740.5/4–552: Telegram
The Ambassador in France (Dunn) to the Department of State
priority
6127. Personal for Bruce from MacArthur. Re Deptel 5887, Apr 3 and Embtel 6125.1 We at SHAPE who have been following EDC developments are increasingly disturbed over tendency on part of EDC Conf to slow down. Sense of urgency in getting on with EDC which was evident between Rome and Lisbon mtgs seems almost entirely lacking. While there are of course very real problems both in Paris and Bonn (which I do not minimize) we have impression that with Fr and Benelux at least, there is tendency on part of members of the govts as well as of the parliaments who have been supporting (or paying lip service) to EDC instinctively to hold back or at most not to press for speedy action in form of signature EDC treaty. When we inquire when we may expect signature Alphand and other members EDC Conf mention target date of “end of April” but without conviction, and indeed when pressed they are frank to say they cannot guarantee any date. They point to slow progress at Bonn (on Ger finan contribution and other problems) on which decisions must be reached before EDC treaty can be completed. Others point to penchant of Benelux to add new subjects for consideration as well as tendency of some EDC participants to try to spell out all details of EDC for years to come to “last nut and bolt”. French delegation seems more inclined than ever to keep glancing over its shoulder at French Parliament (particularly at Socialists) and tries to write things into treaty to please Parl or for same reason desires to modify points on which conf agreement has already been reached.
My own view which is shared by our people at SHAPE is that one of key missing components at this juncture is some kind of deadline for EDC Conf to work against similar to Lisbon deadline. If we cannot devise some form of deadline I am apprehensive that target date [Page 637] set by conf which has already slipped from April 6 to “end of April” may continue to slip indefinitely (which wld be disastrous) or at best might slip till some time in late May or June, when subsequent parliamentary action on treaty wld become impossible till next autumn or winter due to summer recesses most Parliaments.
While I may be doing an injustice, I personally believe that a number of parliamentarians in France—and probably other countries—whose parties are more or less committed to support EDC wld welcome such postponement as means of avoiding having to face up to question of German rearmament. At least some members of French Govt believe this to be true and subconsciously this makes them reluctant to press for early and speedy action.
The purpose of this message is to suggest that consideration be given by Dept to devising means of establishing some kind of reasonably firm deadline in early May for both EDC Conf and Bonn. (An EDC deadline is pointless unless there is Bonn deadline since parts of EDC treaty depend on Bonn agreements.) Perhaps Secretary’s availability to come to Eur in early or middle May (and perhaps not later) to sign Bonn agreements cld be used to advantage with Adenauer. Perhaps this cld also be woven into some kind of msg from Secretary to Schuman to get latter (as host) to endeavor to establish an EDC deadline. Perhaps msg cld be related to MSA hearings and appropriations.
Foregoing is, I fear, not very helpful but I do believe one of principal missing ingredients which has caused EDC Conf to slow down and demonstrate a diminishing sense of urgency is lack of some real target date or deadline which in itself tends to encourage existing tendency of certain elements to procrastinate. If we cld establish such a deadline and couple this with appropriate but firm pressures to get French, German, Belg, and Dutch (particularly latter) off dead center and moving forward in EDC Conf, we might reverse present slowdown trend and get treaty signed in next four weeks. At same time we wld of course have to exert great efforts at Bonn to reach necessary agreements there just as fast as we possibly can.2
- Neither printed. Telegram 5887 renewed the request initially made in telegram 5728 to Paris, Mar. 25 for an estimate on the probable date that an agreed draft EDC Treaty would be ready for signature by the appropriate governments. Telegram 5887 stated that this information was needed in view of “Secretary’s hope attend signing contractual arrangements and EDC treaty” (740.5/3–2652 and 4–352). Telegram 6125 reported that while the EDC conference had cleared up a number of outstanding issues during the past two weeks, still others remained to be resolved. Among those which “stand in way of final signature of treaty” and depended for their settlement “on decisions to be taken outside Paris conf” were (1) the German financial contribution, (2) armaments control, (3) Allied labor battalions, (4) mutual defense guarantees and use of forces, (5) U.S.–U.K. guarantees, and (6) British participation. Among the remaining issues “which are wholly within competence of Paris conf to settle” were (1) territorial organization of the EDF, (2) EDC–NATO relations, (3) length of service, and (4) air and naval forces. It was contemplated that the conference would recess on Apr. 10 for Easter weekend and that thereafter a “few days work after Easter may produce final drafts of treaty and of documents which conf decides must be signed at same time.” As in the case of the Schuman Plan, all papers would be initialed by heads of delegations as final conference action (740.5/4–552).↩
- In telegram 6129, Apr. 5, from Paris, MacArthur reported that Dutch Defense Minister Staf had called on General Eisenhower the previous day and had been informed of the importance “of getting ahead with EDC treaty and securing signature by all participants at earliest possible moment.” Eisenhower told Staf that “it was futile to attempt to write out in treaty all the implementing details.” The treaty should be general in nature, Eisenhower added, leaving details to be determined later and incorporated in some form of annex or agreement. MacArthur stated that Staf agreed “thoroughly” with Eisenhower’s views and that his government would support this approach (740.5/4–552). In telegram 6177 from Paris, Apr. 8, MacArthur informed Bruce that he had suggested to Senator Henry Cabot Lodge that while in Paris Lodge should “urge his French political friends to get on with the EDC”, and MacArthur added that the Senator had already seen René Pleven and had met with the Franco-American Parliamentary Friendship Group (740.5/4–852). In telegram 6250 of Apr. 10 from Paris, Dunn reported that during the previous week “we have taken every opportunity in talks with EDC conf dels to urge importance of completing treaty and attached docs as quickly as possible” (740.5/4–1052).↩