Extract from a letter from Seán Nunan to Joseph P. Walshe (Holy See)
(Secret) (Copy)

[matter omitted]

As you are, of course, fully aware, our attitude towards official America cannot but be that of continuing to take into account in every possible way that it is a vital interest for us to keep, or if you wish win, American goodwill. The official attitude of the State Department on the subject of Partition is that indicated in the attached Note¹ and there has been no advance on it so far as we are aware since the publication of Mr. Livingston T. Merchant’s² statement on the 12th April, 1953.

It would, I think, be correct to say that since the United States authorities sought our views in January 1949 with regard to the issue of an official invitation to us to join NATO, they have evinced no special interest in our position. This would even be true, I think, of the American installations at Derry which have dwindled to little or nothing since the war, though the British submarine training facilities there are used from time to time by the armed forces of NATO countries.

It is, of course, quite likely that when the late Ambassador Matthews took up his mission in Dublin he had well before his mind the idea of bringing us into NATO, but he certainly did not press the matter here during his brief period of office.

While Ambassador Matthews was still with us – towards the end of 1951 – the subject of the purchase of arms from the United States was raised in a Note which we addressed on the 24th December, 1951,³ to the United States Embassy. The Note advised the United States Government that we did not wish or propose to ask the United States for free military or economic assistance in the circumstances provided for in the Mutual Security Act, 1951, but we did wish to request the United States Government to facilitate our efforts to strengthen our defence forces by arranging for the sale to us of modern arms and equipment together with material, designs and technical assistance for the production of such of those weapons and equipment as could be made in Ireland. This request was made public by the Minister in the course of a reply given in the Dáil by the Minister on the 30th January, 1952, in reply to parliamentary questions which had been tabled by a number of deputies.⁴

In a verbal reply to our Note of the 24th December, 1951, the American Embassy informed us that the United States authorities would be glad to consider our request for arms subject to priority commitments already set up for their own forces (Korea, NATO, etc.) which would, however, leave us ‘rather low on the list’.

I should mention that our Note of 24th December, 1951, was part of an exchange of Notes on the subject of the Mutual Security Act, 1951, to the purpose of which we were unable to commit ourselves. The purpose was stated in Section 2, as follows:-

‘The Congress declared that it is a purpose of this Act to maintain security and to promote the foreign policy of the United States by authorising military, economic and technical assistance to friendly countries to strengthen the mutual security and individual and collective defences of the free world, to develop their resources in the interest of the security and independence and the national interest of the United States, and to facilitate the effective participation of those countries in the United Nations system for collective security’.

The position in regard to the purchase of arms in countries other than the United States has eased somewhat since the summer of 1952 when the British relaxed their armaments drive with a view to helping economic recovery. The question of the purchase of arms from the United States is currently not under discussion.

We believe that Switzerland, though they too did not adhere to the purpose of the Mutual Security Act of 1951, arrived at an agreement with the United States for the purchase of arms under Section 408e of a different enactment. We, on the other hand, have not explored the possibility of purchasing arms under Section 408e of the Mutual Defence Assistance Act of 1949. Presumably, like the Swiss, we could negotiate a form of wording in the written undertakings required by the Act which would be sufficiently innocuous as to be acceptable. But since our orders for arms in other directions are being fulfilled, at least to a reasonable extent, we have not been exploring this possibility. No doubt, even if we did make an application under Section 408e, we would still have difficulties in regard to dollars and, worse I suppose, in regard to availability of supplies.

It may be worth mentioning one recent occurrence to illustrate the position. At the suggestion of the United States Army Attaché at Dublin⁵ the Department of Defence ordered a small quantity of bomb cases and fuses for training purposes from the United States. The order was placed through the US Army Attaché in December, 1952. In reply, the US Chargé d’Affaires informed the Department of External Affairs in April, 1953, that the sale could be arranged, subject to availability, under the provisions of Section 408e of the Mutual Defence Assistance Act of 1949 as amended. A form of undertaking on the lines provided by the Act would have to be signed by us. It was decided not to proceed with the order in the manner suggested in the American memorandum having in mind the insignificance of the material involved and the possibility of undue publicity resulting from the transaction.

I hope that I have given you sufficient information to enable you to form a general though not too detailed picture.