Regarding use of bases I have had conversation with Byrnes but
this was purely of provisional and exploratory character. I told
him position we had consistently maintained, and that if bases
were to be maintained and used by United States as well as by
ourselves, we could only justify this if United States assumed
defence obligations in the area which would have to be defined,
either broadly or with particularity.

By way of example I referred to the existing mutual defence board
machinery as between Canada and United States. Byrnes' attitude
was sympathetic, but non-committal, and he told me he did not
quite appreciate our stand before, largely because in hurry and
bustle of Paris, neither he nor Bevin had time to examine position
carefully. He told me it would be difficult to justify to Congress
assumption of any defence obligation in new area. I told him it
would be more difficult to justify concession by us unless there
was a clear quid pro quo, especially as even Portugal and Iceland
had refused any concessions in regard to bases to the United
States.

Upshot was Byrnes' suggestion that Chiefs of Staff and an Officer
of State Department should explore the position with me and he
should have a further discussion with me. This will probably take
place next week after which I will report to you. I hear Nash will
be coming over shortly in same connection.