Letter from Frederick H. Boland to Thomas J. Kiernan (Canberra)¹
(Confidential)

M. Bidault's² speech on the 16th April calling for the establishment of an Atlantic High Council for Peace raises an issue of fundamental importance for the consideration of the Conference of Foreign Ministers to be held in London next month. M. Bidault's proposal is obviously the fruit of a good deal of reflection on the part of the French Government. It follows a number of statements on the same lines by M. Schuman, principally his speech on the 26th March suggesting that the Atlantic Pact should be expanded into an 'Atlantic community', and that this development would help to remove from the Pact its too exclusively military character. There are signs that this idea has been receiving careful official consideration in all the principal capitals concerned.

The Minister is very anxious that all missions abroad should keep a sharp eye on the development of opinion with regard to this French proposal, and inform the Department promptly of all information and comment in connection with it which may come under their notice. The texts of any relevant official statements, editorials, commentaries, news items, etc., should be airmailed to this Department, in translation, without delay. You should take advantage of every suitable opportunity to ascertain the trend of official opinion with regard to the idea in the country to which you are accredited, reporting the effect of any conversation you may have on the subject to the Department as expeditiously as possible.

The importance of the French proposal, from our point of view, will be obvious to you. Needless to say no final official attitude has been adopted here with regard to it, and this is not likely to be done until the proposal assumes a more definite shape than it has at present. In any consideration of it, however, the following factors are bound to weigh heavily:-

• this country is definitely out of the Atlantic Pact and any arrangement which would savour of our entering the Pact by a back-door is out of the question so far as we are concerned;
• the military end is the worst end from which to approach the problem of effective international co-operation. The cohesion of Western Europe is best illustrated in the OEEC and the Council of Europe, and the success of those organisations is largely due to the fact that they leave the question of mutual military obligations aside altogether;
• one of the worst dangers to effective international co-operation is the confusion created by the multiplicity of international organisations working in that field. Any proposal to set up a new organisation is open to preliminary objection from that point of view, and, if it threatened in any way to endanger the operation of bodies like the OEEC and the Council of Europe, which are already operating so satisfactorily, it would be positively suspect.

I would emphasise again that, although this and other similar considerations are very much present to the Minister's mind, he does not intend to attempt to reach any final conclusion until the French Government's suggestion is given the form of a specific proposal. In the meantime, however, there is no objection to your mentioning the considerations just referred to as examples of the kind of factors which are bound to count with your Government.

As it is of considerable importance that the Department should be fully and accurately informed of developments in connection with this matter, the Minister would be glad if you would give this instruction your special attention.