388 J.-A. PEMBERTON
Like the British members, the Australian, Chinese, Indian and New
Zealand members stressed that the question as to what extent the other
United Nations could count on the United States carrying out its com-
mitments under the Atlantic Charter was of central importance to the
determination of their own future policies.^148 Against this background
and in light of the probability that come the end of the war the United
States would be the strongest power in the world, the conference was
almost unanimously of the view that ‘there can be no lasting peace unless
the American people assume the full burden of their responsibility under
the tenets of the Atlantic Charter.’^149
Despite the apprehensions expressed at the conference, the belief
prevalent among members was that the tide of public opinion in the
United States was moving in the direction of American involvement
in the organisation of post-war security, in particular in relation to the
Asia-Pacific region. As evidence that the Americans felt a special sense of
responsibility for that region, the conference proceedings recorded the
following declaration by an American delegate: ‘We are in the Pacific to
stay.’^150 It was a prevalent view at the conference that an unambiguous
expression of American support for the principle of collective security
would ‘in turn encourage further steps in the colonial field.’^151
The import of the Atlantic Charter was discussed at Mont Tremblant
not only in relation to the question of the liberation of subject peoples
and the question of the organisation of security in and the economic
development of the Pacific region: it was also discussed in relation to the
immigration policies of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United
States. Chinese and Indian members stated that to them, the immigra-
tion question was mainly a matter of ‘racial discrimination.’ They fur-
ther stated that as immigration laws that discriminated on ethnic grounds
carried ‘an implication of national inferiority,’ and they were a cause of
suspicion and hostility among the groups affected.^152 Both the Chinese
and Indian members insisted that such laws were contrary to the spirit of
the Atlantic Charter. This was a point on which most members appeared
to converge: the conference proceedings record that ‘[i]n general, there
(^148) Ibid., 76.
(^149) Ibid., 49, 146.
(^150) Ibid., 78.
(^151) Ibid., 46, 117.
(^152) Ibid., 74.