As the Soviet Government has refused to allow discussion by its heads of mission in the capitals of Hungary, Roumania and Bulgaria, of the disputes concerning the interpretation of the Peace Treaties, we are now considering the composition of commissions as provided for by the Peace Treaties.

2. We have received word from the United Kingdom and the United States that the latter has suggested that the disputes should be dealt with collectively; that is in the disputes with Hungary and Roumania, there would be five countries constituting one party to the dispute on the one side with Hungary-Roumania on the other, and similarly there would be four countries constituting one party to the dispute with Bulgaria. This would call for only three commissions, each of which would be composed of a representative of the ex-enemy State, a representative of the Allied States and an independent chairman who would be chosen by both parties or, if they fail to agree, by the Secretary General of the United Nations. The United States has put forward tentative and incomplete proposals for the selection of the commissioners and advocates for each commission.

3. While waiting for further details of the United States Government's suggestion, we threw out the idea to both London and Washington that one method that might be followed would be to have the five countries involved in the disputes with Hungary and Roumania discuss jointly and agree upon a commissioner and an advocate for Hungary, and the same for Roumania. A similar procedure might be adopted, (though Canada would not be included) for the dispute with Bulgaria. It would, I think, be quite suitable to have these discussions in London between the United Kingdom Government, the United States Ambassador and the New Zealand, Australian and Canadian High Commissioners. I should be glad to know if you approve in principle of this approach.¹ I shall take the matter up in detail with our representatives in London or Washington.

4. Whatever procedure is adopted, we must decide how far we wish to be involved in these commissions. We could content ourselves with participating in the discussions and making sure that competent, though non-Canadian commissioners and advocates are appointed. Alternatively, we could ask that a Canadian commissioner for the dispute with either Hungary or Roumania be chosen.

5. In favour of Canada's nominating a commissioner there are the following:

          (a) Canada has already strongly denounced violations of human rights in Eastern Europe and associated with the United Kingdom and the United States in formal protests;

          (b) a Canadian representative on one of the Commissions would acquire a knowledge and experience of this complex problem which we do not now have;

          (c) Even if the three countries do not co-operate in the establishment of commissions, the appointment of a Canadian Commissioner would have a useful propaganda value;

          (d) Mr. Ackerson, of the State Department, has informally and tentatively suggested that a Canadian commissioner be chosen for one of these commissions.

6. As against this, we might refrain from making any nomination, the reasons being that we do not believe the satellite powers will conform to the Treaty terms, nor can we expect anything of value to religious freedom to flow from all this pother. There might also be some difficulty in deciding upon a Canadian nominee.

7. I am disposed to recommend that we make a nomination of a Canadian Commissioner for either Hungary or Roumania.²

H.O. M[ORAN]
for A.D.P. H[eeney]

¹ Note marginale:/Marginal note: Yes LB P[earson]

² Note marginale:/Marginal note:
Do we actually have to make a nomination- Or could we merely wait until the Five meet and if the suggestion is made then that a Canadian should act on one of the Commissions, we could agree. LB P[earson]