[matter omitted]

Employment Conference

We are sorry that Australia should think that we mishandled the
approach to the United States on the question of a conference on
Full Employment, but we thought we were right in acting as we did.

We took it for granted that Australia was aware through press
reports that a Big Three meeting was impending and that Australia
would know, therefore, that neither the President nor Stettinius
were likely to be available in Washington at the time when we were
instructed to make an approach. Moreover, in the Minister's
telegram No. 75 of the 23rd of January [1] he used the phrase 'The
President is attending meeting of Big Three this week'. This was
not strictly accurate but would have conveyed the impression that
the Big Three meeting was very close. We were somewhat surprised
that we were instructed to make the approach on named dates,
namely, at first the 22nd of January and subsequently the 29th of
January. We linked this instruction with the meeting of the I.L.O.

Governing Body in London and as this body was scheduled to finish
on the 31st of January we thought it essential to make the
approach at the earliest possible moment after the British Embassy
and the New Zealanders received their instructions. As already
mentioned in our telegrams, the only person other than Clayton
available at the time was Grew, and it is not practicable to
demand an interview with the Acting Secretary of State on twenty
four hours notice or less. We did exercise considerable pressure,
however, in order to secure at once an interview with Clayton, who
had to rearrange some appointments in order to see us. This,
together with the presentation of formal notes signed by the three
Heads of Missions addressed to the Acting Secretary of State
seemed to us the most that could be done with speed and still left
open the possibility of the Heads of Missions discussing the
matter with Grew (or with Stettinius) at a later date.

I do not know whether it is sufficiently realised in Canberra that
the nomination by the President of Henry Wallace as Secretary of
Commerce and the stir which this nomination has caused has not, to
put it mildly, helped us in securing a favourable answer from the
United States. By the form of his defence, Wallace has made
employment an important domestic issue. [2] It would, I imagine,
be difficult for the Administration to give an affirmative answer
to our representations, at least until the Senate has confirmed
Wallace's appointment; otherwise if it became known that the
United States Government had agreed to a conference on Full
Employment this might be used by Administration opponents as an
additional reason for not confirming the Wallace nomination and
for attacking the Administration. At the moment it looks as if the
George Bill, separating R.F.C. [3] functions from the Department
of Commerce, will be passed and Wallace may now be confirmed,
although not without a fight. I can only guess at probable State
Department reactions to our approach in these special domestic
circumstances but my guesses are as follows:

(a) The State Department is unlikely to give a positive
affirmative reply to our proposal for an Employment Conference
until Wallace has been confirmed as Secretary of Commerce and that
domestic issue has subsided somewhat.

(b) The State Department may wish to delay a reply, partly because
of the Wallace issue, partly because its own views on the best
approach to economic problems is still somewhat indefinite and
partly because it is preoccupied with the Mexico City [4] and San
Francisco Conferences.

(c) The State Department is unlikely to return, either in the near
or more distant future, a flat negative reply because the
proponents in this country of Full Employment would regard such a
reply as unsatisfactory. A flat negative would seem to be
inconsistent with the President's reference to 'Sixty million
jobs' and suggest that the Administration was not fully in favour
of all steps which help secure the fullest possible employment.

Once again, I am guessing but I feel that so much time, thought
and energy is now being given to the Mexico City and the San
Francisco Conferences that it is unlikely that the President or
Stettinius would commit themselves to a conference on Employment
before the San Francisco Conference is successfully over. I see no
reason, however, why the Australian Delegation at San Francisco
should not do good work in enlisting both American and other
support for a conference on Employment at the earliest possible
moment after the completion of the San Francisco Conference, or
why the Australian Delegation should not endeavour so to frame the
clauses dealing with the Social and Economic Council as to
emphasise the primary importance of Full Employment.