Extracts from a memorandum by John J. Hearne
'Anti-Partition Campaign in the United States' (Copy)

The issue of Irish national unity has never been blazed across the American continent as the issue of Irish national independence was blazed thirty years ago. The reasons are manifest.

The Rising, the execution of the leaders, the imprisonment of hundreds of Irishmen who fought or stood for independence, the reign of terror, told a story of heroism and sacrifice on the one hand, and of tyranny on the other, which, of itself, aroused and inflamed public opinion in the United States. President de Valera’s historic mission in 1919-1920, his campaign from end to end of the country, his unique position as an American-born Irish leader who had fought in the Rising, had been sentenced to death, had escaped from Lincoln gaol, and had been elected Head of the Republic, brought home to millions of Americans, in a dramatic personal way, the realities, that is, the right and wrong of the Irish struggle and the part which American public opinion could play in carrying it to a successful conclusion.

The questions of principle involved in the solution of the problem of national unity are the same as those which were involved in the struggle for national independence. The same national issue is involved, namely, that of the right of national self-determination. The same democratic issue is involved, namely, that of the right of the majority of the whole people to rule their own land. The same issue of international justice is involved, namely, that no country has the right to occupy all or portion of the national territory of another by force against the express wishes of the overwhelming majority of the people of that other country. And so on. But these considerations have not had the same appeal abroad in the context of Irish national unity as they had when presented in the context of national freedom on the background of a War of Independence.

The facts about partition have now been made known to larger numbers of people in the United States than ever before. But this indoctrination has not resulted in the formation of an organised nation-wide favourable American public opinion on the subject. The great majority of our own people here support the policy of unity but no great national organisation has been called into existence to further the cause. Whereas, thirty years ago, the American Association for the Recognition of the Irish Republic, founded in 1920, became at once a strong and effective national organisation to further in the United States the cause of Irish independence. Eight hundred thousand members were enrolled in the AARIR in one year. In August, 1922, the late Liam Mellows¹ described the effect of President de Valera’s work in the United States in the previous two years as follows: He had ‘changed an ignorant and either apathetic or hostile people into genuine sympathisers in two years. He made the name of Ireland respected where it was despised, the Irish Cause an ideal where it had been regarded as political humbug’.

The name of Ireland stands high in the United States today but the cause of Irish unity had not become an ideal prior to World War II to the extent to which the cause of Irish independence had become an ideal at the end of World War I.

Our national policy of neutrality was condemned by the Roosevelt Administration and did not commend itself to the majority of Americans who were otherwise sympathetic in their outlook on Ireland and on the problem of Irish unity. Notwithstanding the constancy of our real friends, who stood by our national right to stay out of the war, on the ground of Partition or on any ground the Nation saw fit, the cause of Irish unity lost support all over the country during the war. So long as the war went on and for some time after the war ended, there was but little prospect of progress for an anti-Partition campaign.

The intensive anti-Partition campaign which has been conducted during the past two years has had the result referred to, namely, a widespread knowledge of the facts. The partition of Ireland, however, has not become an issue in American politics. It is not likely to become so, so long as the present international tensions continue. It may never become so. But, short of becoming a domestic issue here, the case for the removal of the border can be made to appeal more and more to the inherent sense of fair play of the mass of the American people. Successful as our efforts have been in getting the facts known, our work in that respect has really only begun. We have to reach more and more thousands of people not only with the facts about Partition but also, as has been done by both the Department’s and the Embassy’s Bulletins, with facts about the positive side of contemporary Irish life, political, economic, social and cultural, and the whole historic background, past and present, of the indefectible Irish phenomenon. When, some weeks ago, I asked Mr. Paul O’Dwyer,² a Director of the ALUI what effect he thought our propaganda was having in the country he replied that our propaganda is excellent but that there must be much more of it and that it must be carried much further afield. The ignorance of the vast majority of Americans on Ireland and what the partition problem is all about is, Mr. O’Dwyer said, beyond belief. We should, he said, make more and more use of the press, the radio, and the screen. Mr. O’Dwyer has very expansive and expensive ideas about publicity which it would be difficult for us to finance without calling upon the American public for financial support. Apart from such an appeal, there is no doubt that our propaganda in the United States should be continued and, if possible, intensified.

The repeal of the Executive Authority (External Relations) Act, 1936, and the statutory description of the State as ‘The Republic of Ireland’ had an important result in connection with the anti-Partition campaign. The result was a revival of interest in the major outstanding Anglo-Irish controversy in the light of ‘the new situation’. Although the Republic of Ireland Act, 1948, did not alter the name or the constitutional character of the new State established in 1937, nevertheless, the breaking of the last link with the British Crown and the use of the word ‘Republic’ in the juridical description of the State struck the imagination of our friends and well-wishers in North America as a political development (the significance of which they greatly exaggerated) the next and final stage in which might appropriately, they thought, be the re-unification of the country. The universal international acknowledgment of the State under its new description – recognition was not necessary – and the raising the status of the Head of the Irish Mission in Washington and that of the Head of the United States’ Mission in Dublin to the highest diplomatic rank showed the wealth of goodwill which exists for our people as a Nation especially in the United States. The whole episode gave a new impetus to the study of the problem of Irish unity. But it brought no new approach to its solution.

Inevitably, a re-examination of the problem of unity at a time when the North Atlantic Treaty was so much in the public mind became a discussion of the problem in the context of that instrument. Our attitude to the North Atlantic Treaty has been clearly and authoritatively stated at home and abroad. It has been studied very carefully by our friends and enemies alike. The Department of State understands it fully but rejects the reason for it as irrelevant. Some Senators and Congressmen who sincerely desire ever deeper and closer Irish American friendship regard our policy as logical. The Irish-American newspapers of New York, and occasionally a few other papers of similar standing and circulation, support it. Others defend it. But we have to face the fact that our decision to stand outside the Pact until a national plebiscite or the National Parliament of a United Ireland determines – if either ever should – that we join the Pact does not commend itself to the Administration or the Congress or the press of the United States, or to Americans generally, or to a majority of Irish Americans of Irish birth, or parentage, or ancestry. They do not regard Partition as a sufficient reason, in the existing world situation, for our declining to enter the Pact. Invariably, in conversation, when our position is fully stated, the argument is listened to courteously and attentively. But it is only when one goes the distance of hazarding a personal opinion that, if Ireland were united, the majority of the people or of the members of Dáil Éireann would decide to join the Pact that one gets more than courteous attention or the expression of a desire that Partition should be ended. The higher principles involved in our position, are lost sight of or make no appeal, namely, that whether a United Ireland would join the Pact or would not, the re-unification of Ireland is an indefensible national right of the whole Irish people and that the partition of Ireland by force by an outside Power ought to be the concern of all other peoples, especially those leagued against aggression, and professedly seeking to establish a régime of international relations based upon a system of international justice. These principles are not axiomatic in American official thinking or basic in American foreign policy. But they are appealed to, as occasion requires, to justify military action or diplomatic activity abroad in circumstances and in parts of the world where American interests are directly or indirectly involved. It must not be overlooked, however, that at the present tremendous juncture, the United States has accepted a role largely thrust upon her, namely, that of leadership of the free Nations and of guardian of world peace, and that this role has awakened a deep sense of responsibility not only in the Administration and in Congress but in the people as a whole. They feel a responsibility to mankind for the peace of the world and their sense of a responsibility in that regard is deepened by the knowledge that a third world war would smash their economy and destroy the American democracy. Add to this that the chief ideological antagonist of ‘the American way’ within and outside the United States is Soviet Russia, and that, if war comes, Russia will be the chief military enemy as well, and you have the explanation of the present pre-occupation of the American mind with problems of security and defence, and its unwillingness to deal with matters to them not urgently related to these problems. This is the explanation also of their difficulty in understanding our attitude to the North Atlantic Treaty or accepting the reason for our attitude as sufficient in the face of the prevailing universal danger. If there is a lack of initiative amongst our own people all over the United States in the anti-Partition campaign it is not because they are not heartwhole for Irish unity; it is because the atmosphere all around them is uncongenial for public discussion of the reasons for Ireland’s aloofness from the North Atlantic Alliance.

These considerations came into stronger play when the war in Korea began in June last year. Although the war in Korea was intended to be a limited war, insofar as the United States could keep it so, no one really knew whether or not it would develop into World War III. The question of our neutrality in World War III, should it come, inevitably exercised the minds of our friends all over the country. The reports of the Embassy at the time record that leaders of the American League for an Undivided Ireland in Boston and Philadelphia at once raised with us the question as to what our attitude in World War III would be. Secretary Frank Matthews expressed the view that the United States might not stand for Irish neutrality again. All this had, to quote Congressman Mansfield, ‘an adverse effect on American thinking on the problem of Irish unity and the anti-Partition campaign’. It had much to do with the constant postponement of the Fogarty Resolution in Congress towards the end of last year. The United States was at war and Britain was her comrade in arms again. All the disappointment with our neutrality in World War II was being felt again and some of the resentment being re-aroused. The situation delighted our enemies and disheartened our friends. Thirty years ago, a Prime Minister of the Six Counties could not have gone beyond the City of New York in a Partition campaign called by whatever name. Last year, Sir Basil Brooke toured the United States ostensibly on a business trip but actually to renew the acquaintance made with American soldiers stationed in the Six Counties during the war, and to canvass goodwill for the Crown colony in Ulster. The visit of Brooke was not a business success, and it has been variously commented upon as proof of the progress of our campaign, and a presage of its final failure. The fact that the visit took place at all has to be assessed in a survey of our anti-Partition campaign. The assessment submitted is that the Government of the Six Counties and the British Government regarded the time as opportune for them to stage a showing of the friendship of the partitionist population of the Six Counties for the people of the United States in the light of the growing international crisis, and, by so doing, to draw the contrast of Ireland’s neutrality in the war and our abstention from the ‘Pact of Peace’.

Mr. MacBride’s visit to the United States in March of this year³ and its estimated results are noted in Mr. Brennan’s report attached to this memorandum.⁴ Mr. MacBride made the Partition issue the theme of all his public speeches and the subject of his conversations with members of the Administration, Senators, Congressmen and others. He raised the issue in his informal talk with Mr. Truman. He urged upon Congressman Fogarty the desirability of bringing his Resolution forward again as early as possible in the present session of Congress. He discussed the problem of unity in many of its aspects with House Majority Leader McCormack in a two hours conference. His visit did much to confirm in the minds of many doubters the determination of our people at home to continue their support for the campaign in America. And it gave new inspiration and courage to all our friends in the cities in which Mr. MacBride spoke. The adoption of the Fogarty Resolution by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House on the 14th August last was, in large measure, the consequence of Mr. MacBride’s work in March and the activities amongst members of the Committee and of the ALUI, as well as the activities of the Embassy, which followed his visit.

But the adoption of the Fogarty Resolution by the Committee was chiefly owing to Congressman Fogarty himself. The Embassy’s report No. 3/5/1 of the 24th May⁵ last gives an impression of his workmanlike method. Few, if any, American public men have so single-minded a devotion to the cause of Irish unity as John Fogarty of Rhode Island. ‘Ireland is to be congratulated’ is the sense of observations made to me by Senators and Congressmen of whichever Party from different parts of the country ‘on her good fortune in having as the advocate of her cause an American of the integrity, ability and industry of John Fogarty’.

The Fogarty Resolution is now before the Rules Committee and the Embassy is in indirect touch with the members. The Resolution will not reach the floor of the House before the end of the year or early in 1952. Majority House Leader John McCormack has asked me to hold off requests pressing for a discussion on the floor during the Fall. The House is in recess until the 12th September and the Congress is working towards an adjournment by the 1st October. Mr. McCormack believes that the Resolution can be carried by the House on a day when all our friends are present. Attendances will not be regular during the Fall. He emphasises the great importance of the fact that the Resolution was passed by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House at this particular time. The vote of 10 to 6 was a solid achievement. Some strong opposition was voiced. But there is a majority in the whole Committee, composed of 25 members, for the Resolution. Some, e.g., Congressman Franklin Roosevelt,⁶ who were formerly indifferent or opposed to it, voted in its favour. Mr. McCormack told me that he had had Roosevelt come specially from New York to do so. The new Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee James P. Richards⁷ (D., S.C.) is friendly and actually consulted Fogarty on the 14th August as to whether he should call the Resolution that day, and, if so, at what hour. Mr. Fogarty so informed Mr. Brennan.

The extent to which John Fogarty’s success in the Foreign Affairs Committee was due to his own personal relationships and those of, say, the House Majority Leader,⁸ Congressmen Mansfield,⁹ Rooney¹⁰ and Shields,¹¹ and Congresswoman Edna Kelly¹² with members of the Committee needs to be noted. When the Resolution comes to the floor it must, if it is to be carried, have the support of members of the House who have no Irish connections and no interest in the abolition of the border because the country concerned is Ireland. Mr. McCormack’s approach to the problem is, notwithstanding his own Irish connections and those of his constituents, an American Democratic Liberal rather than an Irish Nationalist approach. His approach, he considers, has the better prospect of success. He puts it this way. The support of Irish Americans for an anti-Partition Resolution can, in most cases, best be secured by the Nationalist appeal. But the support of others in Congress and Americans generally can best be secured by an appeal to their sense of fair play, to the inherent injustice of the partition of any country and its maintenance by force or a threat of force and to the necessity for applying the democratic principle or method namely, a plebiscite of the whole people concerned, to remedy the wrong. That is the substance of the Fogarty Resolution.

[matter omitted]

To carry out the House Majority Leader’s wider suggestion effectively would require active participation, directly or indirectly, in the canvass by the Embassy, the Consulate General [and] the Consulates. It would involve active participation also by selected members of the Irish organisations wherever they exist.

The state of the Irish organisations and groups in the United States at the present time and their value in connection with the anti-Partition campaign is well known to the Department. The position in that regard falls to be considered in any summary of the progress of the work the subject of this review. The principal Irish group engaged in the anti-Partition campaign is the American League for an Undivided Ireland. There is very little active work being done by the Ancient Order of Hibernians, although Congressman Lane (D., Mass.)¹³ their ‘representative’ in Congress has kept an anti-Partition Resolution constantly before the House. The AOH is a national organisation and anti-Partition Resolutions are regularly passed at the annual meetings of branches all over the country. There is no active work being done by the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick. The Eire Society of Boston, a political body, has sponsored many lectures by Irish speakers during the past two years who took the opportunity which these occasions offered to discuss the subject of Irish national unity before the Society and its friends. References to the abolition of the border in addresses, whether by ourselves or others, at meetings of branches of the AOH or of the Friendly Sons throughout the country or at meetings of, say, the American Irish Historical Society (New York) are always warmly applauded. But these organisations themselves play no effective part in the anti-Partition campaign. Many individual members are heartwhole in their desire to see the re-union of Ireland achieved, but the organisations themselves, insofar as they exist apart from ceremonial occasions, are not as such, publicly associated with that objective.

The objective is mainly pursued by the ALUI, the group created for that express purpose in 1947. One of the reasons for its establishment was the weakness of the existing Irish organisations as instruments in the anti-Partition campaign. The ALUI was conceived as a body which would supply the long felt need of the nucleus of an Irish organisation devoted exclusively to the promotion of the campaign in the United States. It is not a formally organised group, locally or nationally, although it has nominal local Presidents and a nominal national President. It is loosely formed of a number of key men in various cities, New York, Boston, Providence, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Chicago, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. The members in a particular city meet when occasion arises either on their own initiative or on that of the Embassy, or the Consulate General, or one of the Consulates. The ALUI has no offices, no secretariat and no register of membership. Its funds are provided ad hoc [to] particular contingencies requiring the expenditure of money. These are provided by the members in each city and their friends to meet e.g. expenses in connection with the holding of meetings, the payment of honoraria to guest speakers, the sending of telegrams to Senators, Congressmen and others; and so on. The generosity of the members of the ALUI and their friends is beyond all praise. Their resources are not always great, the calls upon them have been frequent, and their response, within their means, a high tribute to their single-minded devotion to the cause which they serve.

The activities of the ALUI must be considered as those of a number of individuals working together without formal organisation, and its influence must be measured accordingly. Its influence is in direct proportion to the political or personal influence of the individuals themselves, not as members of the ALUI, but as members of the community in which they live. What it has come to is, that wherever you had a man of standing in his own community associated with the ALUI, the ALUI made itself felt and respected in that community through his influence. But the ALUI although dedicated to the ideal of a United Ireland is, so far, only in name, an American League.

The anti-Partition campaign in the United States has, heretofore, inevitably been fought on a narrow front. It should, it is submitted, be carried on on a much broader front now in order to bring home to millions of educated, well-disposed and culture-hungry Americans, especially at this opportune time, the historic reality of the indivisible Irish Nation, the unity and universality of its mighty tradition, the miracle of its survival, and its significance for the world today. The title of the newest Irish group in the United States, ‘The American League for an Undivided Ireland’, was happily chosen. It placed the emphasis on the essential oneness of Ireland, body and soul. The ALUI, however, was not founded to be the instrument of an Irish cultural foreign policy for the United States. It was founded to bring the immediate political facts about Partition home to the American people. The larger and now more necessary objective was outside the scope of its functions.

There is today no part of the world in which an Irish cultural foreign policy would be more fruitful than in North America, and there is no part of the world in which it is more desperately needed. This Embassy, the Consulate General and the Consulates would be the normal instruments of such a policy. They would not have to be re-organised for the work. But additional staff would be necessary. The Embassy would e.g. need one or two cultural Attachés under the direction of its Public Relations Branch. The Department has had the question of the scope of a cultural programme for the United States under consideration for a long time. The programme should be directed towards showing the spiritual unity and continuity of the Irish tradition, i.e. of the tradition of the whole Irish Nation and the unique place of its sacred and secular civilisation in the world. An outline of the superb theme of our programme in this connection is outside the scope of this memorandum. The programme should be on the grand scale. It should include the whole classic story of our national religious apostolate, our struggle for freedom and our championship of freedom everywhere, our literature, scholarship, music, etc., told by ourselves for the first time for frankly propagandist purposes, driving to the conclusion – and bearing away all obstacles to it – that, as the Irish tradition of life became the heritage of mankind, its preservation in its integrity on the whole island of Ireland has become a sacred trust of all the free world. That is a daring claim indeed. But it is not too daring a claim to make to the free world at large at a time when we are ‘ostracised’ from the United Nations because of our fidelity to our Christian Faith and the strength and tenacity of our adherence to the fundamental rights of human persons, and of Nations. Similarly, the conclusion that the restoration of our national unity should be a sacred trust of the Nations of the West is not too daring a claim to make to the countries of the Atlantic community at a time when they are seeking the co-operation of all Ireland in Western defence, on the basis of a treaty guaranteeing the territorial integrity of the signatory States, and in the name of Ireland’s unbroken tradition of leadership in the Christian Western world.

That line of argument would not lead away from the precise facts and logic of the political case against Partition presented so well during the past thirty years. It would rather emphasise the facts and the reasonableness of the case, and present it again in the wider context outlined, not as a concrete case to be argued, but as a prototypical cause of ecumenical reference to be lost or won. It would show that the issues involved in Partition already referred to in this memorandum as, respectively, the national issue, the democratic issue, and the issue of international justice call, in the case of Ireland, for close and sympathetic consideration again, not only on the basis of the principles by which they stand or fall, but also in the light of historic events, past and present, which give Ireland a special right, particularly at this fateful time to throw her territorial claim as a great moral question, – like a ward and a warning – on the conscience of the West.

It may happen that, in the end, it will be an approach of that kind, i.e., through the unity and continuity of our tradition that will appeal most to all our fellowcountrymen in the Six Counties, and reveal the heinousness and hatefulness of the crime of conspiring to rend or cast lots for the seamless garment of our nationality.

The immediate practical work the Embassy in this connection during the coming months will be to keep in touch with our friends in Congress who support the Fogarty Resolution and others whom we may hope to influence. The Minister’s warm message to the Embassy for communication to Mr. Fogarty and his colleagues when the Resolution was passed on the 14th August was welcomed with deep emotion by them.¹⁴ The more public support they receive from our own Government and Parliament, and, at appropriate times, from public bodies at home, the more grateful they will be, and the happier in their work. There are one or two matters in this connection to which the attention of the Department is particularly drawn. Members of the House who support the Fogarty Resolution have told us in conversation that they have heard it said that our people at home regard the Fogarty Resolution as a piece of Irish American political Party playacting, indulged in for purely political Party purposes, and that neither John Fogarty himself nor any of his supporters has any honest interest in Ireland or Irish unity. The members of the House who so speak tell us, at the same time, that they have found that many young men and young women emigrating from Ireland to the United States have shown no enthusiasm for national reunion. The character of the Minister’s message showed the belief of the Government in the sincerity of the promoters and supporters of the Fogarty Resolution in the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House. We have assured our friends that our people are most grateful to John Fogarty and his colleagues for their great achievement and that they know that the Resolution passed on the 14th August was proposed and carried from the highest motives of love for Ireland and a desire to put the Congress of the United States on Ireland’s side i.e. on the side of the democratic majority, on the border question. In reply to the statement that Irish emigrants have no enthusiasm for re-union we have said that the mind of our people is so definitely made up on the issue, and our national policy so clear and emphatic, that our own people do not think it necessary to refer in private conversation again and again to a matter on which our position is so understandable and so well known. We always recall to our friends Mr. Wayne Jackson’s¹⁵ experience in Ireland many months ago as related to us by him on his return to Washington. He said that the thing that struck him most forcibly when in Ireland was the coherence of public opinion on re-union and on our attitude to the Pact. He got the same answers to his questions on these matters from the man in the street as he got from the President and the Minister for External Affairs and members of either House of the Oireachtas.

It is submitted, however, that great care should be taken to have our people coming to this country either as emigrants, or visitors, or members of official groups e.g. those coming under, say, ECA auspices, well instructed on major questions of public policy. No case has so far arisen in which any of those coming under ECA auspices has expressed views contrary to our own. And, no doubt, the same will be true of the substantial number who will be coming in connection with the Technical Assistance Programme. The point of this submission, however, is that as they will inevitably have opportunities of presenting our case they should be as fully briefed as possible on it in all its aspects. They will be in touch with hundreds of American experts in one field or another who, when they learn the facts about Partition etc. from men of their own profession or walk in life will be more convinced by them than if they heard them only in the political speeches either of professional Irishmen in the United States or even of American politicians sincerely interested in our cause.

It is relevant to note in this memorandum that we have sometimes – not frequently – been told by US officials returning from Ireland that they find Ireland anti-American. This, no doubt, is part of the general picture of European criticism of American interference in European affairs in the course of the administration of the Marshall Plan. We have replied to the statement that Ireland is anti-American to the effect that that is not so, that no European people are as close to the American people as our own, that they support the principles of the Atlantic Pact although for sound reasons they cannot join it, that they are deeply grateful for Marshall Aid, and that they look with respect and admiration on the place which the United States now occupies in the world and the greatness and glory of her future.

Statements that we are anti-American were coupled with suggestions that our people have become very pro-British, and that our diplomacy was turning more and more to London and away from Washington. Our answer to these suggestions was that, as it was the British who partitioned Ireland, and as action by them will be necessary to undo the wrong, constant representations in London were an essential part of our work to that end. The routine relations, moreover, between Ireland and Britain required the day to day attention of our Embassy in London and the British Departments with which the Embassy had to deal.

The pursuit of our policies in the United States involves more active work by our Embassy in Washington than ever before. Its activities during the past eighteen months in connection with the anti-Partition campaign and in connection with ECA are known in detail to the Department. Our Mission was never more closely in touch with the Department of State or with other US Government Departments or with members of Congress. But our diplomacy calls for still closer personal relations between officers of the Embassy and United States public servants and key members of the Administration and the Congress. That can only be brought about, apart from routine contacts, or visits on instructions to various Departments, etc., by a very substantial extension of the hospitality offered by the Embassy residence.

Adequate hospitality was offered during Mr. MacBride’s visit in March. His visit synchronised with the occasion for an elaborate official reception in connection with the St. Patrick’s Day celebrations. A dinner party was given at the residence to which the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Head of ECA, the Secretary of the Navy and several Senators and members of the House came to honour the Minister for External Affairs (thirty-two at table). There were special ceremonial functions which we were able to afford because of an entertainment allowance sanctioned in connection with the Minister’s visit. The routine official entertainment at the residence should not be on so elaborate a scale. Dinner parties of the size of that reported in my report No. 3/5/1 of the 24th May¹⁶ are more appropriate and workmanlike for our purpose. Members of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House and of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate should be entertained in small groups (with others) from time to time especially while there is a prospect of an anti-Partition Resolution getting through the House and the Senate. The work done in this way by the Spanish Embassy during the past two years has had rich results. Notwithstanding a hostile White House and a hostile Department of State the Spanish loan was voted by substantial majorities in Congress largely owing to the business like diplomacy of the Spanish Ambassador.¹⁷ The Spanish Government, no doubt, spent larger sums of money on entertainment in the Embassy and in the City during the loan campaign than we could afford for similar purposes in connection with the anti-Partition campaign. The lesson from Senor de Lequerica’s success, however, is that by frequent entertainment of key members of Congress and a few sympathetic officials of the State Department (we attended one or two of those functions) the campaign was carried from stage to stage on the basis of plans worked out in friendly conversation at luncheon or dinner between the Ambassador, members of the Embassy staff, and their guests.

There has been no such bitterness in the United States in the past few years as that in high official circles against Franco Spain. When the loan was being pushed through Congress last year there had been no change of attitude towards Spain such as that which took place a few months ago following General Eisenhower’s report on Western European defense preparations and preceding the late Admiral Sherman’s¹⁸ visit to Madrid. The bitterness was deep and Senor de Lequerica’s difficulties seemed insurmountable. Bitterness of that kind against Ireland does not exist and difficulties so great as those of the Spanish Embassy do not stand in the way of our own and its work. On the contrary, the sincere goodwill which exists here in Washington towards our people and their welfare creates a favourable atmosphere for our work and holds the surest hope for its success.

It is for that reason that at the end of this memorandum the submission is offered that the establishment of the Embassy residence is a question calling for close present attention. If a major part of our work in connection with the anti-Partition campaign and generally is not to be omitted the Embassy residence establishment should be taken up at the earliest moment. The matter has been outstanding since the decision to set up an Embassy in Washington was taken two years ago. But nothing has been done. The time has now come to place our representation in Washington on a normal basis. If that is done, a brighter prospect than we have ever yet known for a full understanding here of our policies and problems will be revealed. And we shall certainly be on the way to enlisting powerful new advocacy of our cause.