Canberra, 1 March 1962
Secret
British-European Economic Community Negotiations
Australian Participation
Following is a note for information setting out the position on our request to participate in the British/European Economic Community negotiations. Towards the end of last year Britain agreed to support our request for direct participation. It was also agreed that the British would formally submit our request to the Six.
2. In an Aide Memoire presented to the Six in January, 1962, it was stated, inter alia, that our trade interests would justify our being invited to ‘attend meetings—for example in the role of experts and consultants—when particular matters of special interest to Australia were under discussion … such attendance, for example, could be appropriate at working parties and certain committees’.1 It was made clear that we were not seeking any formal response from the Six to this Aide Memoire and the reactions so obtained were tentative and informal. The French and the EEC Commission indicated a favourable attitude to the possibility of our participation whilst the Italians and Germans expressed concern at the ‘proliferation’ problem—that is the precedent that Australian participation might create should “ the EFTA countries, other Commonwealth members, and other interested parties (e.g. Japan, Argentina seek to participate[)]. (However the Germans gave the impression that they might be disposed to accept any solution proposed by the British.) No response was received from the Belgians or Dutch.
3. The question of Australian participation was raised, at our request, meeting [sic] on 30th January, 1962, of the Deputies of the Six and Britain. Clappier (France ),2 the spokesman for the Six, stated that there could be ‘technical advantages’ in the proposal but expressed concern at the ‘proliferation’ problem. Lintott (C.R.0.)3 commented to Cumes4 that the Deputies had seemed ‘reluctant to reject’ the proposaL It was decided to refer the question to the Ministerial Meeting on 22–23rd February.
4. In the period before the Ministerial Meeting, it appeared. from reports from Posts that the Commission’s attitude had hardened against Australian participation; the Belgian attitude also offered little encouragement. The Italians consistently maintained their objections on the ground of the proliferation that would result from accepting Australian representatives. The Germans, who had shown some understanding of positions, were also concerned about the proliferation problem. Luns (Netherlands) told McCarthy5 on 21st February that The Netherlands would give our request ‘fullest support’. The French continued to indicate sympathy with our point of view and informed us in a Foreign Ministry Note on 23rd February that the French representative would declare himself in favour of accepting the Australian request which would, of course, require the approval of the other members of the EEC.
5. McCarthy and Cumes have reported that at the Ministerial Meeting on 23rd February, only the Italians and the Commission were consistent in opposition with the position we had expected them to take. In direct contrast to the statements made to us, the Dutch and French appeared to have been the most hostile, whilst the Belgians and more particularly the Germans, appear to have given us the most positive support. The positions taken were as follows:–
FRANCE: There was obvious disagreement between the French representative Pisani (Minister for Agriculture) and the Chairman, Couve de Murville. Pisani seemed to have based his apparently very strong opposition to Australian participation on the difficulties this could cause the French Government with French farming interests. De Murville, from the Chair, showed a desire to be helpful, but had to balance this against Pisani’s statement of the French attitude.
NETHERLANDS: Luns strongly opposed our participation on the grounds of proliferation, with particular reference to possible African participation in future discussions. He suggested that Australian representatives might discuss problems of special interest with the Chairmen of the various Working Parties.
ITALY: As expected, Catani opposed the proposal, emphasising the difficulties of precedent and the possibility of the negotiations being slowed down.
GERMANY: Lahr stated that he saw advantages in giving a ‘positive reply’ to our request and commented that Australian experts could play a useful role. He referred to the dangers of precedent but would agree to Australian experts being invited to Working Parties and perhaps Deputies Meetings.
BELGIUM: The Belgians tended to support Lahr’s proposal but suggested a more modified form of participation.
LUXEMBOURG: The representatives of Luxembourg tended to support the Dutch, but were prepared to go along with the Belgians.
THE COMMISSION: Hallstein stated that on principle and for practical reasons the Commission was opposed to Australian participation; he put forward an interpretation of our second Aide Memoire6 which claimed that we sought representation from Ministerial level downwards.
6. Four proposals ‘on participation’ were put forward. They were:–
- the Lahr proposal that Australian experts be invited to Working Parties and perhaps Deputies Meetings provided strict control was exercised to keep such participation manageable;
- the Belgian modification of the Lahr proposal, which would limit participation to Working Party discussions on specific commodities, on a ‘one appearance only’ basis, and with the explicit understanding that Australia was in no way a participant in the negotiations;
- the proposal, substantially from Luns, that arrangements should be made for Australian representative to have access to the Chairmen of relevant Working Parties; and
- a proposal by Couve de Murville that an Australian should make a general once-and-for-all statement of Australian interests, problems, etc. to a meeting of the Deputies.7
7. These proposals have been referred to an early meeting of the Deputies (date still to be settled) for re-examination ‘in not too negative a spirit but taking account of the complications which had been stated by the members present’. The Deputies are required to report to the next Ministerial Meeting on 22nd March.
1 Document 163.
2 Bernard Clappier, leader of the French delegation in the Brussels negotiations (at official level).
3 See note to Document 167.
4 J.W.C. Cumes, Counsellor and Charged’Affaires, Australian Embassy, Brussels, 1961–65.
5 Sir Edwin McCarthy, Australian Ambassador to the European Economic Community, 1960–64.
6 Document 163.
7 It was this proposal that would ultimately be agreed upon. See Document 177.
[NAA: A1838 727/4/2 PART2]