840.70/12–2144: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Winant) to the Secretary of State
London, December 21,
1944—7 p.m.
[Received 10:37 p.m.]
[Received 10:37 p.m.]
11337. From EITO Delegation.
- [I.]
- Department’s 10497 and 10498 of December 16.36 We have seen Wormser, Secretary of the French Embassy and explained to him that the definition of “government” in the draft agreement, in including “provisional government” was not aimed at the French but was designed not only to cover the position created by the fact that the French Government is in fact referred to in official documents and signs itself as the Provisional Government of the French Republic, but also was intended to cover other contingencies where other provisional governments might become members of the organization. We pointed out that since the Soviets now had in their hands a revised draft agreement which contained this definition, its subsequent deletion might appear to them to be intended to preclude the possibility that, for example, a future provisional government of Poland could be considered for membership. Wormser replied that, while he would have to refer the matter to his Government, he believed that so long as it was understood that the “provisional” was not aimed entirely at France, in the light of the explanation offered, there would probably be no objection to the retention of the definition.
- II.
- In the course of the conversation Wormser remarked that his Government felt very strongly that there should be an official text in French as well as in English and Russian. It was replied that when it was first agreed that the official text should be in English and Russian only, only the United States, the United Kingdom and the USSR were mentioned by name in the text of the agreement; and that since France was now also mentioned by name we felt that under the circumstances it was quite proper that there should also be an [Page 925] official text in the French language and that we would so recommend to our Government.
- Favorable instructions on this point are respectfully requested of the Department. It is suggested that our support of the French wishes on this point might be made known to them upon receipt of confirmation of French approval of the Department’s request for the withdrawal of their suggestion that the definition of the word “government” referred to in section I above be deleted.
- III.
- Wormser stated that there was a French Committee functioning in Paris considering the EITO agreement and that there would be some suggestions forthcoming, which, so far as the main body of the agreement is concerned, would probably not be of a substantial nature, but that there were substantial objections to the Dutch proposal on inland waterways which was to be embodied in an annex to the agreement. He was not in a position to indicate precisely what these objections were.
- IV.
- Wormser appeared to be fully informed with respect to the subject matter reported in Embassy’s 11309, December 20. He gave it as his personal view that since his Government had accepted the “Ronald formula” although without any enthusiasm, it would probably not object to the proposal under consideration by the Foreign Office, if it were put forward along the lines indicated. [EITO Delegation.]
Winant
- Neither printed.↩