwealth should work in accord with the principal United
Nations.

4. For these reasons a condition precedent to the initiation of
the matter with the United States Administration would appear to
be a most careful preliminary examination, and if possible prior
agreement among the members of the British Commonwealth on broad
fundamental principles. In this connection the degree and extent
to which parent States are prepared to relinquish sovereignty in
favour of principle of international trusteeship seems most
important. If, in the meantime, it is necessary to deal with
criticism in United States public opinion this is surely better
done through existing information and propaganda channels.

5. An agreed declaration on colonial policy containing specific
assurances must be an essential part of the declared war aims of
the United Nations. Such a declaration would, apart from its
intrinsic merit as a charter of colonial policy, be of cardinal
importance for the proper conduct of political warfare in South-
east Asia and Pacific region.

So far our propaganda is necessarily of a negative character. We
have little to offer as an alternative of the Japanese co-
prosperity sphere until such time as the Allied Nations reach
definite understanding on the fundamental principles which shall
guide their future colonial policy and administration.

We think that a full and frank exploration of the question with
the United States Administration is a necessary preliminary to
such a declaration, though we recognise a risk that such bilateral
conversations may create suspicion and give rise to
misunderstanding with other colonial Powers.

6. In our view the decision as to whether the declaration should
be a joint Anglo-American declaration or whether the Netherlands
and other colonial Powers should be associated with it could
safely be left to the conclusion of the exploratory stage. It
would be well to have in mind however the fact that the colonial

settlement will have an important bearing on general peace
settlement and that for that reason all leading members of the
United Nations, and in fact all Powers having overseas
possessions, will be interested in the general lines of the
contemplated declaration.

7. As for the actual content of post-war colonial policy we
confine ourselves at this point to the following brief
observations:-

(a) There should be recognition that the administration of
territories which have not yet attained self-government is a trust
to be exercised in the first place in the interests of (and to the
fullest possible degree in association with) the native
inhabitants, and in the second place in the promotion of the
common welfare of the particular regional group as a whole, and in
the third place in the interests of the other nations.

(b) Parent states (a better term would be mandatory, guardian or
trustee states) should accept the principle of accountability for
their trust to some International Colonial Commission, operating
through machinery analogous to the Permanent Mandates Commission,
which on the whole was regarded as successful.

(c) There should be explicit acceptance of the principle that the
colonial peoples should take part, to the fullest degree
compatible with their social and political development, in the
government both of their own territories and of the region in
which they live; trustee states to take immediate and practical
steps to promote the social, economic and political progress of
such peoples, looking to the time when they will, each at the
appropriate stage, undertake the full responsibilities of self-
government.

(d) Exclusive economic rights in colonial territories to be
abandoned and ready access to their markets and raw materials to
be open to all countries.

(e) Regional Colonial Commissions, consisting of representatives
of trustee states, of other primarily interested states, including
the Dominions in their respective areas and of native peoples who
have reached or are approaching the stage of self-government, to
be established.

This body might be (i) regarded as the agent of the International
Colonial Commission in matters pertaining to the implementation of
agreed international policy; (ii) co-operative and consultative
for dealing with questions of mutual concern to all the adjacent
colonies, and for promoting regional educational, social and
economic standards.

(f) Within this framework, and subject to the principles laid down
in (a), (b), (c) and (d) above, responsibility for the
administration of colonial territories to continue to be that of
the trustee state with which in each case the territory has been
associated in the past, subject to Peace Treaty adjustments
involving alterations of sovereignty in the interests of general
security.

8. These observations are necessarily of the briefest character
and take no account at this stage either of the profound influence
on colonial development which would follow from application of the
economic principles set out in Article 7 of our respective Mutual
Aid Agreements with the United States or of the degree to which
colonial development will be subject to arrangements for general
international security. On this latter point we have not found it
easy to follow the reasons for the special emphasis laid on
colonial defence in the suggestions conveyed in your D.538.

Colonial security would inevitably be a corollary of a general
security system and it would in our view be a mistake at this
stage to anticipate one aspect of this system by seeking what
would be tantamount to a guarantee of American participation in
colonial defence.

9. We should appreciate being informed of the views of the other

Dominion Governments in reply to your telegram D.538. [3]