Text begins as follows:

I was privileged to be present at the meeting of the Cabinet this morning, which was attended by Mr. Acheson and the American Ambassador.

2. After being introduced by the Prime Minister, Mr. Acheson spoke and gave one of those masterly surveys of the world situation for which he is becoming so well known. His remarks were designed to act as a vehicle for conveying to the Canadian Government his views on the Indian Resolution on Korea, now before the General Assembly. Although he did not mention Canada by name, nor did he refer either to yourself or to Mr. Martin, he left the implication that by our tactics in supporting the Indian proposal we were siding with the less responsible and more disruptive elements in the United Nations.

3. Mr. Acheson commenced by responding to an invitation of the Prime Minister to comment upon the probable effect of the change in administration on Canadian-United States relations. He said that he foresaw no change in basic policy on those matters which most directly affected Canada. As regards the St. Lawrence Seaway he referred to the important influence of the Governor of New York. On trade, he mentioned the traditional high tariff policy of the Republican Party but said that as they see the necessities of the world there may be a change in their traditional policy. On Defence, he pointed out that the views of General Eisenhower should be very much the same as those of President Truman.

4. Mr. Acheson said he wanted to direct attention to two disturbing factors in the world situation which had been causing him grave concern. One concerned the United Nations and the other Europe. Speaking first of the United Nations, he said the situation was very disturbing. Institutions never develop the way their founders think they will develop and this was to be expected in the case of the United Nations. However, the tendency to form voting blocs recently had been developing in a way that could eventually destroy the whole organization.

5. He mentioned that there were two main voting blocs, the Latin-American group which controlled 20 votes and the Arab-Asian group which controlled 13 votes. Together these two groups had a majority of the General Assembly. Three characteristics distinguished the members of both groups. Each member was without power, was politically unstable and was irresponsible in the sense that not having power they had no responsibility for implementing the decisions resulting from their votes. All the countries in the two groups were concerned with the economic development of their territories and suffered from the obsession that they had been exploited in the past. There had been two predominant ideas underlying the setting up of the United Nations, namely, security and well-being. The members of these two voting blocks had taken up the latter as being the primary aim of the organization, whereas for the founders of the United Nations this objective had been secondary to that of security.

6. Mr. Acheson then said he could give two examples of the disruptive character of the activities of the two voting blocs. One was the Arab-Asian attack on France over Morocco and Tunisia and the other the Indian attack on South Africa. Both of these attacks were misguided in that nothing could result from these actions except trouble.

7. He then very cleverly introduced the subject of Korea, which he said affects his country very much. He referred to the armistice negotiations and said that while it was impossible to predict what other questions the Communist might raise, the negotiations had led to the solution of all outstanding questions except that of prisoners of war. It was necessary to see if the other side really wanted an armistice. The Twenty-one Power draft resolution would have tested out the desire of the other side for an armistice. The activity of Mr. Menon, however, and the attitude of other members of the Arab-Asian group, were tending to obscure the issue which would have been clear-cut if there had been a vote on the Twenty-one Power resolution.

8. The Communist view from the outset had been to leave prisoners of war out of the questions demanding solution before agreement could be reached on an armistice. The Western attitude had been that this question must be solved, otherwise there could be a complete breakdown of the armistice through some question emerging pertaining to prisoners of war, Moreover, the proposal put forward by Mr. Menon left much to be desired. At this point Mr. Acheson asked if we should drive prisoners of war against their will into the machine for resolving their fate which would be set up by the Menon proposal. He went on to elaborate some of the well known American objections to the Indian proposal. He said that it is the view of the people responsible for the operation that it would be disadvantageous Io our side to agree to this proposal as it stood. He then said that instead of listening to the views of those responsible for the operation "there is this playing around with Mr. Menon."

9. Mr. Acheson then reverted to his original theme by referring, once more, to the blocs manoeuvering for position in the General Assembly and stressing again that these blocs are made up of countries without the responsibility for the exercise of power. He regarded this as a serious development which if not checked will have most disastrous effects on the United Nations and may end up in destroying that organization.

10. Mr. Acheson next turned to his second source of disquiet, namely, Europe. He began by explaining that there are elements which create a vigorous forward movement in international relations and then the momentum behind these movements dies down. This appears to have been the case in Europe. Last May that continent was on the threshold of a most brilliant future, based on closer political and economic integration. In this connection he referred to the Schuman Plan and the E.D.C. Treaties. Today he said all of that momentum is gone. Nobody appears to be taking the necessary steps to ratify the E.D.C. Treaties. One of the factors undoubtedly has been the United States election and the long period before the new administration takes office. This has given rise to doubt and each doubt has given rise to some new doubt so that action has been slowed down and the effect has been cumulative.

11. As an illustration Mr. Acheson mentioned that a short time ago Chancellor Adenaeur had been supremely confident. Mr. Schuman then got back to Paris and made what proved to be most unfortunate remarks indicating that it might be several months before France ratified the E.D.C. Treaties. The result on the Bundestag had been immediate, and Chancellor Adenaeur had been defeated on a procedural motion concerning ratification. This has led to a paralysis of the situation. The other countries are waiting on France and Germany, both of whom are watching each other. It may be some time before the United States can speak out on these questions. Mr. Acheson expressed the hope that the new United States administration will be encouraged by other governments, including the Canadian Government, to adopt a positive attitude. He hoped the new administration would urge ratification of the E.D.C. Treaties with the same vigour as he had urged this course in the past. It is only in this way that we can have real defence in Europe and a real deterrent to aggression.

12. When Mr. Acheson had concluded his remarks it was nearly time for him to proceed to a luncheon at Government House so that the Prime Minister, in thanking Mr. Acheson, confined himself to some general remarks and did not have an opportunity of taking up in detail the points Mr. Acheson had made about Korea. Ends.