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

740.00/7–1152: Telegram

No. 59
The Ambassador in France (Dunn) to the Department of State¹

secret

Paris, July 11, 1952—9 p.m.

288. Subj is Eur Polit Community.

1. Although Schuman concept of Fr initiative for Eur polit community which was approved by Cabinet (Embtel 49 to Dept July 2²) was precise concerning choice of Schuman Plan assembly rather than assembly tied to Council of Europe, subsequent developments have tended to confuse direction which movement is taking. These developments are:

(1) Reports of lukewarm Brit reaction and of Brit preoccupation with “Eden Plan”,

(2) Schuman’s apparently confused explanation of details his ideas to Dementhon, Pres Council Eur Assembly,

(3) Steps taken by Council of Eur Comites last weekend.

• Re (1), there is gen awareness of mixed Brit reaction to Fr initiative and Brit preoccupation with Eden Plan involving ties of six-nation community to Council of Europe. This reaction being interpreted in some qtrs as being in opposition to Fr initiative and as being designed to give Brit voice in internal affairs of developing polit community, Schuman Plan and EDC via Council of Eur i.e., without Brit assuming corres responsibilities. Heads of Belg and Ital dels to EDC Interim Comm have both expressed to us their concern over Brit attitude and over possibility that Schuman may materially alter concept of Fr initiative in face of reported Brit opposition.

• Re (2), Council of Eur informant reports Schuman discussed concept with Dementhon last week along fol lines: Fr Govt to propose that Schuman Plan Govts decide:

  (a) Schuman Plan assembly to be given mission provided in Art 38, EDC Treaty and to be enlarged to size EDC assembly;

  (b) Observers from non-member countries to be invited to attend debates under conditions to be determined;

  (c) Council of Mins rep participating govts to be assoc with work of assembly;

  (d) Decision to be communicated to Permanent Comite of Council of Eur;

  (e) Permanent Comite to call the ad hoc assembly into session and arrange its expansion to EDC assembly size by requesting Fr, Italy and FedRep to name three additional dels each;

  (f) Permanent Comite also to determine operating rules of ad hoc assembly, which wld work under auspices and within framework of Council of Eur.

  Points (a) through (d) of foregoing correspond with our understanding by your proposal approved by Fr Cab. However, govt proposal provided that Schuman Plan and EDC govts, not Permanent Comite of Council of Eur, wld call assembly and arrange for its expansion, and that assembly wld have completely independent legal status of its own. This confusion on role of Council of Eur may be due to wishful interpretation by Dementhon of his conversation with Schuman and/or to effort by Schuman to show his willingness for close ties between assembly and Council of Eur. We understand that Dementhon has informed Council Secretariat and comites of (a) thru (f) above.

• Re (3), legal group was organized under auspices Council of Eur July 6 to outline legal questions which must be considered in polit drafting of constitution for EPC. Group consists of Ago of Italy, De Housse of France (worked with La Grange in early days of Schuman Plan), Ridder of Germany and Dutchman to be designated. Group to meet next at The Hague at end of July and to complete work by Sept 8 when special Council of Eur Comite to meet to draft “Avant Project” for EPC. This comite was designated by Perm Comite Council of Eur last week pursuant to Council of Eur assembly res and consists of 28 members, 15 from Schuman Plan countries (including one from Saar) and balance from other Council countries to act as observers with right to participate in deliberations but not to vote. Comite consists of fol from Schuman Plan countries: Belg—Bohy or Spaak and Struye; Fr—Mollet, Reynaud and Teitgen; Fed Rep—Gerstenmaier, Von Merkatz and Von Rechenberg; Italy—Venvenuti, Azara and Persico; Lux—Margue; Neth—Bruins Slot, Van der Goes van Naters; Saar—Braun. UK reps are Robens, Layton and conservative to be designated.

2. A major problem is that of role of observers:

(1) Whether they are to have direct voice in deliberations, and

(2) whether they are to be govt reps or Parliamentarians. Schuman and Monnet, as well as Hayter of Brit Emb, are reported to prefer that observers be govt reps with no direct voice. Dementhon is reported to have suggested observers have right to speak in comites but not plenary sessions.

• Re (1)—difficulties are obvious in having fifteen countries draw up constitution for six of their number. It also invites further attempts to bring UK in as full participant which wld be disastrous for EDC ratification. Furthermore, such countries as Greece and Turkey might express desire to become full participants which wld seriously complicate matters. Already in Council of Eur mtgs last week, we are informed that Grk and Turkish dels indicated their govts very interested in an EPC but were reserved on possibility of entering supranatl community; they wld prefer coalition type auth.
• Re (2) Parliamentarian observers cld not be as responsible as govt observers. Brit Govt may fully support Fr initiative, realizing diff attitude wld be misunderstood in US and on continent (London tel 77 July 5 to Dept rptd info Paris³) and realizing importance of these developments to EDC ratification, particularly, danger involved in any attempts to bring UK in as full participant. However, Parliamentarian observers—particularly from Labor Party, wld not be governed by such considerations. Furthermore, possibility of US observers wld be complicated if all other observers to be Parliamentarians.

Spec Comite of Counc of Eur (Item 1 (3) above) established precedent for course opposite to that proposed by Fr and as result, work of this comite may raise those problems which were to be avoided by choice of Schuman Plan assembly as starting point. Timing of report is also important as it is sched to be presented at next mtg Council of Eur assembly, set last week for Sept 15—a crucial period in program of EDC treaty ratifications.

We understand Brit reply to Schuman’s presentation is to be given to Fr very soon and because of vague and general refs to Eden Plan and “framework of Council of Eur” may give rise to undesirable developments. On other hand, vagueness of Brit refs shld permit for relationship of new assembly to Council of Europe which will both satisfy Brit and provide for an assembly of six participants which can develop a true supra-natl polit auth and whose work will materially assist in the ratification of EDC treaty and development of both EDC and coal–steel community.

After we have had opportunity to find out Fr reaction to Brit reply, we will report more fully.

Dunn

1. Repeated to London, Bonn, The Hague, Brussels, Rome, Luxembourg, Athens, Ankara, and Strasbourg.
2. Not printed; it summarized press reports on Schuman’s conference with the news media on July 1 during which he discussed the French proposals for the creation of a European political authority. (740.00/7–252)
3. Document 54.