(Due to arrive Melbourne-15.5.26)

My dear P.M.,

Surely these last few years have seen more political treaties
concluded than any ordinary fifty years. The German-Russian
Treaty, now in course of negotiation, is causing some misgiving
here and the utmost annoyance in France and Poland. [1] The
renewal of the Polish-Roumanian Treaty a fortnight ago, with new
and unknown clauses, caused some anxiety in Berlin. A month ago
the abortive attempt at a French-Italian-Jugoslav Treaty intrigued
everybody. Europe is becoming a spider's web of Treaties and
agreements.

On the surface it looked as if the German-Russian Treaty was the
immediate reply to the Polish-Roumanian Treaty, but it is not
thought that this is so. However, it undoubtedly does mean another
step towards the old balance of power in Europe. There is now
almost a complete 'hook-up' of states in Europe. They are not
completely segregated into two camps but they are quite
discernibly grouped into three-the German-Austrian-Russian, the
French-Pole-Little Entente, and the Italian-Greek-Balkan. The
Treaty-making fever is all very anti-League and rather disturbing.

2. In conversation with Wellesley [2] (Deputy U.S. of S., Foreign
Office) lately, he expresses great concern about the state of
China. He specialises in Far Eastern matters and is the F.O.

expert on the subject. His fear is that the Chinese will wake up
to the fact that, if it suits their book, they can turn all the
foreigners out of China tomorrow and there will be no reprisals.

Great Britain, of course, has most to lose in this event.

The Japanese, he says, have changed their attitude towards China
since the War. In place of their bullying attitude, which was so
much in evidence during the War, they now try to ingratiate
themselves with the Chinese and pose as China's champion as
against the rest of the world. Wellesley thinks, however, that
this is merely a change in tactics and that Japan's big idea is
still the eventual reduction of China by some means or other, to a
position of vassalage to Japan.

He regards the Japanese as basically untrustworthy and
unscrupulous. If one had nothing else to go by, their attitude
towards us during the War would be enough. They not only demanded
a substantial quid pro quo for the very minor part that they took
in the War, but when, in 1917, the Allies' fortunes were at a low
ebb, they gave every sign of veering round to almost open sympathy
with Germany.

He thinks that Japan gained a great diplomatic victory over
America at the Washington Conference when Guam, America's only
really good potential fleet base in the Western Pacific, was
voluntarily allowed by America to come within the status quo area.

He then qualified this by saying that probably Japan won her
victory at the Peace Conference when she got the mandate for the
Marshall and Caroline Islands, which envelop Guam and, by
providing potential submarine bases all round Guam, really make it
of no great value as a fleet base.

However, he sees no trouble with Japan, as far ahead as one can
see, as she has no incentive to make trouble and nothing to gain.

He vaguely fears, well on in the future, a possible German-
Russian-Japanese alignment, but this at present is quite academic
and there is really nothing to indicate even a tendency in this
direction.

3. The C.I.D. hold that one of the major lessons of the War is the
importance of the economic blockade. The C.I.D. 'Advisory
Committee on Trading and Blockade in time of War' has been working
on this subject now for two years. At your request, no less than
nine copies of their first two Annual Reports are being sent to
you by this mail, I imagine to assist the deliberations of your
Interdepartmental Committee which is enquiring into this same
subject in Australia. The second Annual Report is really a very
secret document.

The Blockade Advisory Committee has had two specific problems put
up to them-the economic blockades of Turkey and of Japan. They
exercise their wits in applying to these specific countries the
general principles that they have previously evolved.

4. I take it that you are becoming convinced that the Foreign
Office should eventually deal more directly with the Dominions on
questions of Foreign Affairs. You are contemplating accrediting
the next High Commissioner to the Foreign Secretary as well as to
the Dominions Secretary. The new High Commissioner will then talk
direct to Chamberlain [3] instead of hearing about Foreign Affairs
through the mouth of Amery. [4] But I take it that this does not
mean that you wish to alter the official channel through which you
now receive written and telegraphic information on Foreign
Affairs.

The arguments in this regard, I think, are as follows:-

(1) For retaining the present channel through the Dominions
Office.

There is a distinct advantage both to H.M.G. and to the Dominions
for there to be one coordinating Department of H.M.G. through
which all communications pass, whether on Foreign Affairs or on
any other of the many sides of the business of Government.

Foreign Affairs merge into other affairs. Migration of foreigners
to a Dominion is connected with shipping. The negotiation of a
Trade Agreement between H.M.G. and a Foreign Government may well
have a bearing on some aspect of Inter-Imperial Preferential
Trade. One can anticipate some confusion if more than one
Department of H.M.G. is charged with the duty of being the
mouthpiece of H.M.G. and the watchful guardian of Dominion
interests.

If both the F.O. and D.O. talk direct to the Dominions, then the
responsibility is divided without it being possible to draw a
strict dividing line. On some matters the Dominions will fall
between two stools.

It is therefore an advantage to have a coordinating Department
such as the Dominions Office.

Also, the Foreign Office knows nothing about the Dominions. There
is a considerable historical background (and even current
political background) connected with dealings between H.M.G. and
the Dominions, with which only Dominions Office officials are
familiar. Any division of the responsibility of communication with
the Dominions would have to be accompanied by some at least of the
Dominions Office officials being transferred to the Foreign
Office.

There is very little time lost under the present system in the
despatch of telegrams. In a crisis, a Dominions Office official
could remain permanently in the F.O., by the side of the F.O.

official who compiles the situation telegrams for the Dominions,
could look them over and initial them in the name of his Secretary
of State and have them despatched at once.

There will be no difficulty in practice in a Dominions High
Commissioner talking direct to the Foreign Secretary. The
principle of accrediting the High Commissioner to the Foreign
Secretary need make no difference to the channel for-official
correspondence by despatch and wire.

Whenever and wherever it is possible for the Foreign Secretary to
talk in person to accredited representatives of the Dominions, the
Dominions Secretary has never raised the least objection, such as
to P.M.s at Imperial Conferences, and to Dominion Delegates at
Geneva.

(2) Against the present system and for a new direct channel
between the Foreign Secretary and Dominion P.M.s.

The arguments are confined to stressing the saving of time and the
benefit of the one office conducting negotiations with foreign and
with 'partner' Governments.

The fewer the links in the chain of consultation means fewer
people having to be 'briefed', greater flexibility and speed, and
less chance of misunderstanding.

For the immediate future at least, I think the solution is to be
found in closer liaison between the Foreign Office and the
Dominions Office on Foreign Affairs.

There is still no one man or department in the Foreign Office
whose whole time and responsibility is connected with seeing that
the Dominions are fully informed on Foreign Affairs. It is still a
part-time function of the News Department. They now realize
themselves that this is a wrong and rather haphazard way of doing
it and they are considering how best to cope with it.

I think that before October they will have evolved a small
department to deal exclusively with serving the Dominions Office
with information for the Dominions, which will be a step forward.

I think in addition there should be one full-time individual in
the Dominions Office who concerns himself with keeping in intimate
touch with the Foreign Office-a Dominions Office liaison officer
on Foreign Affairs. At present there is no one in the Dominions
Office who knows anything about Foreign Affairs or of League of
Nations work; although it is an important function of the
Dominions Office to pass on intelligently from the F.O. all
information to the Dominions on these subjects. To my mind someone
of the rank of Batterbee [5] should be continuously employed on
such work, and, if necessary (and it would be necessary, as the
D.O. Officials are overworked even now), another official
appointed in his place. This Dominions Office 'Foreign Affairs
Liaison Officer', by keeping in close and continuous touch with
the Foreign Office, would ensure that the Dominions did not lack
information on any aspect of Foreign Affairs or of the League, and
would be the stimulating force to ask the F.O. to put up a draft
telegram or despatch on any subject, or aspect of a subject, of
particular interest from a Dominion point of view. At present such
drafts arise, more or less spontaneously in the Foreign Office,
but, as far as I know, there is no particular individual or
department who could be regarded as responsible if some subject
which was not of obvious interest to Dominions were to be
overlooked.

Also this Dominions Office 'Foreign Affairs Liaison Officer' would
be the obvious Dominions Office official to accompany Dominion
Delegates to League Assemblies at Geneva.

5. You will remember that George Wilkins [6] is leading an
American aeroplane expedition into Arctic regions. There have been
previous American expeditions into the North Polar areas and each
time there has been great nervousness on the part of the Canadians
that the Americans will find new land between Canada and the North
Pole and will claim it for America. As you may know, the Canadians
claim that they own everything between about 60 West and about 141
West; and northwards to the Pole. Wilkins' expedition is causing
them great concern, and quite a file of correspondence and cables
has grown up in the Dominions Office on the subject. As long as
Wilkins keeps to the west of the 141st meridian (the continuation
northwards of the boundary between Alaska and Canada), he is out
of the Canadian zone. Anyhow, the fact that Wilkins is an
Australian has nothing to do with the matter-or with us, and there
is nothing to be done about it.

6. With regard to your trip through America, I attach extract from
a letter I have just received from my brother [7] in New York. It
appeals to me as quite sound. His present plan is to leave New
York about June and come to London. His subsequent plans are not
yet made, but I think he will probably go out to Australia and
take up a place in the country. It seems to me rather a pity as he
could do a great deal more than that, but he has not yet happened
on any job or calling that promises to interest him permanently.

7. With regard to the framework for some speeches to be delivered
in America, I hope to get at least two speeches completed, and a
number of miscellaneous notes compiled, ready to go to you by next
week's mail, with more to follow later.

8. I met Rear Admiral Napier [8], your new First Naval Member, at
lunch at Admiral Aubrey Smith's [9] yesterday. He is a big,
upstanding fellow, very like General Glasgow [10] in appearance. A
fine type and should do you well. He leaves by the 'Cathay' on May
21st.

9. Major Greene [11] has arrived. I am getting E. J. Harding [12]
and Batterbee of the Dominions Office and Macnaghten [13], the
active man of the Oversea Settlement Committee, to meet him at
lunch in a few days' time.

10. An article in the 'New Statesman' of April 10th on 'Canada and
Locarno' is worth reading. It is on the last page of my press
cuttings from periodicals of this week.

11. The coal position swings in the balance at present. You will
know the result before you get this letter.

12. There is a section of the Cabinet who are anxious to suppress
the Russian Trading Company ('Arcos') in this country, or at any
rate to cancel what really amounts to the diplomatic privileges of
its members. The raid on the Communist Headquarters showed that
Arcos was being used as a channel for the passage of funds for
subversive purposes in this country, and they are known to be
acting as a go-between between the Third International and the
Coal miners in this present coal trouble. However, at present Sir
Austen does not think it wise to make any move. [14]

13. Ritchie [15] leaves on 1st May on a very attractive-sounding
trip to Denmark, Russia and probably Persia, which will take him
about three months. I have taken him to the appropriate
departments of the F.O. who have blessed him and provided him with
introductions to H.M. Missions in the countries he is going to,
but do not give any written guarantee of his safe return. The head
of the Northern Department remarked that he appeared to have a
good thumb for a thumbscrew.

14. I would be glad if you would regard the Imperial Conference
Agenda Committee's Report that I sent you last week as
confidential to yourself. Hankey [16] gave me no authority to send
it and then, after I had sent it, decided that it was best for it
not to go. However, I told him it had gone and there are no bones
broken. When the Cabinet considered it they decided to eliminate
some subjects on the agenda, which they do not wish to have
raised.

15. As you know, I now send you weekly copies of the Press
Summaries prepared by the Press Attaches at H.M. Embassies in
Berlin, Rome, Brussels and Belgrade, together with copies of the
weekly letter from Sir Charles Mendl (Press Attache in Paris) to
Tyrrell. [17] It means a great deal of extra typing in this
office, but I think it is well worth it, as you get a concise
picture of everything of importance that has seen the light of day
in the press of these countries.

It occurs to me that in these press summaries you have a ready-
made series of educational memoranda that might well be made
available to the Australian Press, either in the form in which I
send them, or modified by Henderson. [18] I have asked Sir Arthur
Willett (Head of News Department, F.O.) and he sees no objection
to them being made available to the Press in Australia, provided
the source is not indicated. They would have to be looked through
by Henderson to see that they do not contain (as they very
occasionally do) any expressions of personal or Embassy opinion by
the Press Attache who compiled them.

The news, of course, will be six weeks old by the time you get it.

But the tone taken by the press of these countries with regard to
any international incidents, and their general attitude towards
their neighbours, would, I should think, be of interest to the
major papers in the Australian capital cities.

If you think well of the idea, there is no further authority
needed from this end for you to put it into operation. It might
help to lay the complaint that no more international news is made
available to the Australian public now than two years ago.

Taking the idea a little further, I could cable you extracts of
interest from these press summaries each week, either in clear or
in code. The amount that I would send you would be limited only by
the money you thought it desirable to spend on it. If you thought
that 250 words a week would be of value, it would cost 6.5s.0d.

in clear or about 3.10s.0d. or 4.0s.0d. in code. This would not
mean much additional work in this office and I could cope with it
without much trouble.

I am, Yours sincerely,
R. G. CASEY