Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, Western European Security, Volume V, Part 1

740.5/3–453: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Embassy in France ¹

secret

Washington, March 6, 1953—8:29 p.m.

Edcol 9. Ref Coled 20.²

1. Department seriously concerned over situation with respect to protocols reported in Coled 20. Bidault’s refusal to submit revised protocol texts prepared by Alphand clearly reverses Rome decision.

2. Bidault explanation that it is necessary for him to be as intransigent as possible for benefit of Gaullists seems strange in view of recent solid stand of Gaullists against EDC This indicates there is little point in doing anything to appease Gaullists with respect to EDC; great majority will vote against it anyway. Furthermore, as Paris telegram 4887³ indicates, protocols themselves important only in negative sense and would influence votes of no more than 10 or 12 Deputies in all. Other evidence also points to fact that protocols now of relatively minor importance in influencing ratification.

3. If this true, then all the more difficult to see why French Government should now be taking strong stand in protocol negotiations. Exactly opposite stand would appear to be in order if purpose is to facilitate ratification. Particularly, there is no justification whatsoever for insisting again on original texts, which were primarly designed win Gaullist votes.

4. Therefore propose following lines of action:

a. Effort should be made to impose some sort of deadline on negotiations. Referral of protocols to Juridical Committee makes plain that negotiations in danger of bogging down indefinitely unless some such positive action taken. Suggest that deadline for completion of protocol negotiations might be proposed by one of EDC countries, such as Netherlands or Italy, or joint proposal by all EDC countries except French might be best approach.

b. As a means for facilitating or speeding negotiations, others might be encouraged prepare their own redrafts of French protocols, as Belgians did re Article 107 protocol, reported Coled 24.

c. Danger still exists that French may submit additional protocols. Department agrees with Paris telegram 4743, February 24 that unrealistic politically to insist on French giving definite commitment at this time that they will submit no more protocols. Best approach is for all other EDC countries to insist they will consider no additional French protocols. Constant pressure of this sort should make it nearly impossible for French to come forward with new protocols.

Dulles

1. Drafted by Fessenden; cleared by Knight and Hay. Repeated to Rome, Brussels, The Hague, London, Luxembourg, and Bonn.
2. Not printed; it reported inter alia that in accordance with the decision of the EDC Interim Committee which met at Rome on Feb. 25–26 to continue the discussions of the protocols begun in Paris the previous week, Alphand had prepared new texts of the protocols incorporating some of the changes suggested by the other EDC Delegations at Rome, but that on the morning of Mar. 4, “Bidault irritated because of press reports that French Government had withdrawn protocols refused to permit Alphand to submit new texts to Interim Committee. Bidault is reported to have stated to other French Ministers that ‘for benefit of Gaullists he wished to appear as intransigent as possible’” (740.5/3–453). A summary of the EDC Interim Committee meeting at Rome is in telegram 3733 from Rome, Feb. 25 (740.5/2–2553). See also telegram Coled 1, p. 741.
3. Not printed. (740.5/3–353)