Office of the Historian

740.00/8–1652: Telegram

No. 87
The Chargé in France (Achilles) to the Department of State1

secret
Paris, August 16, 1952—11 a.m.

1015. Subj is Eur political community, re Embtel 1010, August 15.2

There are several points in present text of Fr–Italian proposal on Eur polit community (transmitted reftel) which trouble us:

1.

Para 4 b of present draft provides for representation or observer status with Schuman Plan Assembly for Council of Eur countries not members of six-nation community, but wld seem to exclude such status for US. Monnet and others feel that US representation is essential, but neither Schuman nor FonOff officials have approached us on this point. In his talk with Brit Amb a month ago (Embtel 305, July 12 [13]3) Schuman said he had not yet made up his mind on this subj.

Further complication may be introduced by implication of present language that representation of countries outside six-nation community wld be not by govt observers but through parliamentarians as in Council of Eur. This wld be even more prejudicial to possibility US representation. Hayter (Brit Min in Paris) has told us on a number of occasions that Brit assumed that they wld be represented by govt observers and wld be opposed to having Brit parliamentarians involved.

If above questions not clarified soon, Dept may wish indicate our concern to Brit Govt as well as to Adenauer and De Gasperi, both of whom are reported to feel strongly that US shld be present at Assembly’s work on polit community.

2.
Problem is also raised by fact that under Fr–Italian proposal the assembly itself wld have to decide status of reps of countries outside of six participants. This cld be key problem in view of polit importance of Brit “association”, and shld clearly be settled by Mins themselves. If it is not clearly settled beforehand, it may lead to heated debate in Assembly itself, in which some continentals might return to insistence on full Brit participation in community and possibly postpone entire project in face of inevitable Brit refusal.
3.
Certain other provisions in Fr–Ital proposal, mostly those inserted by Schuman in order to please Dementhon and Council of Eur Secretariat, may create problems in getting Assembly to work:
(a)
Present text of proposal provides that for its work on polit community, Schuman Plan Assembly shall meet “at seat Council of Eur.” It is, however, entirely possible that Schuman Plan Assembly at its first session may decide to establish permanent headquarters in Luxembourg rather than Strasbourg. In this case, maintenance of present language in Fr–Ital proposal wld require Schuman Plan Assembly (important part of whose membership is different from that of Council of Eur Assembly) to meet in two different cities 100 miles apart according to what subj matter was under discussion.
(b)
Present extent of Fr–Ital proposal (para 4 a) wld require that additional Fr, Ger and Ital members required to bring Schuman Plan Assembly up to size of EDC Assembly cld be chosen only from among membership of Council of Eur Assembly. This wld arbitrarily limit choice to a very few individuals (those members of Council of Eur Assembly who had not been selected by their national parties to sit in Schuman Plan Assembly) and might exclude other members of national Paris who might be particularly qualified by interest or ability to work on framing of polit community constitution.
(c)
In para 4 d of Fr–Ital proposal, Mins declare themselves to have been specifically inspired by Eden proposals. This statement, which was inserted to meet Brit request reported Embtel 305, July 12, is subj to varying interpretations because of ambiguous nature of Eden proposals themselves. If, however, Mins make clear that decision to set Schuman Plan Assembly to work on polit community is in their opinion fulfillment of Eden proposals, some of confusion about role of Council of Eur may be cleared up.

Achilles
  1. Repeated to London, Bonn, Rome, Brussels, The Hague, and Luxembourg.↩
  2. Supra.↩
  3. Document 63.↩