Your telegram 325 [1] makes no reference to our conversations with
New Zealand except on the one point of Mr. Fraser's statement on
colonial mandates. Policy of Australia on this point has been
consistent but this fact receives little recognition in the
telegram. The United Kingdom High Commissioner at Wellington was
consulted by Mr. Fraser before latter released statement to press
[2] and statement was modified by Mr. Fraser subsequently.

2. Mr. Fraser's statement was an expression of a joint objective
which both Governments have frequently urged both publicly and
privately. In that expression the two Governments exercised a
well-established right relating to the conduct of the foreign
policy of the Dominion.

3. Turning to cable No. 325 we point out that, in the first place,
the basic principle of all the resolutions adopted at Wellington
on colonial policy had already been expressed in the Australia -
New Zealand Agreement [3] (vide Clause 28). That agreement has
been on public record since the beginning of this year. It has
never been varied by the Australian and New Zealand Governments
and could be varied only with consent of both Governments.

Moreover, that agreement was cordially received by the British
press and by Dominions Secretary in House of Lords. [4]

4. Secondly, after the proposal for a declaration on colonial
policy was first put forward in the latter part of 1942, we fully
advised you by Governmental telegram of our views, in particular
respecting the principle of trusteeship. [5] In subsequent
exchanges [6] we gave every evidence of our anxiety to reach a
common policy with you in this question. The suggestion for a
joint declaration was apparently abandoned (in circumstances never
explained to us), but some months later a unilateral announcement
was made on 13th July, 1943, in the House of Commons. [7] We were
not informed of the reasons for this procedure, nor were we given
notice that a statement was to be made. Had we been consulted, as
should be clear from our previous telegrams (particularly our
telegram No. 2 of 2nd January, 1943) we would certainly have
commented on the omission from the statement of 13th July, 1943,
of any reference to the principle of trusteeship.

5. Your reference to Prime Ministers' Conference is noted.

However, it was most clearly and specifically stated by you and
understood that the meeting of Prime Ministers last May was merely
a personal exchange of views without commitment of Governments to
any decisions on foreign policy. In any case, the record quoted by
you does not bear out the contention that Mr. Curtin took the view
that international supervision would be contrary to the interests
of dependent peoples and parent nations. Mr. Curtin, as shown in
the record, simply dissented from one particular suggestion
relating to the furnishing of reports. [8] There was not the
slightest disclaimer of the broad principles of trusteeship
outlined both in the Australia - New Zealand Agreement, which Mr.

Curtin signed as Prime Minister, and also in our confidential
communications to you. Moreover, as will appear from page four of
the Minutes of the 10th Meeting [9] Colonel Stanley himself
favoured imposing an obligation on colonial powers to make
reports. He added that the question of supervision could best be
left on a regional basis, but it is necessary to make clear that
we have never rejected the idea of regional colonial organisation
nor have we regarded such regional bodies as conflicting in any
way with principle of colonial trusteeship, although we think it
would be a mistake to give them powers of supervision.

6. Incidentally, your telegram suggests that you attribute to us a
proposal for international 'control' of colonies. Such a term does
not describe our view, in the expression of which we have been
careful to use the term 'supervision', as indicating a very
limited and special function, interfering in no way with the
sovereignty and control by the parent States.

7. We do not agree that limited obligations in relation to an
authority set up within the framework of the proposed General
International Organisation would be contrary to the interests of
dependent peoples and parent nations. Australia has not been
prejudiced by the annual review of New Guinea by the Permanent
Mandates Commission. On the contrary, this was found to be
advantageous to Australia as well as to the native peoples. In the
exchanges on colonial policy in December and January 1942-43, it
seemed clear that the Canadian view on this question of
supervision accorded with ours. [10]

8. We believe that trusteeship has several aspects. While the
trust is primarily for the welfare of native peoples, it is also
calculated to serve the interests both of the International
community generally and of the parent State itself. We feel that
the best guarantee that colonial powers will fulfil their trust is
a system comparable to the Mandate System whereby the practical
work of promoting welfare and advancement of native peoples will
be regularly examined by an expert body which can make positive
suggestions for promoting such welfare. We believe that the
British Commonwealth has everything to gain and nothing to lose by
the publicity which must flow from such a system.

9. As regards some non-British colonial powers, we feel there is
positive necessity for some form of international review. Mr.

Churchill is recorded as stating (page five of Minutes of 10th
Meeting), that the proposed general International Organisation
might be given power to take over colonial territories from powers
which fail to maintain reasonable standards of administration and
defence. This objective could hardly be realised without adequate
provision for some form of reviewing authority or commission.

10. We refer also to the British Labour Parry's policy on this
question as announced in March, 1943. [11] It is quite natural
that the Labour Governments both in Australia and New Zealand
should take a similar view.

11. We are reluctant to leave the matter at this point and are
willing to receive any suggestion from you for resumption of the
consultation on this question which through no act of ours was
interrupted in 1943. The International Conference on Aviation has
demonstrated that the British Nations may adopt differing views on
foreign policy without any real prejudice to their very intimate
and special association. However, your suggestion of a separate
declaration of United Kingdom policy at this stage might well be
misinterpreted particularly as there has been warm approval in
Australia of the general policy expressed both in the Australia -
New Zealand Agreement and in Mr. Fraser's press statement after
the Wellington talks.

12. Meanwhile, we will be glad to receive from you when completed,
the proposals referred to in your telegram of which we had
received no previous advice from you. Had such advice been
available, it would clearly have been a factor to be taken account
of It is possible that a suitable opportunity for further
discussion will come with consideration of the plans for world
organisation. There were, of course, other more urgent matters
discussed at Wellington between the Governments and no doubt we
shall hear your comments on these in due course.