RA files, lot 58 D 374, “CSC—UK Association, 1954–55”
No. 189
The Deputy United States Representative
to the European Coal and Steel Community (Tomlinson) to
the Director of the Office of European Regional Affairs (Moore)1
Subject:
- CSC–UK Association
Dear Ben: Yesterday, Monnet was under pressure, both in the Council of Ministers’ meeting and by the Political Committee of the Common Assembly, on the question of the association between the CSC and U.K. Both groups were sympathetic to the idea but irritated about the delay. Monnet explained that this action was delayed because the policies of the High Authority had not been far enough advanced. As an example, he used the difficulties encountered in defining a policy for implementation of Article 60 (rules on competition and non-discrimination in the common market). He gave only a broad outline of his intentions with regard to the negotiations and said that on Friday of this week he would hand Sir Cecil Weir a letter outlining the proposals of the High Authority. Copies of the letter handed to Sir Cecil would be circulated to the governments of the member countries in the first days of the coming week, that is, immediately after Christmas.2 The substance of his statement was to be considered confidential.
As you know, Chancellor Adenauer fully supports Monnet’s plans to help EDC ratification by a public announcement on the opening of negotiations between the U.S. and the CSC on a loan, and between the CSC and the U.K. Government on British association. This announcement should be made before the Common Assembly meeting convenes on January 14, 1954. Apparently Louvel is also sympathetic to this plan.
In any case, at the meeting of the Council of Ministers, Monnet met opposition only from the Luxembourg Minister Rasquin. The latter objected to the initiation of negotiations with the U.K., arguing that under the provisions of Section 14 of the Convention, commercial policy matters are within the responsibility of the Governments of the member States. The Council took note of the fact that it had been advised by Monnet of his intention to submit proposals [Page 347] to the U.K. Government. It reserved its position under Section 14 until the actual proposals are forwarded to the Governments.
Monnet will let us have a copy of the final text for transmission to Washington when it is handed to the ministers of the member countries. In the latest draft, appropriate emphasis now seems to be placed on the three points we discussed with you, namely:
- —the purpose is to eliminate restrictions and to expand international trade;
- —obligations of the High Authority and the member countries under the CSC Treaty to further the development of international trade and to protect the interests of third countries;
- —obligations of the CSC and U.K. to observe the principles and procedures of GATT.
In the draft letter there are still two formulations which might give the impression that the CSC and the U.K. would act as a bloc in their trade relations with third countries. One is a clause to the effect that the association should examine in what manner and to what extent the joint arrangements might be open for accession by third countries. This might be considered as implying that specific conditions will be worked out for the accession of a third country, rather than letting them join at equal terms. The second is a clause calling for application on third markets of the rules governing trade between the CSC and U.K. markets. This implies some degree of joint action in commercial policy matters and in export policies. The language used in two further clauses of minor importance is also not too happy. In defining the objectives of the association with regard to elimination of restrictions on trade, the draft uses different language when referring to coal and to steel. The differentiation might be interpreted as reflecting different policies. Finally, the draft speaks separately of “consumption” and “exports” when defining the subject of joint studies concerning future developments. This wording might be considered to reflect the idea of possible joint export action.
The points outlined above were brought to Monnet’s attention but I have the impression that he has gone about as far as he can and that his colleagues in the High Authority may insist on leaving the letter unchanged.
Monnet still believes that it may be necessary for the U.S., after we have agreed to open negotiations with the CSC on a loan, to say a word to the U.K. regarding the opening of negotiations on association. However, he is no longer suggesting that his letter must be accepted by the U.K. as basis for negotiations but that they agree to open the negotiations with the CSC and receive the letter as a CSC proposal, leaving the U.K. free to make its own proposals. This approach makes it much easier for us to suggest to the British that [Page 348] they open negotiations in order to facilitate EDC ratification because we will not need to give any approval whatsoever to the substance of Monnet’s letter. Just as the six member Governments have reserved their position on the substance of the offer, so we can reserve ours.
Sincerely,