I wrote to you at some length on June 20th [1] but having no copy
I may repeat some of the points I then made. McCarthy's secretary
is on leave and the typing staff of the Legation are very fully
employed.

I heard today that Mr. Winant had reported his talk with you and
said that you had asked how long the Americans wanted me to stay
here. [2] I hope you realize that the whole idea of my remaining
here, for the moment, comes from the Americans. As I see it the
position is as follows:

(i) The Food Conference recommendations went a good deal further
than I expected. Practically all the points I made in my
preliminary paper [3] were endorsed but the idea of the nations
reporting to one another through the Permanent Organization arose
as a result of discussions between Coombs and myself Australia was
therefore responsible for the most significant of the
recommendations made by the Conference. The Conference
recommendations, if adopted by Governments, should secure almost
all the things we have been fighting for since 1935.

(ii) The Interim Commission has a heavy responsibility. It has
three major tasks. Firstly, to draft the formal declaration or
agreement under which Governments are to be asked to accept
definite obligations to their own peoples and to one another;

secondly, to produce a specific plan for the Permanent
Organization; and thirdly, to commence to do certain work to carry
out the recommendations of the Conference. The first two duties
are precise; the third is rather indeterminate.

(iii) It was felt that it was important that I should be available
here for discussions with the Americans as to how the work of the
Interim Commission should be carried out. The State Department and
the Department of Agriculture were convinced that this was
desirable. Coombs and McCarthy shared this view.

(iv) It is not yet clear how the Americans will envisage the work
of the Interim Commission. They have set up a joint committee of
State and Agriculture to clear their own minds. This committee has
met a couple of times and expects to finish its work this week. it
is then expected that talks will occur with some five or six other
countries.

(v) There seem to be two alternatives. They may decide in favour
of a plan somewhat along the lines of my note, sent to you about
ten days ago (I am enclosing a second copy with a further note
attached). [4] They may, however, come to the conclusion that this
is too ambitious and decide upon a more leisurely procedure, i.e.

the appointment of a small staff and for the Commission to meet
from time to time to review the work done by the staff.

(vi) If the decision is to establish a Working Committee and to
press vigorously ahead with the task of preparing plans for the
Organization it would seem worth while for the Commonwealth
Government to consider appointing me temporarily to the Interim
Commission and for me to remain here for two or three months until
the back of the work is broken. If the less vigorous method is
adopted then I think it would be a mistake for me to remain here
and I should recommend returning as soon as the decision about
methods has been reached. McCarthy could well represent Australia
on the Interim Commission under the second method of procedure;

under the first he would not have time.

Unless there is to be a most vigorous prosecution of the work and
unless I was asked to act as a member of the wholetime Working
Committee, I should greatly prefer to return to London. From a
personal standpoint I should much rather return but from the point
of view of the work and the whole cause of post-war economic
relations I should be willing to stay provided there is to be a
real drive to achieve results in a few months time.

Unfortunately, I have no idea about your own point of view. I hope
that the American move to get me to stay for the moment has not
proved embarrassing to you.

Dr. Evatt may feel that it is undesirable for Australia to play
any major role in pushing forward with the recommendations of the
Conference and his view may be shared by the Cabinet. If so, I
ought not to be appointed, even temporarily, to the Interim
Commission for I could not go slow on these issues.

My impressions about the general attitude towards the vigour with
which the work of the Interim Commission should be pressed forward
is as follows. Most of the delegations, including Canada, New
Zealand, the European Allies, the Latin Americans and most of the
Americans, are anxious for quick progress. I fancy that some of
the U.K. people will be in favour of slower methods and I expect
this will be the final view of Acheson although he now expresses a
keenness for quick work. It is doubtful whether Acheson is a
convinced believer in the standard of living approach and he is
readily influenced by U.K. opinion. Wallace and I expect Sumner
Welles are for vigorous action. I don't think the President has
any time in which to consider the issue.

[matter omitted]

F. L. MCDOUGALL