FEC-219/125 (extract) [WASHINGTON], 25 July 1947

RESTRICTED

AUSTRALIAN POSITION ON DIVISION OF SHARES [1]

The Australian member said that in connection with his
Delegation's position on the reparations problem he had a
statement to make which he thought would be of interest to the
Committee. A verbatim record of the Australian statement follows:

MR BULLOCK:

At the outset I should like to emphasize that the Australian
Government is as anxious as any country represented around this
table to arrive at a just and speedy solution of the reparations
problem.

The impasse with which the Committee is now faced was foreseen by
the Australian Delegation at the time when the Australian
representative made a statement before the Commission on 5 May. As
you all know this was to the effect that the Australian Government
does not challenge the right of the Far Eastern Commission to
determine the total volume of reparations from Japan or the forms
which those reparations should take, but that the Australian
Government believes that the Far Eastern Commission is not legally
competent to determine the question of the division of shares. I
don't wish to enter into that legal argument again at this stage.

From the practical point of view as well, it was obvious to the
Australian Delegation at that time, and it is even more obvious
today after having witnessed how unprofitable subsequent
discussions in the committee have been, that we would waste our
time endeavouring to arrive at a responsible list of reparations
percentages on a 'hit and miss' basis.

The Australian Government does not consider that the present
discussions in this committee are likely to be very productive.

There is the practical difficulty that members have only scanty
statistical data as to the losses and contribution of the other
member countries. This fact can very clearly be seen in some of
the percentages which have been presented. I refer particularly to
the USSR schedule which gives Australia a percentage of 2.5%. This
would prove beyond doubt that the USSR representative is sadly
lacking in the necessary information about Australia's
contribution to the Pacific War. To allot this figure to a country
whose part in the Pacific war was second only to that of the
United States is frankly an insult. I could make the same
observations about many of the schedules which have been
presented. The Netherlands schedule, for example, claims a share
for the Netherlands twice as great as that for Australia. This is
quite untenable when the scope and duration of their war effort is
compared with that of Australia. It is estimated that Australia's
losses of servicemen killed in the Pacific Area alone were more
than twice as great as those suffered in all spheres by the
Netherlands who were unfortunate enough to be forced to surrender
to the Japanese in March of 1942.

We believe that the method which is being followed in this
committee is too much in the nature of guesswork and blind venture
and as the Australian Member of the FEC has said, 'it is a stab in
the dark made in ignorance of many important considerations'. The
fact that you, Mr. Chairman, should have recently stated that
solution of this problem is beyond human power and should have
proposed in all seriousness a method which would mean drawing lots
for percentages, shows the state of hopelessness which this
committee has reached.

My Government has proposed that there should be a careful working
out of a system of distribution based on justice and calculated on
broad political lines, taking into account the relative
contribution of each nation to victory and its physical losses and
damage and the personal injuries and loss of life of its
servicemen, internees, and other nationals.

We have previously proposed that a tribunal of three independent
and preferably judicial persons be established to make the
necessary investigations, and have suggested that this tribunal
report direct to the peace conference. In that way we should
achieve a table of 11 percentages responsibly prepared and
accompanied by complete factual supporting material. The final
adjustments and the adoption of the allocations should be made at
the peace conference, which alone has the power to take account of
all relevant factors. My Government believes that this offers the
only way to a speedy and just settlement of the reparations
question. Events are now moving rapidly towards the calling of a
peace conference and we feel that the time has come to give
consideration again to the Australian proposal which if followed
will very likely produce a definite result within a few months.

The U. S. Member asked the Australian Member whether his statement
constituted a challenge and a rejection of the FEC basic policy
decision. The Australian Member replied that this was a possible
interpretation of his statement.