Foreign Relations of the United States, Diplomatic Papers, 1944, General: Economic and Social Matters, Volume II

840.70/11–1644: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the Chargé in the United Kingdom (Gallman)

Washington, November 17, 1944—midnight.

9693. For EITO Delegation.

1. It is apparent from Embassy’s 10021 of November 16 that official British attitude is still undetermined on several key questions raised in your 9978 and on which Department’s views and approval were requested. Unless British official position alters situation materially, the following is for your guidance.

2. As to question raised in paragraph 5, your 9978, Department desires to segregate as much as possible Polish political issues from the technical issues of EITO. Department’s proposed reply to Soviet note clearly indicates this attitude and Department intends to handle the reply to Soviet note on diplomatic level and not associate it with technical or substantive aspects of EITO. Therefore, if British approve procedure suggested in Department’s 9526, November 13, for informally advising other delegations of continued discussions on technical level, you should be able to proceed on the basis of this and previous telegrams.

3. The British assumptions and proposed procedure are apparently predicated on Soviet withdrawal. However, as the Soviets have not actually withdrawn there would seem to be no basis for making all plans exclusive of Soviet participation. There appear to be definite advantages in maintaining flexibility in the approach to several questions.

4. It seems somewhat previous to decide whether the approach to the continentals should be through the French good offices or whether this can best be handled by some other means. If the Soviets continue to participate, it may be advisable to use the French good offices since amendments proposed by the French appear to be based to a considerable extent on the Soviet amendments. However, this is a matter of tactics which can be best judged by the delegation on the ground and it is left to the delegation’s discretion in light of the foregoing comments.

5. Department understands from last sentence of paragraph 3 of Embassy’s 9978 of November 15, 6 p.m. that it is not contemplated to notify the allies that informal discussions will be held until you have received Department’s acceptance in principle of the “Ronald formula”.

6. We have not yet received the revised text of EITO agreement referred to in your 9808 of November 10. If expression of Department’s position is essential at this stage, however, Department would agree in principle to the suggested revisions contained in your 9808 provided Foreign Office revisions of Article XI are in line with the statements outlined in your 9978 of November 15 and provide adequately for the relationship to and participation in the organization by prospective members. The Department reserves its position with respect to the wording of final EITO agreement; particularly in connection with

a. Article XI, (Ronald formula) and

b. your revised section 2 of Article VII, eliminating section 4 of Article VIII which is now being considered by the interested divisions. (In this connection question has been raised concerning the possibility of this Government being able to implement the last clause of the third paragraph of Article VII, section 2 of your revision. This Government may lack controls which would afford it a basis for knowing all private arrangements which might be made between private firms in the United States and foreign entities. Possibly the matter could be adequately handled by stopping the paragraph after the word “Europe”.)

7. The acceptance of the foregoing in principle is predicated on the assumption that you feel

a. this is the best that can be achieved;

b. the interests of the U.S. are adequately protected; and

c. the military, namely General Boss and Colonel Case, are in agreement with the positions which you have indicated. Please indicate specifically agreement by the military.

8. It has been consistently the policy of the Department that the U.S. should not take lead in EITO as this is primarily a European organization. Accordingly, except so far as is necessary to protect U.S. interests, the lead should be assumed by the U.K. and continentals. If necessary you may inform the British that the Department accepts in principle the “Ronald formula” subject to reservations indicated above, and that we would have no objection if the British wish to approach the continentals on the grounds that they (the British) believe that they have a formula which would overcome some of the difficulties which have been presented and which could be used as the basis for informal discussions.

9. Paragraph 4 of your 9978 was received in a garbled state and the Department is therefore forced temporarily to defer commenting on the latest British views on the establishment of the Interim Commission. In any event, it seems best to await receipt of the British substitute in the form of a “proposed Interim Agreement” before commenting.

Stettinius