Letter from John J. Hearne to Frederick H. Boland (Dublin)
(641/4) (Secret)

Ireland and UNO: Conversation with Mr. Pearson

I have the honour to report (your secret minute No. 250/19A of the 21 Marta received on the 18 Aibreán)¹ that I took the opportunity of the occasion of Mr. Pearson's departure this week for Lake Success to call upon him by appointment yesterday afternoon. I felt that a call on such an occasion would naturally lead to a talk on our position vis à vis UNO.

Mr. Pearson is the head of the Canadian Delegation to the Special Assembly of UNO called to consider the question of Palestine. It meets, as you are aware, on the 28th April. The Canadian Delegation leaves Ottawa tomorrow.

'I hope' Mr. Pearson said on my arrival 'you've got a few bright ideas on Palestine. If you have, they will be as welcome as the flowers of May. I don't know how to face this business.'

'The press says that you're going to set up a Committee'.

'I suppose that's what we'll do to start with. But who's going to be on it? Not us, I hope'.

'How can you avoid it?'

'That's what St. Laurent said'.

'I think that particular mantle has fallen on Canada. You are the mediators. You can do endless good. You have a fresh outlook and no complexes on these terrible European problems. These poor people are looking to you'.

'I wish Ireland was in on these things.'

I then told Mr. Pearson that I had come to wish him good-luck at Lake Success but also to mention a matter which was causing us all a good deal of anxiety namely Communist activities. I asked him whether in particular he would find it possible to give me an idea about Communist methods of infiltration into the Canadian Civil Service. This part of the conversation is reported in my report No. 609/5 of today's date despatched herewith.²

When the part just referred to of our conversation ended I said that as Mr. Pearson had mentioned us earlier in connection with UNO I had been wondering whether there was any view on the subject of the election of the rejected applicants for membership. I thanked the Under Secretary of State for the forthright remarks on Canada's attitude to Ireland's candidature, etc., contained in Chapter 3 on 'The Admission of New Members' (pp. 46-50) of his Department's Report of the 1st March (transmitted with my report No. 641/3 of the 1st April). I recalled Ambassador Wilgress's speech of the 6th November (Appendix IV pp. 207-8 of the Report referred to) and told Mr. Pearson that I had expressed our thanks in New York to Dr. Wilgress for his remarks at the time.

The Under Secretary said that he could not see how the Russians could persist in the veto in our case. They had had no discussions in the Department about the position of the defeated candidates. 'But', he said, 'if Italy is elected, as she is going to be, Ireland will surely be elected. I think Finland and Hungary e.g. will probably be elected as well as Italy. You know our views on Ireland, we will go all out for your election'.³

Mr. Pearson then said that he would talk to Mr. Escott Reid⁴ about this and they would make a point of sounding out Delegations and the Secretariat, during the Special Session, on the subject of Ireland's election this year. He would give me a full account of the position on his return. He didn't think it would be a long Session.

'Can I say that you want to be elected?' he asked me.

I said 'Yes definitely. There was a suggestion in one or two unimportant quarters at home that we should withdraw our application. But the Government refused to do that. Mr. de Valera told the Dáil that they would let the application stand and let things take their course. The Dáil did not question the Government's decision. We ought to be in the Organization.'

Mr. Pearson entirely agreed. He thought it would have been very unwise to withdraw our application. He said that I could take it that he would find out the exact position and the prospects of our election this year while at Lake Success and brief me fully.

The sincerity of the Under Secretary's remarks and his enthusiasm for our election were unquestionable.

He then referred to the meetings here on the subject of the status and title of High Commissioners. This is reported in a separate report No. 250/19 of today's date despatched herewith.⁵