Thank you for your cablegram No. 109 of 28th August [1] on the
Dominions Office proposal in D.No. 1195 [2] for discussions on
Defence co-operation.

2. As you know, the suggestion was made in my statement of 15th
May [3] that a small Committee consisting of representatives of
the United Kingdom and the Dominions should be set up to examine
the proposals put forward for improvements in the machinery for
Empire cooperation. The Prime Ministers subsequently agreed to
consult their Governments regarding the establishment of a
Committee for further consideration of the proposals arising out
of the discussions at the meeting.

3. The Dominions Office proposals are limited to Defence
cooperation which, as you rightly say, is a sphere in which we
have developed much closer and more intimate contacts than those
of any of the other Dominions and plan for still further
developments. The four matters [4] which the Dominions Office
suggest should now be considered are, of course, merely aspects of
the wider proposals for improving machinery for co-operation,
which were discussed by the meeting of Prime Ministers.

4. I would prefer that the wider issues be faced up to, but the
United Kingdom authorities apparently see many difficulties in the
way of arranging for their immediate consideration. I note, too,
that the Prime Minister of Canada, in his reply of 30th August [5]
to the Dominions Office proposal, has repeated the opinion which
he expressed in London that these are questions upon which
decisions could not be reached while the war was in progress.

5. My view in relation to Defence co-operation remains as stated
in London, that is, the position of individual Dominions varies so
greatly that it would seem desirable to avoid attempting to
establish a uniform system of co-operation. I feel, however, in
view of the initiative which we have taken in sponsoring
improvements in machinery for Empire co-operation, that I should
not object to the proposed discussions, provided it is understood
that they would not prejudice the further examination of the
general scheme of co-operation put forward in my statement of 15th
May, and also that our participation should be under the general
supervision and direction of yourself as accredited
representative. I fully share your view that it would be unwise to
agree to the matter being referred to a meeting of Service
representatives, in view of the importance of the issues that are
involved. Your association with the discussions would enable you
to make it clear that we would not wish our present arrangements
for liaison with the United Kingdom to be prejudiced in any way.

6. In view of Canada's attitude, I assume that the whole proposal
for multilateral conversations will have to be further considered.

In these circumstances and in the light of the above observations,
I should be glad to have any further comments which you may wish
to make before I reply to the Dominions Office.

CURTIN