Dear Secretary,¹
On the 14th instant I called on Monsieur de La Tournelle,² Director General for Political Affairs in the Quai d'Orsay. I found him, as Count Ostrorog had led to expect, a quiet person who, I would judge, is rarely very talkative. He was a member of the French Delegation to the United Nations for four years, from May 1946 until about a month ago. I take it that Monsieur Parodi³ who was, as you know, leader of the French delegation there until he changed places with Monsieur Chauvel⁴ to become Secretary of the Ministry, felt from first-hand experience of his work that he was the right man to replace Couve de Murville⁵ when the latter was appointed Ambassador to Cairo.

After some preliminary words, Mr. de La Tournelle remarked that there are no big political problems between Ireland and France. I took the opportunity to say that Partition is our main international problem and went on to recall the Government's feeling that countries generally, and particularly those concerned with the defence of democracy and of Western Europe, should take an active interest in finding a satisfactory solution. I mentioned in this context the proposal put forward by the Minister last year when we were invited to become a party to the Atlantic Pact, that the Partition question should be discussed around the conference table. Monsieur de La Tournelle gave it as his opinion that it is unlikely that we will get other States to take such interest in the problem as to lead them to put it on the agenda of an international conference and remarked jokingly that this would hardly happen unless we should go to war. He did, however, manifest some interest in the population of the Six Counties and I gave him some facts. I have since sent him, as well as to Monsieur Parodi and M. Alphand,⁶ the text of the Minister's interview to the International News Service.

Arising out of this discussion I observed to Monsieur de La Tournelle that one had the impression that the forthcoming conference in London of the Member Countries would be particularly important for the future of the Atlantic Pact and that there seemed to be some intention to endeavour to strengthen it. Monsieur de la Tournelle confirmed this, but he gave me to understand, however, rather to my surprise in view of the strong, frequent emphasis in the French Press here during the past few weeks on the role of the French Government in this regard (see my report of 14th April),⁷ that the idea of extending the organisation of the Atlantic Pact further into the economical sphere is in origin an American one which is strongly supported by France. Monsieur de la Tournelle went on to say that the French take the view that Western Europe has to face 'aggression' on two distinct fronts - one military and the other economic. There would be little point in winning on the military front, i.e. by providing an overwhelming degree of military strength if the heavy expenditure involved in doing so were to menace the standard of living of the peoples concerned and thus enable Communism to triumph through economic chaos. The precise proposals which will be before the London Conference are not, according to Monsieur de La Tournelle, yet fully defined. He stated, however, that there is some question of the Americans appointing an administrator for the economic aspects of the Atlantic Pact. There is also, according to Monsieur de La Tournelle, the possibility of the establishment of an Economic Committee of the Atlantic Pact which, he went on to say, might be the OEEC I asked him whether this meant that the French (or the American) Government is thinking in terms of the Atlantic Pact absorbing the OEEC. He said that this was not so and alluded to Switzerland not being a member of the Pact. I mentioned that a number of other members of the OEEC are also not parties to the Atlantic Pact such as ourselves, Western Germany, Greece and Turkey, and I asked him whether it was the intention to endeavour to bring these countries into the Pact. He said that this was not so, although Turkey is, he mentioned, anxious to have the Pact extended to cover the Eastern Mediterranean (see my report of the 10th April⁸ on the interview given by Monsieur Sadak⁹ to the 'Figaro'). Monsieur de La Tournelle concluded by saying that the matter had not yet been fully worked out but that he believed that some arrangements which would lead to a tie-up with the OEEC would be discussed. I got the impression that he at least had not thought out the whole question in detail.

Monsieur de La Tournelle referred in very flattering terms to Count Ostrorog, whom he described as one of their best men and who, he said, is furthermore very attached to Ireland where he wants to stay.

Monsieur de La Tournelle offered to give me any information he could, which I might at any time seek. We agreed that I would put him on the mailing list for our Weekly Bulletin.

I had, as you know, seen Monsieur Parodi on the 3rd April. Nothing of special interest (as I told the Minister at the time), emerged from the interview. Monsieur Parodi was very friendly and expressed his desire to support every move designed to bring Ireland and France closer together, especially in fields of common interest. Reference was made in particular in this context to tourism. He manifested an interest in our investment programme and, particularly, in our creditor position and the Government's intention to use our accumulated sterling assets for capital development. He referred in complimentary terms to the co-operation between Irish and French delegations in Strasbourg and to the positive role which, as he said, Mr. MacBride is playing in the Council of Europe and in the OEEC.

In the course of my conversation with Monsieur de La Tournelle I discovered that Monsieur de La Tour de Pin¹⁰ is back in the Ministry. I saw him later on the same afternoon. He is in the African Division, where he has as colleague Monsieur Benoist¹¹ (who was, you will remember, also with him in Dublin). They are both very enthusiastic about their time in Ireland. La Tour de Pin told me in the course of a very general conversation that Monsieur Bidault (whose Chef de Cabinet, you will recall, he was before coming to Dublin), was loud in his praise of our Delegation to the Consultative Assembly last year, and spoke of them in the most friendly terms.