Your D.1537 [1] and 1538 [2] of 24th August.

Far Eastern Advisory Commission.

1. We have been impressed in the past with the need for a body
similar to, but more representative than, the European Advisory
Commission for Pacific purposes. Therefore, we agree that the
proposed Far Eastern Advisory Commission representative of all
Powers chiefly responsible for the defeat of Japan might serve a
useful purpose in coordinating the fulfilment of the surrender
terms.

2. The following considerations seem to us important:

(a) The proposal as it stands that the Commission should deal with
the steps necessary and the machinery required to supervise
Japan's compliance with surrender terms might interfere with the
setting up or effective functioning of a control authority for
Japan in the first decisive stages of the post-surrender period so
as to leave the Supreme Commander in sole control. For reasons
explained in our telegram 249 [3] this is unsatisfactory. We hope
it is not intended and we strongly support the establishment of a
Control Council by selected Allied Powers, including Australia.

(b) The relation of the proposed Advisory Commission to the
Council of Foreign Ministers needs careful examination. It seems
that the Council of Foreign Ministers will continue to be the
decisive policy-shaping body for settlement of basic territorial
and other issues in the Far East. Australian membership of
proposed Advisory Commission cannot in any way be regarded as a
substitute for our full participation in the work of the Council.

3. Clause VI of terms of reference (your D.1538) giving the right
to terminate the Commission at the will of any one of the Four
Powers is in our view unnecessary and unjustifiable. This is
surely the veto carried to its most illogical conclusion.