• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

By Root 898 0

with the British government on these subjects. There were, however, potentially 'some useful results'. The fact that there should now have been a public statement made by the Dominions highlighting the significance of Pacific defence was valuable as it could have implications for post-war arrangements. In addition, the idea of regional collaboration in the Pacific was one that had been already raised publicly in Whitehall. And, of course, the fact that Australia and New Zealand were seen to be enjoying closer cooperation was 'all to the good'. Aside from the other positives and negatives he also drew his colleagues' attention to another section of the agreement in which the two governments asked for representation at the highest level on all armistice planning and executive bodies. This, he thought, might lead to problems as recognizing such claims could have an 'awkward' effect in regard to discussions over the United Nations.22 London was also particularly disturbed at the suggestion that an early conference should be called, termed as a South Pacific Regional Commission, to discuss Pacific security issues involving all those countries with territorial interests in the region.

The official response sent by the DO to both the Dominion governments contained mixed messages. On the one hand there was some praise for the strengthening of relations between the two and platitudes about them having taken such a bold step. There were also lots of concerned references about the United States which was clearly central to most of the matters raised.23 In essence it was asked that all of the matters of substance, particularly the call for the creation of a South Seas Regional Council, be held in abeyance to be discussed at the prime ministers' conference which was due to be held in London in a few months’ time. In the DO's eyes this meant Canada and South Africa could be included in the discussions and they could probably be counted upon to scupper the worst elements of the Australian plan. Evatt was disappointed at the reaction. He felt that there was collusion between Washington and London in their rejections of his call for an international conference and hoped that the British view might come to recognize that time was of the essence.24 He told Cross that it was necessary to 'stake a claim' and argued that it might have been embarrassing to Britain to have been consulted in advance. Of course what he did not say was what both parties knew full well, that if London had been told of the plan in advance, considerable embarrassment would have come from its almost certainly negative reaction. Evatt's anger still seems to have been based as much on the outcome of the Cairo Conference, Cross reporting that the concessions made to China at this meeting between the Allied leaders the previous year still 'rankled'; whether it was the nature of the concessions or the fact that there had been no prior consultation with Canberra was not so clear.

While the FO was upset that the draft reply had been produced without it having been consulted, the agreement itself was generally viewed much more favourably.25 It was felt the process could have been handled in a better manner, but the practical result was helpful from the point of view of enhancing the world position of the Commonwealth.26 The two governments were in a position to be able to say things that would be 'much less convincing' if they had come from London. It demonstrated to Washington that Australia and New Zealand were independent-minded states and 'not mere appendages of Great Britain'. It also was felt it should serve notice that some of the comments being made by American commanders in the Anzac area had been poorly received.27 Indeed, the concerns about the manner of the publication aside, the conclusion within the FO was that the Pact had done more good than harm and had made clear to the United States certain points which British diplomats could never have made.28 This was, of course, just as the Antipodean politicians had claimed. A more detailed analysis was provided by the