Letter from Thomas J. Kiernan to Seán Nunan (Dublin)
enclosing an 'Aide-Mémoire'
concerning the credentials of the Irish Ambassador to Australia

On receipt of your cable 21,¹ I asked the assistant-secretary of the Department of External Affairs² to inform the Secretary,³ who was in Melbourne with the Minister, that I desired urgently to see him in connection with our conversation of a week ago. Mr. Watt then came back from Melbourne by plane and I saw him at 6.30 p.m. after his plane had arrived at 6 p.m.

As it seemed to me desirable to have an Australian answer in writing, I handed Mr. Watt an aide-mémoire (copy attached).

His immediate attitude, which he held till the end of our conversation, was that this meant an end to the appointment of an ambassador by the present Australian Government. To give a complete picture of our conversation, I am enclosing my notes of the interview made immediately after.

If the Australian Government now decides to cancel the appointment of an ambassador, it is quite likely that Partition will become an issue in Australian internal politics at the next General Elections which are due to be held between April and June, 1954.

In that event, it is probable that Mr. Menzies⁴ would treat the matter as one involving respect for the Queen: and I would anticipate that in the Australian Press this twist will be given to it from the beginning. The visit of the Queen to Australia will in any case be of considerable voting benefit to the Liberal Party, merely because the Government will be associated in the popular and newspaper view with the visit. It seems to me certain, then, that Mr. Menzies will deliberately use non-acceptance of the Australian draft Letter of Credence and his insistence on it as evidence of his own stand as a hundred-per-cent Queen’s-man, as he has put it in popular speeches.

He may, if the issue seems dangerous to his success at the elections, put it also as a sectarian issue, which can be very easily raised in Australia. The Australian Labour Party would, of course, be glad to use the issue in order to weaken the Liberal Vote in Queensland; and the swing-vote could very easily be turned on the issue, not only in Queensland but in Victoria. If Dr. Evatt⁵ should become Prime Minister, he would be already deeply committed on the Partition issue.

If Mr. Casey⁶ were acting alone in the matter, he would give way and accept our form of Letter; but he is under pressure from his own Department to begin with, and the senior officials in the Department are all followers of the Menzies line. Mr. Menzies himself would overrule Mr. Casey. Mr. Menzies regards us as a nuisance and would prefer to be rid of us. At the same time, he has to consider the election effect; and it is difficult to forecast what the net result would be in votes affected if an Irish issue, which could be linked with Royalty issue and smeared into a sectarian issue, were brought into the forthcoming election campaign.

Mr. Watt expects early press publicity. In that event, Mr. Calwell,⁷ now acting Leader of the Opposition, will want information from me. It is fortunate that Dr. Evatt is now on his way back to Australia; as he can understand the constitutional issue and handle it as such. I propose restraining Mr. Calwell as far as possible.

I shall add to this report on hearing Mr. Casey’s decision.

************************************

Nothing has been given me in writing but Mr. Watt has telephoned me that ‘the Minister expressed surprise and regret at the attitude of the Irish Government and has instructed that bookings for Mr. McGuire’s⁸ departure be cancelled; that Mr. Casey is communicating with the Prime Minister⁹ (who is en route by ship from South Africa to Fremantle where he will disembark) and will communicate with me again after he has consulted the Prime Minister’.

I asked Mr. Watt (who gave out this message in a brusque and formal tone) to avoid press publicity at this stage, and he said that everything possible would be done to hold the matter secret at present and that Mr. McGuire is being cautioned accordingly.

Aide-mémoire of 10 July 1953

1. In conversations on the 20th April and 13th May which the Ambassador of Ireland had with officers of the Department of External Affairs regarding the Letter of Credence for Mr. D. P. McGuire, Ambassador-Designate to Ireland, the Ambassador, acting on the instructions of his Government, put forward the reasons why a Letter of Credence which did not give the President of Ireland his constitutional title would not be acceptable. The matter was also informally explained by officers of the Department of External Affairs, Dublin to Mr. Watt on his recent visit.
2. A Letter of Credence for Mr. McGuire, to be acceptable to the Irish Government, must give the President his constitutional title. To avoid any misunderstanding of its attitude, the Irish Government has decided that in the body of Mr. McGuire’s Letter of Credence, the constitutional name of the State should be used twice as is the case in Letters of Credence from other countries with which Ireland has no territorial dispute and which do not deny Ireland’s right to unity.
3. The Irish Government cannot understand the reluctance of the Australian Government to use for the Irish President and Irish State the title upon which the Irish people decided by enactment of the Constitution.
4. On its part, the Irish Government, is prepared to accept on the Letter of Credence the new Australian Royal Style and Title enacted by the Australian Parliament. On the assumption that the above proposals are acted upon, the Irish Government would in future include the Australian Royal Style and Title on Letters of Credence presented in Australia.