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

740.5 MSP/3–2652

No. 24
Foreign Secretary Eden to the Secretary of State¹

secret

[London,] March 26, 1952.

I thank you for your message² and this opportunity to exchange views with you about the future of O.E.E.C. in advance of the Council Meetings on March 27th to 29th which the Chancellor will attend.

I find myself in general agreement with what you say. Our desire for an efficient and more economically run organisation with well-defined functions seems to have been widely misunderstood to imply withdrawal of support. The Chancellor will put this right in Paris by making it clear that in the fields especially of trade and payments, but also in those of production and internal financial stability, O.E.E.C. have, in the view of H.M.G., important work to perform which we will fully support. We will also underline our adherence to the convention under which so valuable a spirit of cooperation has been developed between member countries.

We are therefore in favour of consolidating O.E.E.C. in a somewhat more limited but still essential field which is distinct from that of N.A.T.O.

I shall always be ready to discuss with you the relationship between the O.E.E.C. and N.A.T.O., but I hope that with the redefinition of the functions of O.E.E.C. this week, the question of this relationship as a subject of international debate will be allowed to rest until N.A.T.O. has been established in Paris.³

1. This message was delivered to the Department of State by a British Embassy official on Mar. 26.
2. Document 18.
3. According to telegram 1006 from The Hague, Mar. 26, Stikker requested information concerning the substance of Acheson’s letter to Eden because of his concern that the OEEC meeting on Mar. 27 would be the most difficult as well as one of the most important conferences he ever attended. (740.5 MSP/3–2652) In telegram 5713 to Paris, repeated to The Hague and London, the Department of State, while recognizing Stikker’s concern regarding the effect of British attitudes on the pending OEEC meeting, decided against divulging the substance of Acheson’s letter to other governments. (740.5 MSP/3–2652)