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

740.5/12–152: Telegram

No. 139
The United States Special Representative in Europe (Draper) to the Department of State¹

confidential

Paris, December 1, 1952—11 p.m.

Polto 844. Cotel. Ref: Topol 471.² Subject: Informal meeting of SR and HA–CSC.

1. Lunch and informal discussions in Lux on Nov. 29 with members and staff of HA went very well. Under Monnet’s chairmanship, staff explained problems facing them in near future, particularly those in connection with opening of single market for coal Feb. 10 and later for steel, and provisional conclusions they had reached. Monnet asked that we arrange to have coal and steel advisers in Lux next week to permit fuller exchange of views on report HA is preparing for assembly in Jan.

2. I discussed questions of meeting between US and HA and best terminology for joint organization or comite in separate conversations with Monnet and Etzel. We agreed that meeting could not take place before NATO Council meeting was concluded and Monnet was not prepared to say whether meeting was necessary from his point of view before CSC assembly session on Jan. 10. I suggested, since functional differences were obvious, that “Consultative Comite” or “Joint Consultative Comite” might be preferable. Monnet said that, of course, they did not wish to insist on name “Joint Comite” for our periodic meetings but asked that we not decide against it until after US and HA had worked together on a few questions and until arrangements with Brit had proceeded further.

3. Monnet said that he and his colleagues much preferred the same name as the one used with the Brit. The overriding consideration is to avoid creating any impression that there has been a [“] step back in US support”. Relations with Brit are going remarkably well, but, in his view, this progress is founded on knowledge that “US is moving forward with determination in its support of Schuman Plan”. He said that it was this genuine and open support which made success of Schuman Plan negotiations possible and that same support was necessary if “the enterprise itself is to succeed”.

Even a suggestion of reconsideration, however unfounded, might have most unfortunate effect on UK attitude.

4. Monnet stressed that, while parallel phraseology was desirable, there would, of course, be a great difference in common problems and relations with UK. This difference was recognized and accepted as natural by all interested Eurs. However, if a different name is used on a matter of this nature, immediately the newspapers, the labor unions, the industries, and the govts, and particularly the Brit, may begin to ask why US is holding back.

5. Etzel commented emphatically in same vein and said that he was also speaking for Chancellor Adenauer, President of CSC Council of Ministers, who had discussed question of US and UK relations at length with him and Monnet. In asking that we consider their comments carefully before our next talks, Monnet and Etzel concluded by statement that making CSC a working reality was their task and they would do it. They said, however, that they want and need our support, emphasizing that they were speaking of support in sense of clear political recognition and useful cooperation.

6. After these talks, and particularly in view of Adenauer’s personal plea, I am convinced that we should agree to name, “Joint Comite”, making it clear publicly at time this is announced that our relations will obviously differ from those of the Brit. As I have said before, I consider the name itself of little or no consequence. The important thing is (1) the nature and substance of our discussions and cooperation which can and should develop naturally as the authority’s program develops, and (2) that we do not appear to be holding back or changing our now well known support of the CSC.

7. Frankly, I do not think we need await the new administration on the question of the title of the comite through which we carry out our consultations with the authority and I fear that to say so to Monnet or Adenauer would indicate a degree of present impotence which might have very undesirable consequences. The relationship which the new administration has with the authority will be whatever the new administration wishes but will not be affected by the form or title used. Monnet showed me a personal cable from Dulles assuring him of Dulles continuing interest in the integration of Europe. There is certainly no objection to getting Dulles reaction if you think this desirable, but I would dislike postponing a decision much longer.

8. Would much appreciate your views and if possible your concurrence.

Draper

1. Repeated to Luxembourg.
2. Not printed; it noted that the Department of State did not want to finalize arrangements concerning representation with the Coal and Steel Community before the new administration took office. (740.5/11–2852)