Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, Western Europe and Canada, Volume VI, Part 2

751.5 MSP/10–852: Telegram

No. 543
The Ambassador in France (Dunn) to the Department of State¹

secret
priority

Paris, October 8, 1952—8 p.m.

2153. Cotel.

1. The Prime Minister asked me to see him this morning. Schuman, Pleven and Gaillard also present. Purpose of meeting was to inform me of French reaction to my letter and oral statement on aid² (Embtel 2113³).

2. Pinay stated he was most seriously concerned over nature and tone of US position. He said conditions listed by US were unacceptable to French and he returned to me the copy of the oral statement I had left with Gaillard on Monday, saying that public knowledge of content of this paper would have most serious consequences on Franco-American relations.

3. Main points which appear to have generated real heat were:

(a) Statement in letter to effect that our aid was on assumption that 1953 French military budget would be appreciably larger than 1952 budget.

(b) Oral statement presuming to give US estimate as to size of French military budget.

(c) Oral statement concerning review of application of counterpart funds.

4. The three French Ministers were quite heated in their views on both the tone and substance of our communications. Pinay pointed out that French military budget was problem for French to pass upon. He said tentative military budget had been developed calling for expenditure of 1464 billion francs in 1953. This was based, he said, on 217 billion francs estimated budgetary support from $650 million US aid, plus some increase based on increase in GNP, etc. Pinay said if US not prepared give $650 million, French would have to re-make budget. (Gaillard estimated that on basis of $525 million aid French military budget would probably total about 1420 billion francs.) Main point, however, was that it was up to French to estimate what they could afford, and not for US to do so.

5. Pinay went on to say that US position overlooked fact that France was doing more in 1952 than had been recommended by TCC and had anticipated in 1952 the increases in military expenditure envisaged by TCC for 1953. Pointed out that other countries were doing no better and some were doing less than recommended by TCC. Also stated US overlooked fact that small pay-scale for French soldiers and officers meant French contributing more than budget figures implied.

6. As to US statement on proposed use of counterpart to influence French budget, Pinay said no French Government could submit to this procedure. All three Ministers adamant on this point, taking position that composition as well as size of French military budget is a matter for French determination alone.

7. On subject of amount of assistance, Pinay alluded to fact that two months had elapsed since his letter to me and that consequently French had gone ahead with plans based on $650 million. He asked me to urge in the strongest manner that aid in this amount be provided.

8. I view this situation with the utmost seriousness. I believe that the most serious strains are developing in our relations with the French, and that we may expect very difficult days ahead. I am of course not in a position to judge the necessity for the position we have taken in this particular matter. I believe that we shall not be able to accomplish the scrutiny and review of the French defense production budget in the manner envisaged in Deptel 1954.⁴ It was made clear to me by the three Ministers that they would consider this an infringement of French sovereignty. I also believe it most unlikely that the French will develop a military budget calling for more than, if as much as, 1252 billion francs from their own resources. Labouisse shares these views.

9. I have just been informed by a reliable US correspondent that Pinay today told his party he had received note from me which was offensive in tone.

Dunn

1. During the Secretary’s staff meeting of Oct. 9, Bruce referred to this telegram and asked whether there had been anything offensive in the Department’s original draft letter. Perkins replied that in this case the United States had involved itself fairly directly in the internal affairs of France and this had been resented. (Secretary’s Memoranda, lot 53 D 444, “October 1952”)
2. For the text of the letter to Pinay and the oral statement to be made at the time the letter was presented, see telegram 1955 to Paris, Oct. 3, supra.
3. See footnote 5, supra.
4. Document 541.