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

740.00/7–352: Telegram

No. 52
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Gifford) to the Department of State¹

secret

London, July 3, 1952—7 p.m.

68. With ref to immediately preceding tel,² FonOff advises that Schuman informed Eden last Friday that Fr wished to use Schuman Plan assembly as vehicle for preparation of Eur polit auth and requested a statement of Brit views. Subj now under consideration at FonOff and Hayter coming to London for July 4 to participate. FonOff rep anticipates reply will be that in Brit view Fr are trying to move too far too fast and that formation of supranatl polit institutions shld await development of experience with Schuman Plan and EDC. Reply will also say that it is matter for Fr to determine as to whether they shld seek to use Schuman Plan assembly as vehicle, but if this is their intention it is hope of Brit that in some manner the exercise can be brought under the aegis of the C of E. When queried, FonOff rep (Hood) expressed opinion that intention attributed to Schuman in Observer article, of creating confederation consisting of Schuman Plan participants, cld not be effectively carried out if Schuman Plan assembly were subordinated to C of E for this purpose.

FonOff rep also stated that Schuman wished participation of “others”. When asked if “others” were specified he replied in negative. When asked as to nature of participation Schuman contemplated, whether it were participation in preparation of plans for polit institutions or participation in institutions themselves, reply was rather vaguely to effect that it seemed to be a little of both. At one point in conv Hood said that Schuman wished US and UK participation. He assented to an observation that US and UK participation, or participation of “others” unless limited to other West Eur countries, implied polit arrangement of a looser character than continental federation or confederation. He referred to a letter written by Monnet in which Monnet spoke of importance of proceeding without delay so that it might be possible to hold “Eur elections” next year. In response to a question Hood agreed that there apparently was some difference between Schuman’s and Monnet’s concepts of form polit institutions shld take. In this connection, he stated that Massigli had “called again” FonOff yesterday indicating that there has been a fairly active exchange of views with the Fr during the week with possibility that there may have been some alteration in concept which Schuman has been putting forward to accommodate Brit views.

FonOff observes that definitive reply will be given to Fr after tomorrow’s mtg in which Hayter will participate.

FonOff rep attributed Clarke’s story in Sunday Observer to Fr Emb.

Hood stated that Schuman had handed him a “Piece of paper”, indicating what Fr had in mind, which consisted only of four sentences, but that when Schuman–Eden conv took place Friday evening latter had not been given copy of paper. Conv therefore based on Schuman’s oral statement of proposals. Hood did not offer to show copy Schuman’s paper to Emb’s rep.

Gifford

1. Repeated to Bonn and Paris.
2. Not printed; it reported to the Department of State that the article which appeared in the London Observer on Sunday, June 29, concerning Eden’s discouragement of the Schuman proposals for continental political federation, was written by William Clarke. It also quoted parts of an article which appeared in the Manchester Guardian of July 3 concerning Foreign Office review of the Schuman proposals. (740.00/7–352)