Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, Germany and Austria, Volume VII, Part 2

762.022/12–153: Telegram

No. 661
The Chargé in France (Achilles) to the Department of State¹

secret

Paris, December 1, 1953—7 p.m.

2126. Embtel 2107.² Seydoux has given us following more detailed summary of Bidault–Adenauer talk at The Hague re Saar, as reported by Francois-Poncet. Department will note that this account differs considerably from Hallstein’s version reported in Coled 105.³

Hallstein began by enumerating principal points of disagreement, among which figured neither principle of economic and administrative autonomy of Saar, nor question of referendum, nor free elections for new Landtag, nor question of making agreement subject to eventual peace treaty. Points on which Hallstein dwelt were cession of strips of territory from Saar to Germany and from France to Saar, and economic union.

On cession of territory, which had already been categorically ruled out by Poncet in bilateral talks at Bonn, Hallstein stressed symbolic importance of such step as earnest of intention to build united Europe. Re cession Saar strip to Germany, he had in mind villages near Trier which had been detached from Rhineland-Palatinate in 1945. Re French strip, he said size would not be important, nor even that it be inhabited.

Re economic relationship of Saar with neighboring countries, Hallstein said problem was psychological rather [than] economic. As matter of presentation, Germans would propose that instead of speaking of maintenance Franco-Saar economic union until common European market exists, both sides should stress that eventual creation of such common market is their aim and that meanwhile “transitional regime” would be necessary to protect Saar industry. Hallstein assured Bidault that Germany not seeking opening in French Customs system through which torrent of German goods might enter France; but rather a formula that does not stress discriminatory aspect of present situation.

In general, Hallstein concluded, problem for German side is to avoid claims in Bundestag that Europeanization is merely camouflage for consecration of status quo.

Bidault’s first reply was that he had to express his greatest “reserve” regarding idea of any cession of territory. Adenauer, apparently thinking this was guarded form of acceptance rather than polite form of rejection, thereupon asked Bidault to indicate surface area that he had in mind for eventual cession. To this, Bidault did not reply.

Discussion then shifted to subject European Commissioner for Saar, whom French would like to see appointed by Council of Europe as suggested in Van der Goes’ report.⁴ Adenauer opposed this and suggested CSC, but Bidault pointed out CSC is economic rather than political body. Both sides agreed this question does not constitute insuperable obstacle to overall agreement. Meeting closed with brief discussion Moselle Canal problem.

For comments, see immediately following message.⁵

Achilles

1. Repeated to London, Bonn, and Strasbourg.
2. Telegram 2107 reported that the atmosphere at the Adenauer–Bidault talk on the Saar had been good, but that final decisions had been left for another meeting on Dec. 11. The Embassy in Paris added that it was seeking elaboration on the details. (762.022/11–3053)
3. Supra.
4. See Document 640.
5. Telegram 2127, infra.