W0	U 11	
I attach a redraft of the Voint Declaration
communicated by the State Department on the afternoon
of December 30th,   London have beer informed of the
text of this redraft and have made the following
comments on it.
(a) The title.     London attach *fche highest
importance16 to the Dominions following immediately
after the United Kingdom.   On the other hand they
are quite content, in order to meet the President's
wishes and Soviet susceptibilities that the United
Kingdom and the Dominions should come Uth in the list
after the Soviet and China.     But Canada objects
strongly to the Dominions being grouped after the
United Kingdom and prefers that they appear in
alphabetical order as in the American draft.
(b) Sub-paragraph (2).     London greatly prefer
the original draft which ran as follows;-
*Sach Government pledges itself to
cooperate with the other Governments signatory
hereto; and to continue war against, and not
to make a separate armistice or peace with the
common enemies or any of them.¦
The/
The reason for this la that the redraft (which was done
at Soviet instigation) may he represented aa binding H±e
Majesty's Government and the United States not to make a
peace with Japan without soviet consent, while not pledging
the Spviet Government to treat Japan as an enemy.
(c) Last paragraph,   London greatly prefer original
wording which ran "render material assistance and contri-
butions towards the defeat of members or adherents of the
Tripartite Pact-.   They regard the use of the terra
•Hitlerisra" as inappropriate in a document which covers
Governments fighting Japan aa well as the Axis.
(d) London wish the term "high contracting parties*
used instead of •Governments* throughout.   They are very
anxious to use this term because this means that royal
full powers can be issued to the signatories. Otherwise,
If ordinary full powers only signed by the Foreign
Secretary are issued, the position of the Indian native
States for whom only The King can speak will be complicated.
Canada, however, objects to the use of *high contracting
parties".
(e) London are very anxious that the words "social
security* which we inserted in our version in paragraph 2
after the word "Justice*, which had been out out by
the/
the Soviets, should be reinstated.   London think, that
the omission would be badly received at home,
(f)   London are very upset that the Free French
cannot participate in the Declaration as an original
signatory.   They are obviously anxious that a further
effort be made on this point.   If the Free French cannot
sign, then the last paragraph should be amended so as
to make it clear that the Free French can accede - i.e.
some word like *or authorities * must be inserted after
"nations*.
I have already put all the above points to
the 3tate Department and they in turn have referred them
to the President.    I understand the latter means to talk
to you on the subject.    It is clear from London's
latest telegram, of which I attach a copy, together with
copy of the relevant earlier messages, that they attach
considerable importance to the different questions. On
the other hand, we have been warned by the atate
Department that if we persist in our attitude Litvinov
may be obliged to refer baok to Moscow and that they in
turn may make difficulties.
Finally, there is one point outstanding between
us and London, and that is whether Burma , which was
separately/
separately represented at the St, James's Palace
Conference, should be a party to the Declaration.
December 31st, 19U1.
I
___^flsswnaw