Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, Western Europe and Canada, Volume VI, Part 1

850.33/10–1652: Telegram

No. 124
The Ambassador in France (Dunn) to the Department of State

secret

Paris, October 16, 1952—9 p.m.

2359. This is third part of 3-part message. Subject is relations of CSC, EDC and EPC with Council of Europe. Ref Deptcirtel 405, October 10¹ and Polto 380, September 30.²

1. Our conclusion is that high level talks with UK envisaged in Deptel 1801, September 27,³ should be used to discover more than is now known of British motives and intentions as reflected in actions to date toward rapidly developing 6-nation community.

a. Do British wish to have separate team of governmental observers at ad hoc assembly and its committees? Do British intend to accomplish this in effect by attaching officials as advisers to British parliamentary observers? Are British aware that latter arrangement might, as one British official put it, “make it awkward for United States to have any observers”?

b. Are British aware that question of observers with automatic right of limited participation may raise need for amending CSC treaty and, more important, lead to a renegotiation of EDC treaty? It is entirely possible that French Assembly might make such a renegotiation a condition of EDC ratification. Problem may also arise of working out mutual obligations to be undertaken by British. Do British really believe that having three parliamentarians with right only to speak is a useful form of association?

c. Inasmuch as present proposals are probably entirely impractical when EPC comes into existence, would it not be preferable to find means to delay question until ad hoc assembly has made its report on proposal for creating European political community? Note that ad hoc assembly also has responsibility to make proposals on relations between 6-nation community and other countries.

d. How concretely does UK intend to conduct its relations with CSC, EDC, EPC, and participating nations in order to help the nations in their efforts for early ratification of EDC and in their efforts to develop strong and viable political community?

2. In meantime, believe it inadvisable, particularly in France, to take any firm position on CE Assembly opinion. It is a political necessity from viewpoint of EPC and EDC ratification for European officials and parliamentarians to press for closest possible association of six nation community with UK and other CE countries. Monnet and others cannot take issue with Mollet’s proposals since they are anxious as well for closest possible association with UK, and have not as yet prepared concrete proposals of their own. They certainly do not believe that three British parliamentarians without official standing and with only limited rights of participation can provide the type of UK association and participation which is required by developments of the magnitude and significance of those now unfolding on the continent of Europe.

3. A last minute deal on EDC ratification will probably have to be made by Pinay and Schuman with Mollet. We can only hope that Mollet will be satisfied with claiming credit for whatever forms of association have been worked out by then. CSC Assembly does not meet until January (CE Consultative Assembly immediately thereafter) so there will be breathing spell before CE Assembly text can be placed on agenda of an institution which can and must make a decision. By that time, ad hoc assembly’s work on EPC may point to other forms of links between six-nation community and non-members that will supersede present text.

Dunn

1. See footnote 6, Document 118.
2. See footnote 5, ibid.
3. Same as Document 114.