Your D.579 [2], 580 [3], 581. [4]

1. We note your intention to publish on a non-committal basis the
statement of monetary principles agreed between United Kingdom and
United States experts.

2. We note from the text of the proposed announcement that
reference is not made to participation by Australian officials in
noncommittal discussions. We are anxious that in any subsequent
announcements nothing should imply that the principles published
are agreed to by either Australian officials or by the Australian
Government. Our reasons for this are:

(a) The reservation entered by Australian officials in regard to
annual drawing rights under Clause 4(ii)(c) of the principles [5]
has not been accepted by the United States Treasury;

(b) The United States Treasury has not accepted the proposal that
the quota of smaller countries must be increased above that
assumed in previous discussions;

(c) The agreement of Australian officials to important clauses in
the principles was expressed on the assumption that the Australian
quota would be not less than the equivalent of $300,000,000.

3. We feel that in any announcements made the main emphasis should
be placed on a high level of employment and rising living
standards as the objectives of a general plan of economic
collaboration. 4. With regard to paragraph 2 of D.579 [6] the
Australian Government holds strongly that, for the reasons
outlined by the Australian officials at the recent London Talks,
an employment Agreement should be signed before Governments are
asked to enter an international Stabilization Fund or any
arrangement involving far-reaching obligations. We, therefore,
request that you should propose to the United States that
employment policy be included in the agenda of any formal
conference [which] the President may call; or, alternatively, that
the subject be treated at a separate conference to be called prior
to consideration of the Stabilization Fund and Investment Bank.

5. With regard to the proposed international conference, we would
be glad to learn whether it is to be on a governmental level or on
expert level without governmental commitment. In either event, we
feel that May is inconvenient insofar as Australia is concerned as
it does not leave sufficient time to permit of proper examination
of documents arising from London talks and to arrange for
appropriate representation.