London, 6 April 1962
I was glad of the opportunity of a talk with you before you left for the Continent.1 I look forward to fuller discussions with you on your return in the middle of April. In the meantime I will be turning over in my mind what you said to me, and also what you wrote in your letter of March 23, which I received on my return from Ottawa.2
There is one point in your letter which I should like to answer straight away. There is certainly no reason for you to believe that we would not fully reveal to you our thoughts on matters of such great significance for your country. Nor has it ever crossed my mind that I could not do so in full confidence or that you would regard our preliminary ideas as firm promises. You can only assume that we have been keeping our thoughts from you if you believe that we have worked out our own proposals in greater detail than we have disclosed to you. This is not the case, for reasons which have been explained and, I thought, understood.
The broad objective of the tactics we have tried to develop in our negotiations in Brussels has been to obtain acceptance of the principle that vital Commonwealth interests must be safeguarded. Once that principle has been accepted by the Six the next thing would be to work out with them and in consultation with yourselves and the others concerned how the principle should be put into effect. At this latter stage it would be necessary to formulate definite proposals on methods and quantities. Our view is that the preparation of those proposals should preferably be a joint operation. It may be that we cannot do it in this way, and that we shall ourselves have to table our proposals on both. If so, we should certainly want to talk to you about them before we put forward any ideas.
We find it extremely difficult to form our own views on either methods or quantities until we have been over the ground commodity by commodity with the Six, in order that we may ourselves have a fuller understanding of their methods. This is particularly so as regards cereals and it is the reason for our inability so far to define more closely how our objectives can be achieved.
It may be that in the case of cereals we shall be able to see our way more clearly by the time you return. I shall certainly be ready then to discuss with you the question of methods and quantities, if this can be done on a realistic basis. I recognise that, when we come to detail, the matter is likely to be difficult not only as between the Six and us, but also as between you and us. There are commodities, and wheat is probably one of them, where our own marketing conditions—leaving aside any question of joining the Six—would limit the quantities we can take to something below what you would like, or even have hitherto expected, to send here. We shall have to work on these problems together and arrive at as amicable a solution as we can.
I hope that you will fully understand from this letter not only that we have been frank with you in the past, but that it is our firm intention to be frank in the future as well, whether or not the issues are issues on which we are likely to agree. This, it seems to me, is the only possible relationship for countries in the Commonwealth.
1 Document 172.
2 Document 173.
[UKNA: DO 159/58]