You will recall that the question of accreditation to the three European Communities, the EEC, EURATOM, and the ECSC was given consideration last Spring, and that it was decided at that time to defer any action until the United Kingdom and other European countries outside the Six had themselves accredited representatives to the Communities.

2. This matter has been raised once again by our Ambassador in Brussels, Mr. Pierce, in his telegram 613 of November 6,? copy of which is attached for your information. Mr. Pierce recommends that we should now proceed to seek accreditation to the Communities, since the reasons for delaying no longer apply, and accreditation would assist our mission in keeping informed of developments in Community policies.

3. When this matter was considered last May there was agreement that accreditation would be necessary and desirable in due course. The question at issue was simply one of timing. Our European missions were unanimous in expressing the view that accreditation to the EEC, EURATOM and ECSC would not prejudice their ability to make representations to the individual governments to which they are accredited. There were four reasons, however, for delaying accreditation to the Communities at that time:

(a) It was feared that Canadian accreditation might prove embarrassing to the United Kingdom and the other European countries not members of the EEC until they had themselves taken this step. As Mr. Pierce points out in his message, the United Kingdom, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Portugal and Ireland have since applied for accreditation to the EEC, and it is only a matter of administrative procedure which is delaying acceptance. As of now, the following countries have applied for accreditation or have already accredited representatives to the EEC and/or EURATOM:

It is interesting to note from the above list that Japan has already accredited a representative to the EEC.

(b) It was feared that accreditation to the Communities might give the impression that Canada was taking sides in favour of the Six at a time when negotiations were being initiated among the Seven looking to the establishment of a European Free Trade Association. The negotiations on the EFTA have just been concluded successfully and the EFTA Convention initialled by Ministers in Stockholm.

(c) It was feared that accreditation to the institutions of the Six might inhibit our capacity to negotiate with EEC countries individually on the legality of the common tariff, particularly "list G," during the 1960-61 GATT tariff negotiations. As you know, considerable progress has been made in the last few months in determining the rules for the 1960-61 tariff negotiations and it seems clear that the Commission will be the negotiating body for the Six. Accreditation would not affect our negotiating position with individual members on the common tariff discussions now taking place on list G.

(d) Finally, there was the problem of procedure. Last Spring the Six had not established how accreditation should be sought and what would be the responsibility of the Commission in this matter. The procedure to seek accreditation has since been clarified. Requests for accreditation are to be submitted to the Presidents of the Commissions who then transmit them to the Council of Ministers where a unanimous decision is required. The Council's agreement is also necessary for the approval of heads of accredited missions. Formalities of accreditation are carried out with the Presidents of the Commissions.

4. In these circumstances, we think there is no pertinent reason to delay accreditation and that it would be desirable to seek accreditation as soon as possible. Mr. Pierce has expressed the view that accreditation would make it easier for the mission to keep informed of developments in the three Communities. We are now making representations to the EEC Commission and affiliated bodies on agriculture and list G, where our most important interests are at stake and any facilitation of these operations is desirable.

5. There are also several other reasons for seeking accreditation without delay:

(a) We have had indications from the Six that this move would be welcome. Accreditation would provide tangible proof of the support we have always professed for the broad economic and political objectives of the Communities and should enhance our status in making our own views known to the Six on particular problems. As you know, the United States have indicated, notably at the recent GATT session, that they new regard the EEC as a major political and trading force with which they intend to maintain close and friendly relations. The attitude of the United States in this regard, and the increasing display of unity and strength by the EEC reinforces the importance of accrediting a Canadian representative.

(b) The recent conclusion of agreements with EURATOM, and their implementation, warrants accreditation to that body.

(c) Finally, there are indications that the problems of the Six and the Seven may be discussed at the NATO ministerial meeting in mid-December. It would seem useful if our request to accredit a representative to the Communities were made before then. Accreditation now to the Six, before the Seven have ratified their treaty and decided on institutional procedures might leave us freer to judge on its merits any comparable move in direction of the Seven later, should this by any chance arise.

6. Before we decide to seek accreditation it would be necessary, of course, to consider the immediate implications of such a move. In the short term, accreditation would not involve any increase in the staff of our mission in Brussels. Mr. Pierce has intimated that the addition of another senior body in Brussels to work on Community matters cannot be ruled out. Our own estimate is that this may not be required for some time, if at all. While in the longer term it might, of course, prove desirable to establish a separate mission to the Community, we might accredit Mr. Pierce now as our representative, with Mr. Gallant available to devote his full time to the work of the Communities.

7. We would be grateful if you would inform us as soon as possible whether you agree that we should now recommend to Ministers Canadian accreditation to the three European Communities. If interdepartmental agreement exists, we will prepare a draft.

A.E. RITCHIE
for Under-Secretary of State
for External Affairs