740.0011 Pacific War/1609
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Winant) to the Secretary of State
Netherlands Series 5 from Biddle.
My No. 3, January 6, paragraph four.1
Van Kleffens has asked me to let you know of his deep regret that the Netherlands Government’s request to insert “and Dutch Chiefs of Staff” in paragraph one of Annex 2 of the Wavell instructions2 had not been accepted since both Batavia and the Government here held this point to be of paramount importance. He said that in a conversation with Eden today he had emphasized his government’s disappointment over this rejection and Eden had pointed out that inclusion of a Dutch Chief of Staff would undoubtedly have given rise to a like request by the Australians. Van Kleffens replied that the present position of the Dutch East Indies was different from that of Australia since former were now in the forefront of the fight. Hence he felt that at this stage it would be only reasonable to include the Dutch in the planning body and to say to the Australians that they might be included later if they should come into a similar front.
[Page 313]Van Kleffens went on to say that since his talk with Eden his reactions in the matter had been confirmed by his examination of subparagraph B of paragraph 2 of the main body of the Wavell instructions3 which he interpreted as meaning that Australian forces were outside of the Wavell command until such time as those forces were specifically allotted by the Australian Government to the ABDA area.
I thereupon asked him whether he had taken into consideration the possibility that the phrase: “in or in support of the ABDA area” might be constructed [construed?] to mean that Australian forces on Australian territory were actually in support of the ABDA area. He replied he did not believe this was the meaning intended.