The following is my comment on P.C.P.S. D/3. I am particularly
interested in the line of thought on Page 7. [1]

During this year in Japan, the lack of United Kingdom interest in
Japanese affairs has been very evident.

The small number of United Kingdom correspondents here is some
indication of this. It is only during the last few months that the
London Times has had its own correspondent here and it is at
present the only English newspaper directly represented. The
B.B.C. withdrew its observer nearly a year ago. When we made a
survey of foreign correspondents in Japan in the middle of last
year, we found that out of a total of seventy, two came from the
United Kingdom, five from other parts of the British Commonwealth,
seven from other countries and fifty-six from the United States.

The extraordinarily meagre reporting of news from Japan in the
British Press is a natural consequence. I have likewise noticed
that in the 'Chronological Events' published by Chatham House, the
reports of Japan are scrappy and not always reliable.

On the official level in Tokyo, it has been evident that the
senior men feel, as one of them expressed it recently to me in a
letter, that 'Britain must keep to the side-lines in Japan'. This
official appears to be dominated by the idea that they should
support and praise at every public opportunity the American
conduct of the Occupation. It is clear that Europe still remains
for them the centre of gravity, and concessions to America here
are more than worthwhile if they can produce a corresponding
degree of American support for the protection of British interests
in Europe.

I therefore strongly support Sir Frederic Eggleston's view that it
would be dangerous for Australia to leave the United Kingdom the
initiative in making British Commonwealth decisions about the Far
East. I also agree with him that the United Kingdom carries more
weight than Australia and New Zealand combined. It therefore seems
particularly important that Australia should be associated from
the beginning in any talks between Britain and the United States
about the Pacific Settlement.

This association should be continuous. It would, I think, be
unsafe for Australia to delegate responsibility. It is one thing
for an agreement to be reached on the highest political level that
a certain common line will be followed by the United Kingdom and
Australia, and another thing to be certain that the United Kingdom
officials responsible for carrying out this policy will always
give full weight to the Australian point of view.

I think we should learn a lesson from our twelve months'
experience of British Commonwealth representation on the Allied
Council for Japan. While United Kingdom officials here have always
behaved correctly in their relations with me and while, as
individuals, they have always given me friendly help, I feel that
the appointment of Mr. Gascoigne and the subsequent conduct of the
political activities of the United Kingdom Liaison Mission makes
it clear, that on all major issues in Japan, the United Kingdom
has desired to follow an independent line. Perhaps the United
Kingdom has only been able to give official support to the British
Commonwealth member of the Allied Council because the Council's
field has been so limited and because the British Commonwealth
Member has conducted himself with such reticence and caution.

However, these are not necessarily qualities that the Australian
representatives should exhibit at the Pacific Peace Conference.