Journal of European Integration History – Revue d'histoire de l'

92Dermot KeoghWhen FitzGerald asked him about the coordination of foreign policy, defenceand cultural matters, he replied:“Yes, Indeed, it is clear that without full and unreserved acceptance of these obligations,membership will not be conceded to any country.”FitzGerald then asked about the significance of NATO:“(...) we are not members of NATO, to explain that this did not mean that we are notin agreement with the general aims of NATO, but was due to special circumstances,and to stress that it implied no lack of enthusiasm or support for the idea of Europeanunity. There is, however, no reason to think that our non-membership of NATO willbe a decisive factor affecting our admission to the community.” 53The message to Couve de Murville had been drafted on 2 March. Lemassapproved the text and that evening it was delivered by Ambassador McDonald tothe Quai d'Orsay; Couve de Murville read the note down “with a great show of concentration”.The Ambassador noted that his attitude was “friendly but non-committal”;On balance. McDonald found that his manner “was objective and perhapsencouraging rather than anything to the contrary”. Although Ireland was not on theagenda, the ambassador was told that the Six would discuss a number of cases onthe 6th, including Ireland, Spain and the neutrals which Couve de Murvilleremarked, presented special problems. Asked about Denmark being in a specialcategory, he said they were to have discussions with the Danes at the end of March.The ambassador asked if they were to be regarded as negotiations proper, “he poohpoohedthe idea a bit, saying that he did not know if he could call them negotiations”.Couve de Murville went on to say, a propos of paragraph 4 of the Irish note, thatperhaps the best thing would be for the Six to give something to the Irish governmentwhich could be passed on to the public after the discussions which were totake place on the 6th March. The Ambassador replied: “I agreed, in so far as I coulddo so for myself, but I told him that I would like to check the point with Dublin andthat I could do so immediately on returning to my office”. He agreed that if the suggestionwas agreeable to the Taoiseach the ambassador would not have to do anythingmore. McDonald then asked, in a personal capacity, about his linking ofSpain and Ireland and whether there was an association in the minister's mindbetween the two cases. Couve de Murville replied: “il n'y a aucun rapport entre lesdeux cas.” 54Cremin, on receipt of the ambassador's report, wrote to Whitaker on 6 Marchthat the Taoiseach regarded Couve de Murville's suggestion as “reasonable” as didthe other secretaries. 55 The outcome of the subsequent Council meeting was53. Transcript of Lemass interview with Dr Garret FitzGerald, 15 March 1962, D/T, S17246D/62, NAI.A journalistic colleague of Fitz Gerald's Desmond Fisher had interviewed Walter Hallstein aroundthat time. While he declined to speak explicitly about Ireland and NATO, he did have the followingobservations to make. He said “the nature of neutrality has changed”. He said that the art of diplomacywas not to act in a way that would win the next war but would rather ensure that there wouldbe no war.54. MacDonald to Cremin, 3 March 1962, D/T, S17246D/62, NAI.55. Cremin to Whitaker, 6 March 1962, D/T, S17246D, NAI.