It was about Australia's status/prestige/recognition for the degree to which they contributed to the victory, and about influence in post-surrender Japan. It wasn't about being on bad terms with Canada, the Netherlands and France, it was about being on bad terms with the US and the UK. Australia felt they were being sidelined, and the inclusion of other nations watered down the significance of Australia's inclusion.

​

Australia originally negotiated hard to sign the instrument of surrender as a separate belligerent - as in, not subordinate to Britain, but alongside Britain, the US, etc as an equal.

But this isn't just about who signs the document but who would then have a claim to manage Japan's post-surrender affairs. Australia wanted to be a large part of the force that occupies Japan and Japanese-controlled areas. Generally speaking, our foreign policy has been strongly shaped by a desire to have influence over neighbouring Pacific islands (Timor-Leste, the Solomon Islands etc), so that's probably relevant too.

More specifically, Australia wanted the forces they committed to be under direct Australian control, rather than under British control. (Possible relevant: throughout both world wars there was a huge amount of conflict between the Australian military and what they saw as inept British leadership putting them in terrible situations for stupid reasons - most famously at the battle of Gallipoli).

​

Despite Australia's geographic concerns about the Pacific, they were generally sidelined, overruled, underinformed, etc etc by Britain and the US. Their military was used but decisions were made over their heads and without telling them.

Here is the Australian reaction to news of the ultimatum given to Japan:

" Although that ultimatum declared certain terms or principles of the peace settlement with Japan, it was published without prior reference to, still less the concurrence of, the Australian government. The ultimatum was of fundamental importance to Australia, yet our first knowledge, both of the terms and its publication, came from the press."

​

So, the situation around the instrument of surrender was trying to reclaim the place Australia felt they deserved. It was not really successful.

"The combination of events lends considerable validity to the Federal Opposition’s* suspicions that the Australian government, by accepting a secondary role for Australian troops in the latter stages of the war, had also committed itself to a secondary role politically in subsequent negotiations concerning Japan."

*Federal Opposition = the major political party that is not currently governing.

- The Australian Military Contribution to the Occupation of Japan, 1945-1952

https://www.awm.gov.au/sites/default/files/BCOF_history.pdf

​

That doc goes into a huge amount of the context around this, without explicitly saying why we objected to the other smaller forces other than New Zealand signing. (Australia and New Zealand basically had a joint military force, they are deeply entwined allies).

​

But I think given the above, and the kind of jostling for status and control going on, it makes sense that. There isl more prestige and influence if Australia stands alone rather than alongside France, Canada and Holland.

​