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

Italian-Austrian Desk files, lot 58 D 243, “Policy Debates Winter 1953–1954”

No. 786
The Director of the Office of Western European Affairs (Jones) to the Counselor of Embassy in Italy (Durbrow)

top secret
official–informal

Washington, September 16, 1954.

Dear Durby: I am sorry we have been so long in answering your letter of August 10¹ regarding IRI–Confindustria and the Scelba government. The vacation period with its consequent skeleton staffing in WE is our partial excuse.

I am even sorrier that such complete misunderstanding resulted from our A–66² on the IRI business. As you know we had already fully endorsed … the actions you had undertaken with Pastore and the Party to require a common position which both of them could accept.

… A–66 seemed to be an appropriate, routine, on-the-record kind of instruction and I let it go through principally because the substance of its content, asking for an over-all report on Confindustria, seemed desirable. I’m extremely sorry about all the resulting confusion and shall do a more effective job of coordinating next time.

With regard to the substance of the IRI question, I can see that there would have been some disadvantages to withdrawing the Pastore motion under the circumstances, leaving the PSI motion³ the only competitor for the votes of the many individuals and factions in the government who had already declared themselves publicly in favor of some such motion. I wonder whether the government has not already killed this issue by referring it to the Giacchi commission⁴ and certainly hope so. As you know, the Italians are old hands at this kind of tactic.

A more basic point is involved, I think, than whether we should favor the Pastore or anti-Pastore forces in this question, and it is one which has given me some concern personally. This is the degree to which we should actively intervene to influence directly and overtly specific legislative questions on internal matters before the Italian Parliament. I believe we have every right to attempt openly to influence legislation where American interests are at stake and this policy would, it seems to me, provide a suitable basis for Henry Tasca’s activities with regard to petroleum legislation. However, in pursuing our more generalized objectives such as encouraging Italian private initiative a distinction should be made, in my personal view, between exerting our influence on a general basis through such programs as technical assistance and productivity and exerting it directly by overtly participating in political differences on specific resolutions before Parliament.

We subscribe unreservedly to your view that the essential point on the IRI issue is that it should not be permitted to bring a split in the Christian Democrat Party or between CISL and the Party. It was this consideration that formed the basis for our recommendation that the Embassy insist … that Pastore and the party leaders reach an agreement on the issue which both could accept.… Any such agreement we felt, and still feel, would of necessity be one which would avoid a split in the Party since the party leaders themselves have more reason even than we to ensure that no split take place. I hardly think that we should try to second-guess them in this and believe we should accept any position they jointly work out. (I enclose copies of memoranda prepared by DRW at Bill Knight’s request on IRI and Confindustria.⁵)

Regarding the second basic point you raise, suffice it to say that … State agree wholeheartedly with your position on the Scelba government … In the first few months of the new government’s life, we viewed it with somewhat more hope than you did in Rome.… This is just about the time however when the Government’s chances began to look up from the Embassy’s point of view, so while our enthusiasm curve was descending yours was beginning to rise. Be assured that we are now firmly in step and seeing eye to eye and we agree with you that we should continue to back up the quadripartite-type government under Scelba wholeheartedly.

I am mightily urged by your invitation to visit Rome for a couple of weeks. I miss not having included it in my tour last September, and hope to make up for that lack soon. I told the Ambassador I would take the first opportunity of a free ride and if one doesn’t materialize by the 1st of the year I’ll try to pry some money out of Mr. T. Thompson, the EUR treasurer.

. . . . . . .

As ever,

John Wesley Jones

1. Document 783.
2. Document 782.
3. Reference is to the Lizzadri motion described in footnote 4, Document 783.
4. Following the approval of the Pastore motion by the Chamber of Deputies on Aug. 3, the Italian Government appointed a commission headed by Orio Giacchi to study the question of possible reform of the charter of IRI. The commission report, dated Aug. 31, but not made public until December, was summarized in despatch 1054 from Rome, Nov. 23. (765.00/11–2354) Since the commission could not reach agreement on the specific form of a new charter, it presented both a majority and minority version to the government on Dec. 3. Both reports were discussed in despatch 1297 from Rome, Dec. 28. (765.00/12–2854)
5. These memoranda, dated Aug. 25 and 26 respectively, were not attached to the source text, but copies of them are in Italian Desk files, lot 57 D 56, “380—Labor”.