1. Aide-Memoire.

An informal summary of a diplomatic interview or conversation between the foreign minister or his assistant and a diplomatic envoy or his representative. It merely serves as an aid to memory and does not begin with a formula of courtesy. It is usually left at the foreign office by the ambassador or minister concerned (or his representative), or is handed to the ambassador or the minister concerned (or his representative) at the foreign office by the foreign minister or his representative.

AIDE-MEMOIRE

The aide-memoire is used widely and like a memorandum is extremely versatile in terms of the contexts within which it can be used. It is rather less formal, however, than a memorandum. In essence an aide-memoire is drafted on the basis of discussions which have been held and is used to put forward new proposals such as a visit, conference, trade fair, an interpretation of policy or provide new information. Extracts from the following three examples taken from United States practice indicate the wide variety of contexts in which an aide-memoire can be used. The first example is from the United States dispute with Algeria over diplomatic property. The United States had acquired the property in 1948 and after Algerian independence carried out development work in 1962 on the site in order to build a new embassy. However, United States Embassy staff were subsequently refused entry to the site by the Algerian authorities. Later negotiations for an exchange of property for the Villa Mustapha Rais were inconclusive. In an aide-memoire of 13 April 1979, the Department of State referred to discussions with the Political Counsellor of the Algerian Embassy, the essence of which was to link progress on the Algerian request for new chancery space in the International Centre in Washington to the United States claim regarding the Villa Mustapha Rais. The aide-memoire in part reads: 'The Department of State wishes to be responsive to the desire of the Algerian Embassy to obtain a suitable site for a new Chancery. At the same time, settlement of the United States claim, which dates from November 1964, remains a pressing concern of the United States Government.'

In the second example, Venezuela delivered an aide-memoire to the United States on the question of US sugar imports from the Dominican Republic:

Venezuelan aide-memoire to the United States, 26 September 1960

The Government of Venezuela has learned with surprise and great concern of the recent decision taken by the Government of the United States for acquiring 321,000 tons extra of sugar from the Dominican Republic.

The Embassy of Venezuela, in compliance with instructions from its Government, wishes to make known to the Department of State the unfavourable repercussions that this decision has caused in the political circles of the country, that is complicating its present political situation and that undoubtedly will extend to all the continent, in the moment in which there is required greater understanding and solidarity to defend the unity of theAmericans.

The Government of Venezuela considers that this decision of the Government of the United States impairs that which was agreed in the Sixth Meeting of the American Foreign Ministers which recently took place in San Jose, Costa Rica, and disorients the continental public opinion with respect to the collective efforts that should be carried out in order to maintain the prestige and the solidarity of the inter-American system.

Upon expressing these sentiments of its Government, the Embassy of Venezuela would appreciate receiving the assurances of the Government of the United States to the effect that it will continue, within its constitutional and legal powers, its efforts toward modifying the present situation, thus also to achieve the collective application of effective economic sanctions for the objective of complying with that which was decided in the Foreign Ministers' meeting above referred to.

The United States replied in an aide-memoire of 30 September:

The Department of State refers to the Embassy's Aide Memoire of 26 September I960, expressing the concern of the Government of Venezuela on learning 'of the recent decision taken by the Government of the United States to acquire three hundred and twenty-one thousand extra tons of sugar from the Dominican Republic'.

It is believed that the concern of the Venezuelan Government derives from a misunderstanding of the nature of the action taken. When the Congress of the United States, in July 1960, modified the existing sugar legislation to authorize the President to reduce imports from Cuba it specifically provided that any resulting deficit in imports should be made up by authorization to purchase sugar from other producing countries including the Dominican Republic, in accordance with a detailed formula made obligatory by the law. The President allocated the required increase in quota to the Dominican Republic but delayed authorizing such purchases. In the light of the events which led up to the Sixth Meeting of Foreign Ministers at San Jose in August of this year and the results of that meeting the President asked the Congress to change the law and grant discretionary authority with respect to authorization for such purchases from the Dominican Republic. The Congress, however, adjourned without action on this request.

The debate in the Congress regarding the proposed revision of the legislation received widespread publicity and it was believed therefore that knowledge of the existing legislation was adequate throughout the American republics, when, following the failure of Congress to provide relief, the President was unable to delay further the implementation of the law as regards authorization for such purchases.

On taking this action, the President observed the spirit of the Sixth Meeting of Foreign Ministers within his existing authority, by imposing a fee of two cents per pound on purchases of sugar from the Dominican Republic, which purchases the law requred to be aulhotized. ...

In 1976 Canada purchased eighteen long range patrol aircraft from the Lockheed Corporation of the United States.Shortly before the purchase, the United States Government in an aide-memoire to Canada of 29 April 1976, gave certain undertakings in the event of Lockheed insolvency, that Canada would receive advantage and considerations no less favourable than would the United States. The aide-memoire also contained the US view regarding mutual security interests involved in Canadian acquisition of a modern long-range patrol capability:

With respect to Lockheed's overall financial viability, its ability to continue as a corporation and to fulfill the terms of its proposed contract with the Canadian Government, the United States Emergency Loan Guarantee Board (ELGB) and the United States Department of Defense have recently reviewed Lockheed's financial position and have expressed confidence in Lockheed's prospects ....

The United States Government shares with the Canadian Government a strong interest in the successful completion of the proposed Canadian procurement of eighteen Lockheed LRPA aircraft. In the view of the United States Government, the acquisition of these aircraft will substantially enhance Canada's ASW patrol capability, improve North American defense arrangements, contribute to NATO's overall security and thus is in the best interest of the United States. The proposed Canadian purchase will complement the purchase of a large number of Lockheed maritime patrol aircraft planned by the United States Government and should work to the mutual advantage of the two Governments ....

If a situation were to occur under US bankruptcy laws involving voluntary or involuntary reorganization or bankruptcy of Lockheed which might affect Lockheed's contract performance, the United States Government, recognizing that it is in its best interest to do so, will act with Canada in all matters relating to the Canadian LRPA contract to obtain for Canada advantages and considerations no less favorable than those that might be obtained by the United States with respect to performance of its own defense procurement contracts ....

2. Pro-Memoria.

A formal record of a subject discussed. It differs from an aide-memoire which is an informal summary of a diplomatic interview. It is understood to speak for and under direction of the government whose representative presents it and is usually left at the foreign office by the ambassador or minister concerned (or his representative), or is handed to the ambassador or minister concerned (or his representative) at the foreign office.

C. Oral Interview(s).

This type of communication generally takes place in the foreign office at a date and hour previously arranged either in writing or by telephone. In cases where there are many matters to be discussed so that it becomes difficult to relay on one's memory, the diplomatic envoy may, after the interview, leave an aide-memoire or memorandum with the foreign minister or the later may hand an aide-memoire or memorandum to the diplomatic representative after the interview usually arranged. This is done to avoid misunderstanding. For less important matters, a member of the diplomatic staff of the mission arranges (also by telephone) to call on an appropriate member of the ministry staff. Diplomats who arrange such a meeting must conduct such interviews and discussions briefly and succinctly. When no further matters need to be discussed, the diplomatic official concerned should extend the usual courtesies and leave promptly.

D. Letter(s) of Credence.

A formal note from the head of one state to the head of another state, accrediting ambassador, as one authorized to act for his government or head of state. It may be addressed to a head of a republic or to the head of a kingdom.

E. Letter(s) of Recall.

A formal note from the head of one state to the head of another state, recalling a previously accredited ambassador, a minister, or other diplomatic agents. An incomming chief of mission usually hands a letter of recall of his predecessor to the head of state of a foreign government before handing his letter of credence.

1. Letter of Recall - English and Pilipino

2. Letter of Credence - English and Pilipino

F. Consular Commission(s).

A document in the form of a commission or similar instrument, provided by the sending state to the head of a consular post. It certifies his capacity and as a general rule shows his full name, his category and class, the consular district and the seal of the consular post. (See Art. 11, Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963). A Consular Commission is written in both English and Pilipino.

G. Exequatur(s).

An authorization given by the receiving state to the head of a consular agent to the exercise of his functions. (See Art. 12, Vienn Convention on Consular Relations, 1963).

H. Full Powers.

A document issued by a head of a state/president accrediting one or more persons to represent him or the government in in international conferences and negotiations or expressing the consent of the state to be bound by a treaty, convention or agreement.

The essential feature of the Full Powers is that the representative to whom it is issued is rested with all the necessary power and authority to take part, negotiate, conclude and sign agreements on behalf of the state. In the signing of treaties or agreements, the action of the representative is essentially subject to ratification by the government concerned.

I. Exchange of Notes.

It is a means whereby states subscribe to certain understandings or recognize certain obligations as binding upon them. Agreements on matters of minor importance are frequently made by means of formal notes exchanged between the minister of foreign affairs, acting for his government, and the resident diplomatic representative of the another country, similarly authorized.

J. Ceremonial Communications.

These may consist of congratulatory messages on the occasion of the election of the head of state, the birth of a royal heir, a royal marriage, the anniversary of a country's independence, or any other national holiday. It may also be an expression of condolence on the death of the head of state or expression of sympathy/regret for his illness, the occurance of an accident or any other similar happening.

Foreign Service Correspondence Forms

Internal Communications

Communications within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and/or with the other agencies of the Philippine Government may take the form of any of the following:

A. Instructions.

Written communications from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to Philippine diplomatic and consular establishments. These instructions take the form of any of the following:

1. Ministry Order.

Pertains to office operations and management. It contains no introduction or explanation and has the force and effect of law.

2. Memorandum Circular.

It contains instructions or explanations for home office circulation only.

3. Ministry Circular.

Instructions for home office and foreign service establishments.

4. Foreign Service Circular.

Instructions limited to the foreign service establishments.

5. Ministry Letter.

Instructions sent to chiefs of mission.

B. Communications from the Philippine Diplomatic and Consular Establishments

to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

1. Despatches.

Written communication to teh Ministry of Foreign Affairs from Philippine diplomatic and consular establishments involving questions of policy, political/economic reporting, or the dissemination of information to other agencies of the Philippine government.

2. Reports.

Written reports which are either political, economic or cultural in nature addressed by Philippine diplomatic and consular officers abroad to the minister for foreign affairs. They differ from despatches in the sense that reports are relatively long and informative in character. No specific reply is needed, and usually no immediate action on the part of the ministry is expected. The different types of repors are:

a. Annual reports,

b. Monthly reports,

c. Periodic reports,

d. Cable/telegraphic reports,

e. Long-range studies,

f. Special reports.

3. Indorsements.

Generally used in forwarding, reffering or transmitting basic communications to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs from the Philippine foreign service establishments or vice-versa, or from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to other ministries, instrumentalities or agencies of the Philippine government or vice-versa. An indorsement is always addressed to the head of the office. It may be for information only or one requiring appropriate action. It is written in the third person and without the complimentary close. The following terms are used:

a. forwarded - When sending communication to higher authorities.

b. transmitted - When sending communication to equal or lower level.

c. referred - When sending communication to equal or lower level.

d. returned - When one ministry or office returns the basic communication including the indorsements to the source of the communication containing the comments/decision, or action taken on the matter.

Note: As a general rule, Philippine diplomatic/consular posts should always forward indorsements to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and never use the word transmitted.

C. Cablegrams.

A form of communication used for important urgent matters only.

D. Letter(s).

Communication between officials of foreign service establishments and officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to other government agencies, organizations and individuals. They are:

1. Formal Letters.

Usually written in answer to formal inquiries from firms and corporations for trade information on general and specific phases of trade relations between the Philippines and foreign countries. The salutation "Sir" and complimentary close "Very truly yours" are used.

2. Informal Letters.

Sometimes written to members of the National Assembly, Cabinet officials, Philippine representatives and private individuals or local businessmen and others. The salutation "Dear Sir" and the complimentary close "Very sincerely yours" are used.

3. Official-Informal Letters.

Usually used between the foreign service and the ministry and between posts to give or ask an opinion or interpretation on a forthcoming or established policy; to exchange personal views; to report progress, or to obtain or provide background information on a matter which at some appropriate time may be subject of a formal communication. They are official records of the ministry and of the foreign service and are subject to the same laws, regulations, and legal restrictions.

Official-informal letters shall not be used to convey policy decisions or to serve as documentary basis for any official action. Formal official communication shall be the normal and basic method of communications in cases involving policy decisions.