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

611.51/4–2653: Telegram

No. 596
The Ambassador in France (Dillon) to the Department of State

secret
priority

Paris, April 26, 1953—9 p.m.

5672. Pass DMS, MSA, Treasury, Defense. Limit distribution. Reference Embtel 5624, April 23.¹

1. Second session bipartite talks with French held afternoon April 26. Present were Bidault, Pleven, Bourges-Maunoury for French; Dulles, Humphrey, Wilson, Stassen, Dillon and Draper for US; with advisers.²

2. US del had previously agreed on memo re aid, which Dulles read to French and made copies available to them. Text this memo contained immediately following telegram.³

3. Dulles stated had two oral observations to make re this memo. We will need help French Government in getting to US the information needed for presentation aid program to Congress. Embassy and MSA Mission will be in touch with French re this. Second point related to EDC. Nothing specific included in memo, as we have already made our position clear. EDC can succeed only if it reflects real desires peoples concerned. However, progress of EDC will be much in our minds and those of Congress as aid program considered.

4. Bidault expressed appreciation for US comprehension French problems. Bourges-Maunoury indicated that US memo clarified situation for him re meeting external financial problems. Regarding FY 54 aid, Bourges-Maunoury inquired whether $100 million referred to paragraph 5(a) memo would be in form budget-supporting OSP. Also what form would the $460 million in paragraph 5(b) take. Stassen indicated that re both 5(a) and (b), it is US intention have government-to-government agreement whereby we would provide funds for items to be included in French budget. Where items purchased, do not intend have 10 percent counterpart deduction. However, $60 million to be made immediately available and part of remaining $400 million mentioned paragraph 5(b) would be in form defense support aid, and such aid would require 10 percent counterpart be made available for US use. Implementation of arrangements foreseen by memo to be worked out with Ambassador and Labouisse.

5. Re paragraph 5(c) memo, Bourges-Maunoury asked whether additional IC effort mentioned is additional national armies light battalions already planned. Dulles confirmed what we have in mind is program for increase of ASIC forces discussed by Letourneau when in Washington, but US military not wholly satisfied and might have some suggestions to make. We must be able defend program before Congress on basis testimony our military people. Asked Nash to comment. Nash said Defense pleased with full frank discussion with Letourneau and with information given. Our military people had suggestions rather than criticisms to offer. He mentioned two military factors of concern to our military, but added that plan French laid out in Washington appears to hold promise of success. Nash also referred to assurance given Letourneau that US would undertake furnish equipment for additional battalions, and fact that if Vietnam national forces could be developed in units larger than battalions, would be more self-confident and effective.

6. Bourges-Maunoury said aid in prospect is substantial and enables French envisage financial problems in better light. However, budget economies will still be necessary in 1953 and 1954. French objective will be make them without harming military potential.

7. Pleven said helped considerably to have these aid indications for FY 54. Fully realized they are subject Congressional action, and inquired when final vote likely come and when French aid figure would be confirmed. Went on discuss French force levels. Had originally hoped activate larger forces than goals recently set. Even presently planned forces would cost 30 billion francs more in CY 54 and Letourneau program 90 billion more. Must consider what can do with resources available, including aid. Hopes to consult with US experts regarding new weapons and other savings. Asked if special program (paragraph 5(a) memo) would be of kind to help French budget. Stassen confirmed this.

8. Pleven went on to speak of difficult and intricate problems posed for France by IC. Made point that if additional effort in IC, to which we had indicated a willingness to contribute a portion, were to require additional French outlays, might pose insoluble difficulties.

9. Bidault spoke of French internal political problems in relation IC war. Some French are saying leave IC to cut expenses. Bidault said that defense of IC will go on, with US help and that of ASIC. It is French aim to build latter up.

10. Dulles replied Pleven question re timetable by saying should know Congressional action toward late June and should have fairly definitive figure for French by August. Stressed importance French developing program that will commend itself to Congress and American people. Again expressed confidence in future of French and our desire help over present difficulties.

11. Other matters touched on being reported separately.⁴

12. Stassen and Ohly bring full details.

Dillon

1. Document 594.
2. During the course of the meeting described in this telegram, the French Delegation handed the text and translation of an aide-mémoire to members of the U.S. Delegation. These documents, which concerned the inadequacy of French dollar availabilities, were forwarded to the Department of State as enclosures to despatch 2331 from Paris, Apr. 27. (751.5 MSP/4–2753)
3. Infra.
4. Infra.