762.022/12–153: Telegram
No. 662
The Chargé in France (Achilles) to the Department of State1
secret
Paris, December 1, 1953—7
p.m.
2127. Reference Embtel 2126.2 Comments re Bidault–Adenauer talk on Saar.
- 1.
- Francois-Poncet comments, as read to us by Seydoux, are that Adenauer had said nothing that he had not said previously in bilateral conversations in Bonn. Fact that he brought up question of territorial cessions again after Poncet had clearly indicated this would be unacceptable, seems to show Adenauer did not believe Poncet was speaking for his government. Absence of any concrete proposals for economic arrangements is particularly disappointing. Indication that Germans prepared to accept principle of economic union could be encouraging, but neither on this question nor on referendum and elections and other political matters has there been more than very general discussion so far. On balance it appears Germans in no hurry and, without desiring to break off negotiations, prefer to await further EDC developments in France.
- 2.
- Seydoux interspersed his own comments when he gave us Poncet’s account of The Hague conversations. They were that when Bidault voiced his “greatest reserve” he really meant to express “strongest opposition” which undoubtedly extends to entire government; that while it may be true economic union is matter of presentation rather than substance, it could easily become matter of substance depending on presentation and that in absence of concrete proposals the German position, therefore, means little; and that even if it were true that Germans may have brought up territorial question only in order to withdraw it at later time, they presumably would expect French concession in return and France’s principal concession has already been made by envisaging European status for Saar.
- 3.
- Sauvagnargues found Hague conversations fairly encouraging. He did not take renewed raising of territorial question too seriously because he felt Adenauer must have known that idea would cause uproar in French Parliament so that new German push in this direction simply may mean France is not yet prepared to come to terms. At such time when they are prepared to do so, however, their statement that economic union is matter of presentation could be useful point of departure for negotiations. Sauvagnargues felt that German territorial claims could be easily answered by juridical argument that since agreement is to be subject to peace treaty, it can be presented (in Bundestag) as provisional in nature with no prejudice to eventual settlement of German (and consequently also Saar) boundaries.
- 4.
- Our own impression is that talks could represent fair amount of progress in German thinking on Franco-Saar economic union. While it is unfortunate that Adenauer has still not come forward with concrete economic proposals, implication of his position seems to be that economic union represents the “transitional arrangement” whose necessity he recognizes and that it would be valid until common market is created. We are inclined to agree with Sauvagnargues’ view that Adenauer must know perfectly well cession of French territory is quite unthinkable at present, so that his persistence regarding that point may merely indicate that he believes final stage of negotiations has not yet arrived.
Achilles