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

740.00/7–352: Telegram

No. 53
The Ambassador in France (Dunn) to the Department of State¹

confidential

Paris, July 3, 1952—9 p.m.

108. Altho significance is as yet difficult to assess, we find it noteworthy that Fr Govt’s initiative for creation of Eur polit authority is being applauded not only by advocates of EDC and of supra-natl authorities but also by opponents of EDC. While the former see govt’s initiative as important step smoothing way for EDC ratification, latter consider it as possible means to defer consideration and thus perhaps to defeat EDC. Pinay himself seems willing to enlist the support of both tendencies. As Dept is aware, he has not yet made strong public statement in favor of EDC.

It is noteworthy for instance that Pinay’s recent UP interview as reported by Le Monde (Embtel 24, August [July] 1²) ended with observation the “Eur org will be far surer way to preserve peace than the equipment of an army, no matter how strong such army may be”. Instead of linking creation of Eur polit majority with EDC, he thus appeared anxious to divorce it from one more controversial subj. (Korry of UP, who interviewed Pinay, tells us, however, that he found Pinay not hostile toward EDC but glad that it was Schuman Plan assembly, as econ rather than mil body, that was being proposed for preparation of Eur federation.)

As reported Embtel 7992, June 20,³ Pinay is maneuvering at present to extend the base of his govt to include dissident Gaullists, whose outright defection from RPF he would like to encourage. One of principal Gaullist arguments against EDC has been that it puts cart before horse and that it should be preceded by Eur federation. Superficially, therefore, Gaullists might reconcile themselves to EDC after Eur polit authority is created. Actually, however, Gaullists envisaged not federation but “confederation” (i.e., looser org of states) and would by all appearances oppose full integration of mil forces even after creation of Eur polit authority.³

Thus, while govt’s initiative re Eur federation is helpful to EDC ratification sitn, it conceals and glosses over some fundamental differences between govt and opposition elements:

(1) Pinay seems content to let Gaullist dissidents believe govt has made a substantive concession to them.

(2) Nationalist opponents of EDC are nurturing new hope issue may be postponed and EDC defeated or watered down as consequence of creation Eur authority.

(3) RPF tends to believe EDC is becoming less important obstacle to conversation between themselves and MRP and Socialists in eventual govt succeeding Pinay. While there is no reason to believe any of these beliefs are correct, there is evidence in any event that they exist:

• Re (1), as pointed out Embtel 7992, Pleven gave Billotte, leading Gaullist dissident, impression that govt was making him concession when he predicted govt would push ahead vigorously with re to establishment Eur political authority, “a point on which, it seems to me, many of those who up to now have adopted differing positions can meet on common ground.” Actually govt took step which it would have taken in any event pursuant to Assembly Fon Affairs Comite motion of June 4 (Embtel 7633, June 6⁴).
• Re (2), such opponents of EDC as Genevieve Tabouis in L’Information hailed Pleven–Billotte exchange as evidence of “possibility that our natl mil sovereignty may be preserved”. Tabouis, who also consistently interprets Pinay’s speeches as indicating gradual shift away from fon policy of his predecessors, claimed June 27 that govt was proposing Eur polit “confederation” as sop to US and also to gain time until both EDC and federation are “overtaken by events”. No evidence, however, that govt will propose only loose polit “confederation”.
• Re (3), in recent interview with Emb officer, we found Terre-noire, Sec Gen of RPF, quite hopeful that EDC would be submerged in larger quest of Eur Federation and that consequently difficulties of eventual coalition between RPF (minus its right wing) and leftist parties had lessened. Although Terre-noire took usual Gaullist position that Eur authority must come before Eur army, he made it clear once again that RPF wld never support integrated (“rootless”) force. There is no evidence as matter of fact of any likelihood of agreement on EDC between RPF and leftist parties.

Above is quite tenuous and evidence more of illusions deliberately fostered and entertained than of real polit trend. We report it principally because press is likely to point to delight of opponents of EDC over Pinay’s interview and speeches. Eur integration is evidence govt is receding from EDC. Until there is more convincing evidence, however, we believe Pinay is merely playing down differences between himself and Gaullist dissidents in order to encourage split in RPF, and that he continues reluctant to give public endorsement to EDC until he is sure ratification battle must be joined and can be won. Meanwhile govt is taking such measures as it can to improve its position when it comes to ratification debate, and move for Eur polit authority will be one such measure.

Fact that Pinay has not unequivocally come out in favor of EDC encourages reports that he is secretly bent upon sabotaging it. We continue to receive such reports and shall continue to analyze them most carefully. We are also watching for signs of any attempt to use concept of Eur federation as pretext for delay in establishment of [EDC,?] almost invariably based upon evidence supplied by opponents of EDC. Proponents do not seem worried and are in fact very pleased by govt initiative for Eur federation.

Dunn

1. Repeated to London and Bonn.
2. Not printed; it transmitted excerpts of the exclusive United Press interview with Pinay published in the June 30 issue of Le Monde to the Department of State. (740.00/7–152)
3. Not printed; it reported on Pleven’s speech to the French National Assembly on June 18 which seemed to indicate an attempt at rapprochement between government supporters and RPF dissenters. (740.5/6–2052)
3. Not printed; it reported on Pleven’s speech to the French National Assembly on June 18 which seemed to indicate an attempt at rapprochement between government supporters and RPF dissenters. (740.5/6–2052)
4. Not printed; it reported that the Foreign Affairs Committee of the French National Assembly approved a motion calling upon the government to assure earliest possible implementation of the Council of Europe decisions concerning the creation of a European political authority. (740.5/6–652)