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

740.5/10–2152: Telegram

No. 127
The Deputy United States Special Representative in Europe (Anderson) to the Department of State¹

confidential

Paris, October 21, 1952—8 p.m.

Polto 501. Subject: CSC. Re Luxembourg 52 Oct 19.²

Sir Cecil Weir called on Tomlinson Oct 17 to say that he wished to return to London for a week and would like to have an exchange of views on the advancement of High Authority’s work. During conversation Weir volunteered that High Authority was now prepared to begin substantive discussion with UK delegation. He did not refer to letter to him from High Authority, but did indicate he expected joint working groups to be established in latter half Nov. In response to his request, Tomlinson told Weir we had told Monnet US was ready to participate in joint working arrangements but nothing further had developed because High Authority had been so occupied with its more immediate problems. (See Polto 252, Sept 4 [3]³).

Weir then raised subject of observers of other Council of Europe countries having limited right of participation in CSC assembly. Weir outlined High Authority’s attitude along lines reported to Washington and said Monnet and Etzel had spoken to him again very sharply on this subject the night before. High Authority wished to know reason why British Govt kept coming back to this specific aspect of Eden proposal. Weir emphasized that purpose was not to establish association between UK and coal/steel community. He said UK association was to be worked out with High Authority. British parliamentary observers wld be acting in Council of Europe capacity.

Weir then explained that purpose of proposal was to find some arrangement so other smaller European countries not members of CSC wld not feel left out of European movement. Weir then seemed to invalidate this reason by stating that Monnet’s comment to effect that CSC should go to Council of Europe instead of Council of Europe coming to CSC seemed to him to make good sense. Weir said London was also concerned that future importance of Council of Europe wld be nil unless it played an important role in movement of CSC countries towards political unity. He then more or less abandoned this justification for London’s position by emphasizing that Council of Europe cld not, of course, have any control over six nation development nor could arrangements be permitted to jeopardize in any way the supranational or federal structure being sought by CSC countries.

Weir outlined three possible developments on participating observer proposal. First, Council of Ministers or CSC assembly might ignore proposal in hopes that matter wld be dropped, or overtaken by events; second, Council of Ministers or CSC might object to proposal and refuse to accept it; or third, Council of Ministers or CSC might accept proposal in which case Weir said he was certain it wld be challenged as unconstitutional by High Authority. Weir said he was not in position now to speak for his govt on this question but his personal view was that some way shld be found to bring about first development. Best way to do this was to find a more appropriate and useful means of associating the other European nations with CSC so that the appropriate modifications cld be made in Eden proposal. He thought this cld be done if High Authority, and particularly Monnet, showed “statesmanship and flexibility” and did not act too quickly.

During conversation Tomlinson reviewed for Weir background of proposal, necessity for European political leaders to demonstrate full support for close UK association and risks involved for EDC and EPC development in specific participating observer proposal.

Anderson

1. Repeated to London, Bonn, Luxembourg, Rome, Brussels, The Hague, and Strasbourg.
2. See footnote 2, supra.
3. Document 99.