Dear Mr. Bruce,

FRENCH SECURITY AND THE PROTOCOL

Discussion on the Protocol [1] and cognate subjects is being
actively continued, although it is universally admitted in
confidence that the Protocol in anything like its present form is
a dead letter as far as we are concerned.

It is held, however, that by reason of the tone of our
conversations with France since 1919, we are morally bound to give
effect to some instrument which will relieve the mind of France
with regard to security.

The course of negotiations with France in this regard is concisely
covered in several Foreign Office and Committee of Imperial
Defence documents, which I hope to be able to enclose to you with
this letter. They take you from the Peace Conference, where France
wanted the left bank of the Rhine, but was 'fobbed off' with the
stillborn tripartite Treaty [2], through the negotiations leading
up to the proposed Treaty of Mutual Guarantee in 1922 [3], and its
child, the proposed Treaty of Mutual Assistance in 1923 [4], out
of which came the Protocol.

We have for various reasons rejected all these attempts to create
an instrument in an endeavour to facilitate disarmament (what we
want) and at the same time give France security against
aggression. It is felt that the time is approaching when we must
be active instead of passive in the matter.

Sir William Tyrrell (Assistant Under-Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs) recently said to me, 'no real peace or settling
down in Europe is possible until France is satisfied as to her
security. Until her mind is at rest on this point she will be
uneasy and nervous, and not in a good mood for negotiation or
compromise in Europe or in other parts of the world. Only America
or Britain can give her the necessary guarantees. America will not
help and so it is up to us. America looks askance at the Protocol
but would not be averse to our entering into an agreement with
France, giving limited and definite guarantees of assistance
against aggression, without the entangling commitments of the
Protocol, the carrying out of which would amost certainly involve
us with America. For us, the commitments under the Protocol are
definite, the advantages vague. Even if we accepted the Protocol,
it would have to be with the stultifying mental reservation that
we would employ our fleet only in so far as it did not antagonise
America.' He ended by saying that all our commitments in Europe
must be looked at from the point of view of our friendly relations
with America, as the greatest world guarantee for peace was really
a proper understanding with America, and even this need not be on
paper as is essential with Latin races.

A meeting of the Committee of Imperial Defence was held to-day at
this Office, at which it was decided to cable all Dominions saying
that it was proposed to hold a Conference with the Dominion Prime
Ministers in early March, on the subject of the Protocol, and
asking for your preliminary cabled comments on the Protocol by the
end of January. [5] As the cable is unlikely to go for two days, I
am cabling you at once to warn you.

In the meantime a committee has been formed to go thoroughly into
the terms of the Protocol, broadly and in detail, to see if it can
be amended to suit us; or if not to try and formulate the general
lines on which such a document should run in order to meet both
our views and those of France.

WAR GUILT

Headlam-Morley (Historical Adviser to Foreign Office) tells me
that there is a lot of heavy work being done by German Historians
and propagandists in their efforts to try and prove, by
documentary evidence and otherwise, that Germany is wrongfully
accused of being responsible for the War. A strong group,
containing practically all the German Historians of note, is
actively engaged in pamphleteering on the subject, and the frank
publication (sic) of the principal documents in the Archives of
the German Foreign Office is doubtless to this same end.

The danger in the movement (and undoubtedly the mainspring of it)
is that if they can convince any considerable body of public
opinion that they are right, they will have a moral lever for the
amendment of the Covenant of the League, which is based on the
assumption of Germany's guilt.

He tells me that they have had several articles to this end in the
American publication 'Foreign Affairs', although I have not yet
had time to look them up.

MEXICO

This country does not recognise the present Mexican Government who
have lately, as you know, retaliated by withdrawing their consular
representatives from the United Kingdom and the Dominions.

Vansittart (American Department, Foreign Office) tells me that
there are two groups of opinion in this country on the subject of
our recognition of Mexico. The commercial people, who want
immediate unqualified recognition to facilitate trade, and the
holders of Mexican Securities that have been repudiated, and who
want 'recognition' to be withheld as a lever in the hands of our
Government to try and eventually force Mexico to swap
'recognition' for 'payment of debts'.

I understand the question is a perennial one in Parliament here,
and no doubt it will be aired in the new parliament.

Vansittart says we are under no great disabilities in our
commercial dealings with Mexico by reason of the present 'non-
recognition' position.

TANGIER

Although I have not yet had time to discuss this potential source
of trouble with the Foreign Office, I have learned that Spain has
failed in her campaign and that it is possible that we may get at
cross purposes with France as to who is to step in, if and when
Spain evacuates the territory. I understand that France now
opposes the proposal of internationalisation.

EGYPT

The press may be said to support the Government in the attitude
towards Egypt. The 'Manchester Guardian' hesitates a little, and
points out the fact that Egypt was never a British possession so
the term 'disloyalty' regarding the Egyptian extremists' attitude
is hardly applicable. It is also pointed out that it is now harder
than ever for us to get out of Egypt and give them the
Independence that we have been promising them for so many years.

The position is still causing anxiety and several cables from Lord
Allenby [6] come in daily.

The rather loose and harsh expressions used regarding irrigation
areas are deprecated by the opposition and by a section of the
press. Without doubt the proper meaning could have been conveyed
in terms less liable to misunderstanding.

INFORMATION TO DOMINIONS

Hankey [7] recently said to me that there was good value in the
actual presence of an Australian representative here even if he
did nothing, as he acted as a constant reminder that Australia
(and indeed other Dominions) should be kept fully informed, as
that was the reason for his presence.

I do not think that the detailed reports of departments of State
on the Protocol would have gone to you, nor the Print on French
Security and several others, if one had not asked that they be
sent. There is little or no objection raised to papers being sent,
but they have not up to now seen the necessity.

On my approaching Hankey to-day to ask him if I could send out to
you a complete set of papers dealing with French Security, he said
at once that they all could and should go to all Dominions. He
further said that in general if I 'gingered him up' (his own
words) in this way about papers, he would see to it that they went
off officially, which is perhaps better than if I sent them
unofficially.

The responsibility at present for informing the Dominions is
shared in reality by E. J. Harding [8] (Dominions Department,
Colonial Office) and Sir Eyre Crowe [9] (Foreign Office). They are
both very busy, and the informing of the Dominions on the Foreign
Situation is a side issue with them. They both have to delegate
the actual work to someone else. It is shaping itself in my mind
that the responsibility might well be sheeted home to the Heads of
Departments in the Foreign Office, making it part of their duty,
whenever the situation looks like altering, to draft a cable (and
in quiet times a short despatch) on the position in the countries
they cover. Their drafts might be looked over, cut down perhaps,
and welded into one weekly cable, under the instructions, say, of
Sir William Tyrrell or Sir Eyre Crowe, of the Foreign Office. This
would mean very little extra work being put on Foreign Office
Departments and would ensure that all the news was put on paper by
the people who specialise in our relations with each country. The
responsibility would be with Tyrrell or Crowe to cut out what was
nonessential to us.

I mention this only as an idea, that I am not prepared as yet to
suggest to the Foreign Office.

A restraining influence on the openness and frankness of Colonial
Office cables is the fact that Canada is in the habit of
requesting from time to time that they be allowed to publish in
full their cable communications with the Colonial Office on any
subject. They do so, they state, on the plea that public opinion
in Canada demands such frank disclosures of what is going on. And
as the same cables are sent to all Dominions, it means that we
suffer to the extent that we get the same cables carefully edited
by E. J. Harding (Dominions Department, Colonial Office), with a
view to the fact that they may all subsequently appear in the
Canadian Press. I discovered this fact by reason of my asking
Harding if some indication could not be contained in the
'Protocol' cables going to you, of the way official opinion was
shaping itself here in the matter, and naturally with the above in
mind, he explained why he could not do so.

I am, Yours very truly,
R. G. CASEY