CAB129-45 — Page 12

Page 12.

implying both that the United Kingdom was withdrawing from its proper

share of responsibility in the Pacific area and that Australia and New

Zealand, in conjunction with the United States, were disinteresting

themselves in territories, and particularly British territories (e. g.

Malaya, North Borneo), in the area of the East Indies. It might also

give the impression that the United Kingdom was being unduly subservient

to the United States in the Pacific, which, at a time when public opinion in

the United Kingdom is particularly sensitive on this point in relation to

Naval appointments in the Atlantic, would not be in the best interests of

Anglo-American relations. Indeed, neither of these impressions would

be helpful to our common cause, which is why I feel justified in speaking

to you so frankly on the subject. Both of these impressions would in fact

be strengthened if the Philippines were included as this would point up

the exclusion of the United Kingdom.

I want to put our difficulties frankly to you and I know that you

will reply in the same spirit and let me know what you think. I do not

want to make any official suggestions at this stage and that is why I am

sending this personal message. But the sort of points on which we would

like your views are whether there is any way in which the United Kingdom

could participate in or be associated with the Treaty, and whether the

Treaty could be so framed as to form a stepping-stone towards the wider

regional organisation we have in mind.

Alternatively could the United

States guarantee take some other form which would get over some of our

difficulties? In any case, we hope that you will share our views about

the Philippines and will feel able to press the United States that they

should not be included.

We do not want to hold matters up, if you feel it imperative to

go ahead and if there is any prospect of early endorsement in Washington

Page 12

Page 12

-6-