Colonel Stanley's paper [1] on the International aspects of
colonial policy seems to mark a definite advance towards some of
the main objectives set out in paragraph 28 to 31 of the
Australian - New Zealand Agreement of January, 944, under the
heading 'Welfare and Advancement of Native Peoples of the
Pacific'.

2. The Paper explicitly accepts the Australian - New Zealand
thesis of international collaboration on a regional basis through
the machinery of such regional commissions as the proposed South
Seas Commission referred to in the Australian - New Zealand
Agreement and the Caribbean Commission.

3. The Paper also advocates international collaboration in
relation to Colonial territories by the creation of further
central functional bodies, such as the I.L.O., which functional
bodies will be attached to the world organisation. It will be
recalled that the Australian - New Zealand Agreement declares in
paragraph 28 that the doctrine of trusteeship is applicable in
broad principle to colonial territories. It also declares that the
main purpose of the trust is the welfare of the native peoples and
their social, economic and political development.

4. As is pointed out in paragraph 2 of the Paper, the doctrine of
trusteeship was often invoked prior to 1918 by British statesmen
desirous of describing the essential features of British colonial
policy.

5. The broad objective of the new functional bodies advocated by
the British Paper is the same as that of the Australian - New
Zealand Agreement in its explicit embodiment of the general
principle of advancing the welfare of the native peoples.

6. Further it may fairly be observed:-

(a) that Colonel Stanley's Paper concedes there is some degree of
responsibility in respect of a colonial territory whether that
territory is under mandate or not; and
(b) that the responsibility of the parent State is not merely a
matter of domestic but of international concern.

7. There are important consequences which flow from the
establishment of organisations such as the I.L.O. or other
functional bodies of an international character. These
consequences may be illustrated by the I.L.O. itself. That
organisation results from an international agreement as a result
of which it becomes the duty of all member States not only to
pursue the objective of improving labour conditions but to accept
a specific means for achieving such objective, i.e. the adoption
of domestic legislation of a character approved by the
international body. An analogous organisation is the proposed Food
and Agriculture Organisation. Similarly, in relation to functional
bodies performing duties in relation to States, including States
with dependent territories. Such bodies, to be efficient, must at
least provide some machinery by which, from time to time,
obligations of an international character will be assumed by a
State in relation (inter alia) to its colonial territories.

8. It will probably be found, in practice, that all these
functional bodies will be compelled to draw a distinction between
the conditions in the metropolitan territory of a Power and the
conditions in the colonial territory of the Power. For instance,
an increase in the standard of living of native peoples would
often result from fixing minimum labour conditions, although such
conditions would probably be far below the established standard of
the people in the metropolitan territory of the parent power. In
other words, the problem of the people in the colonial territories
is not merely an incident of the general international problem of
advancing labour and welfare conditions but is-to say the least-a
separable branch of such international problems.

9. Moreover, colonial territories are at very different degrees of
political development. This is sufficiently indicated by the
important distinctions between A, B and C class mandates.

International action which is applicable to one group might be
quite inapplicable to another. If this is correct, it suggests
that the proposed international functional body or bodies will
probably be compelled to deal separately with peoples of dependent
territories, at least in respect of native peoples at a similar
state of development to the peoples at present covered by class C
mandates.

10. The conclusion from the above is that there is a reasonable
possibility that the British Commonwealth countries might reach an
agreement which would satisfy the general principles of the
Australian New Zealand Agreement by not only adopting the regional
system which we favour but by establishing effective functional
bodies of the I.L.O. character. Much will depend upon the precise
terms and conditions of the proposed instrument establishing the
functional bodies suggested by Colonel Stanley.

11. With regard to Colonel Stanley's suggested alteration of the
mandates special difficulties may arise. It must not be forgotten
that, in the United States, there has never been a formal
recognition of the fact that the original sovereignty of the
German colonial territories passed from Germany to the League of
Nations. The United States refused to become a party to the
mandatory system. If that system is altered it is easy to
visualise a very strong United States demand for a complete
revision of the system of administration of mandated territories.

It will be remembered that the mandatory system expressly placed
upon the mandatory powers, in respect at least of C class
mandates, the international duty of developing the native peoples
in the direction of selfgovernment. While this provision was never
felt as a hardship by Britain and the Dominions which had in
practice declared principles in accordance with the spirit of such
a provision, the tearing up of the existing Mandates might raise
more problems than it would solve.

12. On the whole the retention of our own mandated territory, the
allocation to friendly powers or groups of powers of mandates
formerly held by Japan as well as the disposal of the Italian
overseas possessions appears likely to be achieved more smoothly
by a continuance of an international system comparable to the
mandates system than by direct transfer of sovereignty as
envisaged by paragraphs 30 and 31 of your memorandum. For us in
Australia, at any rate, the future stability, prosperity and
strong defence of French, Dutch and Portuguese colonies in Asia
and the South Seas are of vital importance. In being willing to
continue to present our own colonial administration to a
reasonable degree of scrutiny we would gain by bringing other
colonial territories under an equal degree of scrutiny. Mr. Curtin
drew attention to these considerations in London last May.

13. In the nature of things, these comments do not contain a full
analysis of the many problems referred to in Colonel Stanley's
important Paper. But we have said sufficient to show that there is
or should be room for agreement on the matters raised, and every
step should be taken to reach an agreemeent within the British
Commonwealth in the first instance, and before the United States
view becomes crystallised.