Elsewhere I have indulged in adequately severe criticism of M. de Gaulle, professor of military history and would-be victor post factum at Agincourt, especially in terms of his character as revealed in his earlier, little-read writings. At least my strictures were more restrained than those of H. G. Wells. In fairness let me add that de Gaulle is a great man; nor do I at all agree with Acton that 'great men' are, by some intrinsic corruption of power, bad men. In the case of many countries, it might be a good thing if de Gaulle, with his discipline, ruled them, even if he did end by seeming to think that the cure for the Paris students might be General Massu and 'a whiff of grape shot'.

I hope, nevertheless, that I may be pardoned if I say that I should be alarmed, at least in this present, were the sincerest flattery of de Gaulle, as a great success, to be a German de Gaulle — and this, not because of Russian enmity, but for well understood historical reasons. I have no touch of anti-German feeling, which the German Federal Republic has done me the honour of recognizing. At the critical psychological moment and with the right 'signature tune', on the Bicentenary of Goethe's birth, I had a little to do with founding the Anglo-German Association of the U.K. However, not all Germans as yet have the wisdom of Goethe. A Franco-German axis has its difficulties; nor would Britain play a natural rôle today as the ally in Europe of one side against the dominance of the other.

De Gaulle at least did not propose to play the rôle of founder of a united federal sovereign Europe. In this sense for M. Spaak he was rightly 'the gravedigger of Europe'. He preferred a nationalist European patchwork, *union des patries*, adhering to the maxim that the focal point of Europe should be French diplomacy, the Quai d'Orsay, Paris; and that *la civilisation c'est la France*. At least in his objection to supra-national sovereignty he had the sympathy of the British Foreign Office. The hoped for 'pilot experiment', of a *union européenne* in a united Atlantic Community, was dead, although some—and I do not exclude myself—continued to lament over its grave.

PAGE THIRTEEN

The cultural dream, indeed, remained — and, so far as valid, I shall not object to it. However, for the most part, it was not valid. Young politicians, some with almost religious romanticism and fervour and some for electoral reasons, proclaimed themselves the devotees of the glories of an all-white, parochial European culture as 'superior', a white man's inflatable life belt, without the white man's burden but labelled 'security'.

Some of the more oratorical or simple-minded fell for the fallacy of the atlas. Had not the cartographers coloured all Europe green, and included the British Isles (although once they had coloured these red)? The oddly contradictory argument ran: "We always have been part of Europe" — so has Gibraltar — and yet also "we must become part of Europe". (Likewise, for the geographer, we have always been a part of the great Eurasian Continent, although not of its 'heartland'.)

Europa we are told, was raped by Zeus as a bull; but what were the limits? Did her skirts extend to the Urals? And would the Soviet Union approve of this unpatriotic division? Did Europe include NATO Turkey? I myself, in 1943, wrote a booklet, *The Unity of Europe*, for the Polish Government in exile. Was then Poland in; or were the Spanish and Portugese representatives to be, as they surely wish, in the Parliament of Europe? A political Union including Spain and Sweden has infinite ironic possibilities. What was really meant by the marketeers was *not* Europe, and assuredly not the Eurasian Continent, but N.W. Europe — 'the Six', of which Lord Attlee curtly remarked that we "had just saved four from the aggression of the other two".

My complaint is that the parochial area is dangerously narrow as well as 'all-white'. As such it is not the best stage-post to world peace. "We are Europeans; let us expel the non-Europeans"... "Yankee, go home". I have some nostalgia for this old multi-racial British Commonwealth, "on which the sun never set". But let that pass...

PAGE FOURTEEN

LC

The romantic will raise the standard of 'The Values of European Culture'. The Americans are, they say, not Europeans culturally. Alack! it is a banner with a false device. The culture to the glories of which they refer is a Helleno-Judaic-Roman culture, a Mediterranean culture: African Alexandria and Asian Ephesus no less important than Rome. The Northern peoples, Vandals, Goths, Vikings and other Scandinavians were in their manners even more atrocious than the American Blackfeet Indians. Paris was Lutetia, the Celtic river-side 'mud-town'. There was a chasm, which later Goethe sought to bridge, between Gothic and Hellene. To say that this new cult of European culture is, behind its banners, chiefly animated by jealousy and envy, would be unfair. Rather it is often animated by an acrid animosity against 'Americanization' and the 'American way of life'. If 'the globe is a village', it is a very nasty one.

Maybe the deep animosity is against the 'permissive way', where the United States is at least an outstanding symbol. If so, the crusaders may have a case. But it is a case against an American over-vocal minority, not that, perhaps 'square', majority whose leaders can place man on the moon. In every country there are clever fellows who find their easy delight and instant notoriety in denigrating their own country. We laugh over Gore Vidal. As the Bible says, "the laughter of fools is as the crackling of thorns under heated pots". Sometimes I think there is a case for the Attic political expedient of the ostracism.

For myself, I am content to praise the Mediterranean humanities and yet to use a title of my own book to recall the English-speaking and AngloSaxon Tradition of Shakespeare and Milton, Jefferson and Burke.¹ Perhaps unhappily the European Continent no longer holds that focal position in history which it held from Marathon to Port Arthur. Talk of the 'AngloSaxon Tradition' may by some be held to be sentimentality. Its rival I suspect of being a retrospective snobbery.

¹ G. Catlin: *The AngloSaxon Tradition*, Kegan Paul and Macmillan Inc., 1939. Lectures delivered in Washington, D.C., 1938.

PAGE FIFTEEN

[L]

In equity it should be said that de Gaulle, although he may
have been, in Winston Churchill's words "a great enemy of the
English-speaking peoples", nevertheless had his strong case. If the
English, Irish and Scandinavians were to be brought in, then the
*union des patries* as conceived by him, as a cultural homogeneity,
a reconstruction of the Empire of Charlemagne (whose equestrian
statue stands outside Notre Dame), would indeed burst at the
seams, and become something other. However, for the failure of
British European entry I do not blame alone the antique figure of
the General. Although he has gone, other difficulties remain.

It is perhaps, at this stage, appropriate and imperative that
I state my own position. I believe, as I have always unflinchingly
done, in the integration of Western Europe, traditionally including
the Iberian Peninsula, although not without respect for, and with
no desire to provoke, the Russians, with their sphere of influence,
by sharp frontiers and divisions. I believe that Great Britain should
not only favour the integration but should in many functions
become a partner in it. Nevertheless I hold that this European
integration should be conceived, shaped and born in the womb of a
much larger area — for the present what Henry Kissinger calls 'the
Atlantic Commonwealth'.¹ (The Atlantic world is a misnomer or
it will, of itself, include Europe). If, however, this is going to be
repudiated by some European egocentricity, then I believe that
Britain must be uncommitted and preserve her centuries-old cul-
tural, ethnological, strategic and political Atlantic outlook, as
having priority. A nation which too rashly cuts itself away from the
tradition of its fortunes ends by cutting its own throat for some
petty and unsure gain.

What then precisely does one mean by 'the Atlantic world'
and 'Atlanticism'? I will not here discuss possible alternative names,
none without their difficulties: 'the Free World', 'the West' and the
rest. I pay homage not solely to some geographical concept but also
to the values of the Atlantic Charter. As that great man, Australian
by birth, Gilbert Murray, most truly said: "We cannot pool

¹ H. Kissinger, *The Troubled Partnership*, Anchor Books, 1965, 1966, p.245.

PAGE SIXTEEN

LC

sovereignties except where there is community of values." I do
not here or presently mean any federal union. According to Walter
Lippmann I coined the phrase 'organic consultation', 'an Organic
Union', with summit consultation on policy; with easy exchange
of personnel without legal obstruction; with interchange of plans
— and, let us say frankly, if not with rotating chairmanship, then
with American Presidential chairmanship. We can call it 'a Con-
federation' if we like. I like Kissinger's term, 'an Atlantic
Commonwealth'. During the war perforce, Stalin's dictatorship
apart, it had to be primarily an AngloSaxon organic union. Today
we can add on peripherally (since the focus of power does not
change), and this in good spirit, Paris and Bonn, Francophone and
Germanophone, and (who knows?) Madrid. The position of Rome
is an eternal peculiar.

We next have to ask: What is the American attitude to all
this — not just New England or 'the Old Dominion', but Iowa and
Missouri, where also "they ask questions". I have emphasized, and it
is most necessary to emphasize, that most of the proposals, up to
the level of the Senate, for global federal union and for regional
union and even for common citizenship (the last from the titular
leader of the Republican Party) have come, not from Europe or
Britain first, but from the United States.

Those wide-ranging proposals were, I have indicated, eclipsed
in policy, first by the founding of the United Nations at San
Francisco (at which Conference I was present) and, the UN failing
in its high hopes, secondly by the waves of the flood tide for
N.W. European Union. The Wilsonian tradition favoured globalism
(as did earlier Canadian policy). Archibald MacLeish, adviser to
F.D.R. but also a poet, had a stirring vision of all the hundred
sovereign nations of the world sitting in corridors, each cubicle
numbered in alphabetical order from A for Afghanistan to Z for
Zanzibar. Alack for 'this noble experiment'! Even the charitable
can only call the executive performance of the UN, for example
in Palestine, piteous. If it is 'no more powerful than the nations
that make it up', let us look to the Powers that executively do make
it up.

PAGE SEVENTEEN

[L]

However, despite NATO, the regional Truman Doctrine and J.F.K.'s statements of policy which ranged from Atlantic Alliance to Atlantic Partnership or Atlantic Community, a global aspiration has (very rightly) remained, which has tended to favour certain non-regional corollaries in American foreign policy. Europe should be a Continental union; but the United States, here as successor to Britain as world power, is held not to be similarly North American or even PanAmerican Continental but, also, a Pacific and even S.E. Asian Power. Here the strategic comment, to Snow, of Mao was sage enough: "The American forces are too far from base" — a Cuba in reverse. The consequence, I suggest, of this was to underestimate the strategic political importance of Europe; and, in recent years, to substitute for the vital rethinking of policy a static formula which became almost a gramophone record: 'Instant union of all (N.W.) Europe'. This fitted in well with such obviously popular cries as: "Let us economize on defence and man-power"; "Why can't the European countries stand on their own feet?" (in 1914 and 1939 some did); "Why do they have always to be rescued by us from defeat?" (Has the USA, then, no Soviet policy interest?)

Here I always recall with pleasure the story of a New York hostess, her enthusiasm immense, her knowledge of geography and history schoolgirlish, who thrice introduced the Swedish Ambassador at a party as the Swiss Ambassador. On the third occasion His Excellency protested. Her reply was disarming. "I am so sorry; but I can never make out why all you small nations do not join up". . . . If indeed total union is so admirable a principle, I am at a loss to know why it does not appear to be self-evidently good in the North American continent. But I have yet to come across the man who will go up to Ottawa to advocate it — although I have myself preached Atlanticism to the merchants of Toronto.

The Department of State under L.B.J. (and specifically Mr. George Ball) had indeed no small excuse for adopting rather a 'Britain-in-Europe' policy, even if the hope of an Americanophil, Churchillian 'British leadership in Europe' was now defunct, than

PAGE EIGHTEEN

[L]

emphasizing Atlanticism and the overriding Atlantic Community context. As Presidential adviser Mr. Walt Rostow once remarked — and Senator Robert Kennedy used almost precisely the same words to me—what the United States wanted was ‘a strong Britain’, and that surely this spelled supporting Britain’s ‘entry into Europe’ which “all the British Parties” officially and unanimously demanded? There seemed to be no reply.

However, the answer is that this ‘entry’ might mean many things. It might mean ‘instant and unconditional entry with negotiation later’ (a most risky policy) or it might mean, as it meant for Hugh Gaitskell, as he wrote to me personally, not opposition indeed but support subject to specific conditions. There was indeed ‘inter-Party common policy’; but the enthusiasm and also the objections about conditions ranged from the Government to the miniscule Liberal Party in almost precise reverse order to the likelihood of full political responsibility. That it had not the clear support of public opinion — that the polls even pointed the other way — I shall stress later.

I can perhaps illustrate my point on past — and I do not mean present — Department of State, etc., policy better in another connection. At a dinner in London, in April, 1969, Dr. Franz Josef Strauss, Defence and later Finance Minister of W. Germany, in reply to a question from myself, made a statement both clearly sincere and most revealing. He had just advocated a total political federal union of Europe, with one capital, so emphatic that, as he said, in this centralized Europe no President, no Chancellor of Germany would be required — nor even Defence or Finance Ministers . . . It occurred to me that Herr Strauss, a pioneer, might be candidate for the European Presidency. However, if such heavy sacrifices of national sovereignty were acceptable, why not then make the surrender to a far larger Atlantic area?

The reply startled me. It ran in effect: “I agree and made, in 1961, a speech in precisely that sense in Georgetown University. But, only a few weeks later in Chicago, Mr. McGeorge Bundy made a reply speech in the opposite sense. America did not want

PAGE NINETEEN

LC

such an Atlantic Community or Union. It wanted just an Atlantic Alliance and Partnership, and a European Union. So I decided that an Atlantic Community was not a political runner and adopted my present view". I can only comment that, if correctly reported, Mr. Bundy's speech, in terms of its specific consequences, may have been about one of the most disastrous in the last two decades.

Here may I permit myself a brief digression? If, according to the Strauss plan, the offices of President and Chancellor of Germany were abolished in favour of a central Federal European Government, then certain consequences surely follow. As I watched the well-dined, respectable and even eminent figures of the Establishment, chaired by Sir 'Teddie' Hulton, applauding and nodding their heads in approval, I wondered whether they saw these consequences which, a few centuries back, would have cost these gentlemen their heads. In the English-speaking world the present Queen of England, one of the most dedicated of public servants, has an historical and unchallenged social precedence. Certainly the person least likely to challenge it would be the President of the United States, however much himself executive chairman — nor, I venture to think, has she anywhere more than in the States a captivation of hearts.

However, under the Strauss plan, it is patent that the monarchy would be entirely *de trop*, an embarrassment without historic rôle; and presumably the Queen would abdicate. Only the President of Europe would matter in protocol. It would be well for Conservatives, captivated by a new religionism, to examine themselves on their patriotism. There is of course an effective reply, voiced by Sir Alec Douglas-Home, not a neo-religionist: that they *don't want*, in this sense, a closely politically integrated Europe, unlike some journalists — to which theme we shall return.

I do not propose here to discuss the economics of EEC or the Common Market, since others are statistically far more competent to do it than myself. I am here concerned with the destiny of America and with the destiny of England. Some assert that the EEC will involve a heavy rise in food prices for the

PAGE TWENTY

[L]

common elector and others that the proposal means more de-
valuation. Others, again, balance this by alleged long-term
advantages, probable for certain industries, electronics, computers,
aircraft, but maybe disadvantageous for others.¹ During the recent
depression and unemployment Ford in Dagenham, with far greater
reserves, had a better record than the native automobile industry.
That the United Kingdom, as a free trading nation, needs wider
markets is patent. Its tradition is that of Free Trade. It does
not follow that it wants a Protectionist bloc.

In the words of Sir Alec Douglas-Home, "we cannot afford
to stay out". Since the Atlantic Free Trade Area, AFTA, offers
the large market, the question is: 'Which market?' My own simple
proverb is: "If you can't beat them, join them." In pure
economics Hugh Gaitskell may have been right: "It is a 50:50
proposition." However, my conclusion is that de Gaulle was also
right: that political priorities must always lead economic ones.
And, as Prime Minister Harold Wilson commented, the real
problem is rather political than a quantifiable economic one. For
the rest, today France, under Pompidou, is more interested in
developing an *entente* directly with the United States, if not in
NATO yet in the Atlantic Alliance, than in an enlarged EEC.
I quote C. L. Salzberger, of the *Herald Tribune* (4 Aug. 1969):
"There is not much more chance that Britain will enter the
Common Market under Pompidou than under de Gaulle." There
is little merit in barking too long, on Washington's orders, up
the wrong tree.

It is best if I here state, very bluntly, my fundamental cause
for deep alarm about certain limited types of European plans and
policies taken out of the Atlantic context. In the quoted passage
Mr. Salzberger continues:

> "The expanded Community [beyond the Six] would
> have such enormous commercial strength that this

² Mr. Frank Cousins, when Minister of Technology, did much to encourage the British computer industry. He also is a strong supporter of AFTA. His comment here would be of interest.

PAGE TWENTY-ONE

LC

fact would unquestionably exasperate the United States. America would then, for economic reasons, be forced to compete with Europe in a way that might strain trans-Atlantic relations."

We would, in effect, get an industrial complex (and soon a military-industrial complex) by an economic merger or cartel of the mediocre countries against at least one of 'the planetary Powers'.

Here 'in Missouri' it is well to state that a business excuse is found (I have not checked it) in alleged American non-cooperation and overweaning dominance, not least in the aircraft industry. I can only say that industrial fights have been known even inside America in the textile industry; and that the life-or-death struggle of capitalist giants and of rich men 'on the make' have been always with us. A statesman should not shape the policy of great states in accordance with these mercantile pressures.

The chief loser in this game of rivalry would be Britain who, abandoning her immemorial policy, would also forfeit and repudiate the unique advantage of her historical position, selling her heritage for a mess of macaroni or for cheap gain in what Burke called 'like matters of low concern'. Not only as an Atlanticist, but as a patriot, I protest with all the force at my command, whatever non-elected journalists, defying the polls of the British public, may say to the contrary.

The latest polls stand at 41% in favour of (? unconditional) entry as against 66% in 1966. Here there is a plurality against. However, if (according to statistical practice and on the basis of another poll) we divide the 20%, at highest, of 'don't knows' equally between the 'yes' and 'no' columns, we get a clear majority against. It is indeed "a time to come clean about Europe". It is said that these issues of the destiny of the nation are too complex for a democracy to understand. Here I prefer to trust the public instinct, even unled.

I have already referred to tricky tactical phrases such as 'one step first', i.e., 'don't explore which pragmatically gets

PAGE TWENTY-TWO

furthest'. Not less delusive is the phrase 'Partnership'. Of course we want 'Partnership', consensus, harmonizing of plans, not dictatorship. President John Kennedy talked of 'Community'. But he also indeed talked of Partnership.¹

We are, however, now told, for example by M. Pierre Uri of France, that, contrary to all business practice, partnership and shares have to be most strictly equal, weighed out in a goldsmith's balance. No Atlantic Commonwealth before a jealous weighing out. . . However, already the more honest word 'rivalry' is used. Big businessmen and their relevant trade unions are to enter into closely locked mergers against their rivals. (It is here most relevant that the largest single trade union in Britain, the Transport and General Workers Union, has gone on record against unconditional EEC entry.)

Soon the economics will shape the politics. Shortly we shall have the 'Third Force', against which some of us fought, but in a peculiarly objectionable form. (In passing I may say that, although I pray for a Washington-Moscow entente as the proximate step to world peace, I hope I am not being mischievous in feeling that there are advantages if Moscow acquires a large number of satellites who would take the first available step to sabotage tyranny). Moscow may love Washington; but it would be a big fool not to exploit a divided West. A united Europe of this kind will seek to flirt with both; to hold the balance; to oblige the Kremlin against Washington 'dominance'. And is not Moscow also 'European'? The whole project smells.

Sir Val Duncan, Chairman of the Rio Tinto-Zinc Corporation, tells us, according to press report, that there is no alternative. "The Americans are not interested" in one. Unless the reference to 'the Americans' means a few people — by no means all — in a previous Administration, Sir Val's statement is merely wrong.

¹ Vide G. Catlin: *The Stronger Community* (US title); *The Grandeur of England and the Atlantic Community*, Pergamon Press (1967), and G. Catlin: *The Atlantic Commonwealth*, Penguin Books (1969), *passim*.

PAGE TWENTY-THREE

LC

X

Who are 'the Americans'? I pass lightly over the President's daughter's recent comment in London that "Britain is America's best ally. . . we are all Anglophil." I pass over Secretary of State George Catlett Marshall's reference, in addressing the Pilgrims (but timidly omitted from the printed report), to Britain as "the mother country", as far too controversial. I note that the British Prime Minister, Mr. Harold Wilson, referred to a "special and close relationship". I regret but accept that, despite past energies, this may not be the time to stir up the Senate to debate. Do I refer to 'a special relationship'? The Philippines and Japan claim such. However, as President Truman said to me personally: "Let us be honest. Of course, there is a special relationship" — even if some journalists of eminence on a Canadian-owned paper (and I claim to be 'a world citizen') wish to slap it down. Assuredly my own work for Indian Independence and in Africa protects me from any charge of being a 'WASP'. Is not Mr. Truman 'an American'? Is not Governor Rockefeller 'an American'? The Governor tells me that he felt so strongly about an Atlantic Free Trade Area that he resigned from one Administration because it did not advance fast enough. Was not President Eisenhower 'an American'? Let Sir Val go hide himself.

I have earlier quoted a most eminent British Prime Minister, Lord Attlee. In a letter to me he wrote: "In return for all that we have done for de Gaulle, I hope he does us the favour of keeping us out of the Common Market." I disagree. Lord Attlee went too far. I repeat that I favour entry into a N.W. European Common Market (or more), and I have no more objection than Lord Montgomery to 'pooling sovereignty' functionally; but I favour it in terms of an Atlantic Confederation or Commonwealth having clear priority. I wish now to report on an interview which I had on October 16, 1967, with General Eisenhower. (Some remarks indeed were too startling for repetition here). "I have always wanted", said the ex-President and General of the Army, "a political union, no holds barred, of the USA, the UK, Canada, Australasia, EFTA, maybe the Low Countries and even Germany." A very Churchillian, a very Fultonian sentiment by a very great

PAGE TWENTY-FOUR

[L]

American. Here again I hold that the ex-President tactically perhaps went too far. However he added: "Keep the idea alive." To that I dedicate myself; and that order I regard it as my mission to carry out.¹

I have written elsewhere on the strategic needs of a united command. I do not doubt that some species of European Defence Community can be accommodated locally within NATO, although there are patent risks of another Prague or of making intra-German relations even more intransigent, or alternatively, of encouraging Russia to sit in on European collective defence. As no other than Mr. George Ball has commented, Alliances are ephemeral things, *mariages de convenance*. It would be quite fatal if the American defensive nuclear 'umbrella' were furled, to be replaced by a weak local European nuclear defence without adequate technical reserves. I hope that no development in the States of IBM or MIVR may spell withdrawal of defence from all areas (including Asian) outside 'Fortress America'. On the other hand, an American 'neo-isolationism', reminiscent of 1937, is such as can never be compatible with the world position of what is and cannot, by sudden caprice, cease overnight to be a world Power. Economically unpleasant, strategically it is a dream — a bad one.

There are, it is true, many kinds of 'Communities', today an ill-defined word. It is noteworthy that the Prime Minister of Britain, in his Guildhall speech of 28 July, 1969, emphatically referred to 'Communities' in the plural, not 'Community'. Especially he had in mind what is called the 'Technological Community', in effect a business association in the sharing of 'know-how'. The scientific world is already in principle international. A sharing in the field of applied and commercial science is so far good that it should also be applied to 'the underdeveloped world'. We should not, however, be so modest as to suppose that British or European scientists, research workers or technologists, far from benefiting (which used to be held a dogma) from competition, must require

¹ The Atlantic Commonwealth, op. cit. ch. iv.

PAGE TWENTY-FIVE

LC

a protectionist shield as sole defence against industrial 'helotry'. Let us not under-rate British world-competence nor too narrowly channel our 'brain-drain' to, e.g., Germany alone. This eminence is known elsewhere. M. Servan-Schreiber's argument is marked by a certain hysteria; and it would seem probable that President Johnson's offer to Europe 'to share know-how' will be taken up in those quarters best advanced.

However, a Community is more than any society or association — certainly a customs union or trade association. According to Plato it is 'a community of pleasures and pains'. Even a functional economic or military institution has to receive its orders from some political authority or other. Two decades ago Robert Schuman of France warned us of this development; and it has been the theme since both of Hallstein and of Jean Monnet.

What European Union for Britain will *not* be was indicated in Brussels, on July 19, 1969, by Shadow Foreign Minister, Sir Alec Douglas-Home. "Let's leave Federation out of it. We have not seen much of it until now in Europe." It was very cold water for the more *enragés* European parochialists. This comment was supplemented by the Prime Minister, in his Guildhall speech (28 July, 1969). Having referred to firm support for the great institutions of the Western Alliance, and "for continuing friendship with the Government and people of the United States", Mr. Wilson continued: "The creation of supranational, federal, political or defence constitutions is not a reality in ten or twenty years." Mr. Edward Heath added: "It would be a great mistake for us to scoff at or belittle these worries, for they stem from a sense of patriotism."

Personally I am disinterested whether what we get is what I termed 'an organic union' or what is called a Confederation. The term I have come to like best is that which, by permission, I have stolen from the works of President Nixon's leading adviser, 'An Atlantic Commonwealth'. Its enemies are my enemies. To summarize the matter, the policy, I submit, to be favoured is one of such integration of British economy and policy with what the

PAGE TWENTY-SIX

[L]

Prime Minister calls 'the European Communities' as is "within our immediate grasp", on the supposition (a) that this whole itself is developing an Atlantic integration; and (b) that this does not involve some brutal and doctrinaire cutting of connections with the British Commonwealth, which has stood together in so many times of crisis. That Europe itself should begin to speak with "a more united voice" is patently desirable. Any 'Atlantic Commonwealth' relationship with the United States must patently be one, not of dictation but of democratic consensus in the shaping of policy and plans and, likewise, must not be one of any 'industrial helotry', due to an unbridged gap between American technological reserves and an underdeveloped European or British technology. Not so much a jealous partnership as a spirit of positive mutual aid is required, if the word 'community' is to be more than a deceptive phrase. I will even go so far as to say, with Senator Jacob Javits, that I am "avid for European unity", provided that I am permitted to take this remark in the context of the Senator's earlier prominent espousal of AFTA. In the striking words of the London *Times* special correspondent in Washington, in a recent despatch: "On the European side of the Atlantic we deserve to be relegated to the mud-flats of history if we ignore our present opportunities." I may here add that the effective pacific arrangement, by politicians and political scientists, of the terrestrial order is in no way less important to mankind than the spatial order of placing men on the moon, or, *absit omen*, on Mars. (Let us espouse Venus as well.)

In conclusion, let us recall that cultural Community which is spiritually the most important of all. As I said in Heidelberg on his Bi-centenary, with Goethe I am *weltbürger*. There are yet degrees and intensities. Small nationalisms can be included and indeed liberated within enlarged areas — although Ulster perhaps teaches us the just limits of sectarian patriotism. We do well to recall Dr. Samuel Johnson's remark that patriotism can be "the refuge of a scoundrel".

I have referred to the world language, the vast English-speaking world. The French, as their budget shows, have unlike

PAGE TWENTY-SEVEN

[c]

the lazy AngloSaxons never underrated this matter: it is their pride.
Do not let us judge everything from the angle of shopkeeping and
book-keepers. On the contrary, in days of crisis, it is — I assure
you — different and more human fundamental sentiments which
decide victory.

I will not here reiterate what I have said in my *AngloSaxon Tradition* book, to which I have referred, nor repeat again Gilbert Murray's warning that advance in political integration comes along with common values. I would indeed repeat my belief that Washington much underestimates the intensity of feeling against 'Americanization' and against 'the American way of life' — not unguided by Americans, such as Mailer, who are riding high in the field of literary profits — which leads to emphasis on 'Europe first', if not on a conspiracy of the mediocre. There is indeed, as I have said, an excuse for those who distrust 'permissiveness': regard the States as here the cultural symbol of what is wrong; and Americans as 'the children of Dr. Spock — or of Professor Dreikürs who is said to hold that, in the name of equality and democracy, it is for the children to beat up their erring parents.

I suggest, however, that the great majority of Americans
can plead 'not guilty'. This type of charge has to be indeed
confronted. We also have to confront, on both sides of the
Atlantic, those 'beyond the fringe', who find their vocation and
their reputation in satirizing, 'slapping down on' and 'cutting down
to size' their own country. It is an amusing game, but the time
comes when the so-clever miming has to stop. The time has come
for the uncompromising affirmation of shared values. Criticism
should indeed be; but should be 'in good faith'. If the American
flag, on a windless moon, is sustained by some steel support, it is
not the flag but the clever carpers, the little yappers, who are bogus.

Instead, I wish to recall to you tonight the words of the
great man whom we are here now assembled to honour. In his
Fulton Address, of March 5, 1946, he spoke of "British moral and
material forces and convictions . . . joined with your own in

PAGE TWENTY-EIGHT

[L.C.]

fraternal association." It was in his Address, of March 8, 1946, that Sir Winston, speaking to the General Assembly of Virginia, the Senior Dominion, declared: —

> "There is a message of which I concerned myself to be a bearer. It is a very simple message which can be well understood by the people of both our countries. It is that we should stand together. We should stand together in malice to none, in greed for nothing but in defence of those causes which we hold dear not only for our own benefit, but because we believe that they mean the honour and the happiness of long generations of men. We ought, as I said to the Congress of the United States in a dark hour in 1941, to walk together in majesty and peace."¹

The issues here involved have never as yet been fully debated in public, before the public, and with demand for a mandate from the public. This campaign, of such immeasurable importance for all our destinies, is with us now. Involved in that campaign, and recalling this message from Sir Winston, I leave the issue to you. Reach the moon; but grasp also, with like tenacity, the values of man's political life.

GEORGE E. G. CATLIN

¹ Winston S. Churchill: *The Sinews of Peace*, Cassell, 1948, p.109.

PAGE TWENTY-NINE

WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS

DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48202

DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

April 21, 1970

The Secretary to
Dr. Henry Kissinger
White House, Washington D.C.

Dear Madam:

Professor Catlin believes that the British Embassy has
been in touch with Dr. Henry Kissinger about him, consequent
in a message from Downing Street.

He will come in from Yale to New York to attend, as
Vice President, the international conference of the World
Academy of Art and Science, (and to speak on the 29th). His
address in New York will be c/o Vice Admiral Walter Anderson,
U.S.N., 1065 Lexington Avenue, or he can be reached c/o the
WAAS secretariat, the New York Academy of Science. He will
then return here until June 15th, and can fly over to
Washington (preferably not on a Tuesday or Thursday) on
any day convenient to Dr. Kissinger.

Professor Catlin hopes, with any luck, to see on his
invitation, Dean Acheson at the same time. Mr. Acheson's
secretary says that "So far as we know now, Mr. Acheson will
be in Washington almost constantly until early June; he will
be making one or two trips of a day or so around May 7 and
May 13."

WORLD ACADEMY OF ART AND SCIENCE
AN AGENCY FOR HUMAN WELFARE

**Honorary President:**
Lord John Boyd Orr (Scotland)

**President:**
Hugo N. Boyko (Israel), Dean

**Vice Presidents:**
Julian Aleksandrowicz (Poland)
George E. Gordon Catlin (England)
Sir John C. Eccles (Australia)
Ivan Malek (Czechoslovakia)
Giuseppe Medici (Italy)
Stuart Mudd (USA)
Hermann Joseph Muller (USA)
Hugo Osvald (Sweden)
Boris Pregel (USA)
Albert Szent-Gyorgyi (USA)
Morris L. West (Australia)

**Legal Adviser:** Max Habicht (Switzerland)

**Chairmen of Committees:**

**Organization:** Carl-Goran Heden (Sweden)
**Semantics and Communication:** Lloyd L. Morain (USA)

**Publications:** Stuart Mudd (USA)

**Membership:** Hugo Osvald (Sweden)

**Honours:** - Alessandro de Philippis (Italy)

**Honorary Patrons:**
H.M. King Gustav of Sweden
Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, O.M.

**Central Office:**
1, Ruppin Street, Rehovot, Israel
P.O.B. 534
Telephone: 95 15 33
Cable address: WAAS REHOVOT

**Bankers:**
Discount Bank (Overseas) Ltd.
5, Quai de l'ile, Geneva, Switzerland
Jacob Japhet & Co. Ltd.,
Jerusalem, Israel

Belcrest Hotel
5440 Cass Avenue
Detroit, Michigan 48202

April 7, 1970

Dr. Henry Kissinger
The White House
Washington, D.C.

I am over here from now until June 15th, but go over to Yale April 23 - 25 to deliver a lecture, and then go over to New York to chair a session or two for the World Academy. I also have an invitation to visit Dean Acheson. (My daughter, as you may know, is Minister of State, Home Office).

I shall greatly welcome the opportunity of getting 10 minutes (I got 25 minutes with the Pope) with you at your own good time and convenience between now and June 15th... Especially I could run over from New York any day between April 25 and May 2, other than April 29. I understand from 10 Downing Street that the Prime Minister's office has communicated with the Foreign Office which, in turn, has communicated with the British Embassy; and this by now - or within a few days - will have passed a message on to you.

Your own theme, 'that the Atlantic Commonwealth' has struck water from the rock; and I would like to think it most valuable to get some ideas how it could be best developed. I may perhaps venture to add that I am in pretty constant contact with the P.M.'s office.

Warmest regards,

George E.G. Catlin

JAN 2 1969

GENERAL ELECTRIC
GENERAL ELECTRIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS ITALIA

Il Presidente

Rome, December 30, 1968

AC.dp

Prof. Henry A. Kissinger
419 Beacon Street
Boston, Mass. 02115, U.S.A.

Dear Prof. Kissinger:

I wish to send you my warm congratulations for your appointment as Special Assistant to the President. All your friends in Italy and in Europe do consider the choice of President Nixon as the most significative and I send you my best wishes for your important task.

I am leaving for the States the 4th of January to attend a General Electric Management Conference in Clearwater, Florida, and on my way back I plan to be in New York, coming from Tampa, on the evening of the 10th by the flight NA/068.

Is it possible to meet you on the evening of the 10th in New York or on the following day? It would be extremely interesting and pleasant to meet you if you can spare the time. Eventually, if you are in Washington, I would easily join you.

During my stay in Clearwater, from the evening of the 7th January to the morning of the 10th, I can be reached at the Belleview-Biltmore Hotel.

I am waiting to hearing from you if we can meet each other either in New York or in Washington. In the first case I will stay (the night of the 10th)at the Barkleys Hotel, in the second you can reach me at the Embassy (always the night of the 10th).

With best personal regards,

00187 ROMA - VIA ABRUZZI,10 - TEL.482.294

00187 ROMA - VIA ABRUZZI.10 - TEL. 485.584

Attilio Cattani

Yonse sincerely,

With best personal regards,

the Embassy (always the night of the 10th).
of the 10th) at the Marklefs Hotel) in the second you can reach me at
New York or in Washington. In the first case I will stay (the night
I am waiting to hearing from you if we can meet each other either in
Hotel.

the morning of the 10th, I can be reached at the Bellevue-Biltmore
During my stay in Clearwater, from the evening of the 4th January to
Washington, I would easily join you.

to meet you if you can spare the time. Eventually, if you are in
on the following day? It would be extremely interesting and pleasant
Is it possible to meet you on the evening of the 10th in New York or

the 10th by the flight WA.068.
back I plan to be in New York, coming from Tampa, on the evening of
Electric Management Conference in Clearwater, Florida, and on my way
I am leaving for the States the 4th of January to attend a General

significative and I send you my best wishes for your important task.
in Europe do consider the choice of President Nixon as the most
Special Assistant to the President. Will your friends in Italy and
I wish to send you my warm congratulations for your appointment as

Dear Prot. Klaasiger:

Boston, Mass. 02115, U.S.A.
415 Beacon Street
Prot. Henry A. Klaasiger

Rome, December 30, '68

VC.qp

H. Presidents

GENERAT ELECTRIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS ITALIA

GENERAL ELECTRIC

JAN 5 1969