FEC. 143. Basic Policy.
1. FEC met 5 June. Considered basic policy. Americans, Chinese, and Russians were very anxious for immediate adoption, but UK did not have instructions, Indian member proposed an amendment, and Mr. Makin asked for delay of another week.
2. With object of securing delay and allowing opportunity for informal negotiations on your pending instructions (your 634), Mr.
Makin proposed that paper be referred to sub-committee with instructions to consider Australian, Indian, and UK positions.
This would have prevented vote being forced at meeting next week if you were not prepared by then. This motion would probably have been carried if British Commonwealth had all supported Mr. Makin, but although UK, India, and Canada supported us, NZ representative (Powles) not only opposed Mr. Makin’s proposal but strongly urged paper being kept on agenda of Commission to avoid delay in passage of paper.
3. Indian member proposed following amendment to be added to opening of document: ‘The policy so far followed by the SCAP in Japan up to date has conformed to the principles underlying this document. Its publication at this stage when the commencement of the negotiation of a peace treaty is within sight is intended to inform all concerned of the precise nature of the aims and objects of the Allied nations. Further, it is confidently hoped that it will serve as a stern warning to all that no aggression whether political or economic, and no reliance on military might for aggressive aims by any State or Power of the world will be tolerated by human conscience, but shall earn the determined resistance of the United Nations.’ 4. McCoy was roundly contemptuous of the Indian proposal, which he said would be acceptable to no country and was no more than a political manifesto of high-sounding sentiments. He proposed that motion be disposed of immediately. Mr. Makin said that he felt that Indian Government’s suggestion should not be treated so cavalierly and that, though he himself would not like to express an opinion on the spot and could certainly not support all of Indian proposal, he felt matter should be deferred till next week to give members an opportunity to consider it. This was finally agreed to.
5. We would appreciate your views as soon as possible. Though Indian suggestion is clearly unsuitable (particularly first sentence) you may find it possible to phrase your suggested amendment in such a way as to incorporate part of Indian wording and so gain their support and good will. However, any Australian amendment should require as little change to existing document as possible in order to reduce further delays, since we wish to avoid creating any impression that, having secured no support last week, Australia is trying to prevent adoption of paper by proposing delaying amendments. During debate today, members made frequent and eulogistic references to part played by Dr. Evatt in drawing up this paper.
_
_
[AA :A3300/7,743A]