Dear John,
Your experience during these past five years in both Canada and the United States is going to be of great value at the International Air Conference. I hope you are in good health and that you feel able for the labours of another inter- national conference.

It is clear from your reports that you have been carefully watching the trends of the policy of the Great Powers towards the smaller States, and your accounts of Mr. MacKenzie King’s championship of the individual rights of the Members of the Commonwealth have been most interesting to us. It does appear as if the old policy of the hen and the chickens was being given a new life. Indeed, recent statements of Mr. Eden and Mr. Churchill lead to the conclusion that strong efforts will soon be made to place in London the sole control of the foreign policy of the Dominions. Of course, our attitude towards any attempt at reducing our status remains what it always was. While being friendly with our neighbour and with her Delegations at international conferences, we must remain as independent as possible, and we must avoid giving to other countries any impression that our degree of independence is less than theirs.

The Dumbarton Oaks document is a sad commentary on the reign of force and what it leads to.¹ If the organisation ever came into being, the role of the small States would be reduced to listening and obeying. Our most vital interests would be at the free disposal of the Great Powers.

In going to the present Conference, we naturally feel embarrassed at the existence of an atmosphere in which small States don’t count very much, but that very fact strengthens our determination not to allow the Great Powers to put over any agreement which would enable them to dominate at every moment our future development in air or other matters. Of course, we have to be still more careful lest they try to impose on us some commitment tending to diminish our political freedom. There is a strong feeling – with which Seán Leydon is in full agreement – that a general policy of non-discrimination would be more favourable to our interests. Our life as a State will henceforth of necessity be largely dominated by Great Britain and America.² If we get into a position of equality³ in regard to them, we are less likely to have trouble than if one of them exercises any form of control in relation to our territory which would be useful for obtaining advantages from the other. No doubt it is possible that, in exchange for a unilateral concession, we might obtain very big concessions on the operational side which would assure a certain amount of traffic at our port for some years. But the balance of advantage seems to be on the side of equality for all, even if for a short time there was less certainty of traffic. In any case, we have always to keep reminding ourselves that the Shannon [airport] will be used precisely only to the extent to which it is an advantage for the user, and it would be foolish for us to believe that any concession or agreement would keep any State there a day longer than suits their convenience.

I hope you will enjoy your stay in Chicago. If, during your time there, you get any light on the general world situation, independently of air matters, we shall, of course, be delighted to hear from you.