Office of the Historian

500.CC/2–2545: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the Ambassador in France (Caffery)

Washington, February 25, 1945—9 p.m.

780. Your 871, February 24, 4 p.m.67 For your confidential information the following is a communication which we have transmitted to Amembassies London, Moscow and Chungking68 with the request that it be communicated immediately to the Foreign Minister. If in your judgment it would be helpful you are authorized in your discretion to convey the substance of that communication to the French Foreign Office.

(Begin communication) While the Provisional Government of the French Republic has agreed to participate in the San Francisco Conference, it has stated that it could not join in sponsoring the invitations to the Conference “if it were not specified in the text of the invitations that France wishes the adoption of certain amendments” to the Dumbarton Oaks proposals and that “those amendments will serve as a basis for discussion at the San Francisco Conference”. The texts of the proposed amendments are unknown, the formal reply from the Provisional Government merely stating that the list has been prepared and will be submitted “shortly”.

The views of the United States Government covering the foregoing are as follows:

1.
The assurance that France will participate in the San Francisco Conference is highly welcomed.
2.
Obviously, the Provisional Government of France, as every other Government participating in that Conference, will be free to present comments and proposals for consideration at the Conference. It is not, however, believed that the Governments sponsoring the Conference could accept the conditions of the Provisional Government that the invitations specify that its proposed amendments be accepted “as a basis for discussion” at San Francisco. To do so would be contrary to the agreements reached at the Crimea Conference, subsequently approved by the Chinese Government, that the Dumbarton Oaks proposals—as supplemented by the text of the provisions on the voting procedure in the Security Council—should serve as the basis for discussion at the San Francisco Conference.
3.
It is the view of this Government in jointly sponsoring the San Francisco Conference—as we assume that it is the view of the British, Soviet and Chinese Governments—that, prior to the issuance of the invitations, there must be mutual agreement among the sponsoring governments upon the proposals that are to serve as the basis for discussion at the San Francisco Conference. Such agreement in the form of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals as supplemented at the Crimea Conference now exists on the part of the Governments of the United States, Great Britain, the Soviet Union and China.
4.
It would appear to be clear from the nature of the message from the Provisional Government of France that the latter is, in fact, not willing to become one of the sponsors of the invitations to the San Francisco Conference without a change in the proposals which are to serve as a basis for the San Francisco Conference. While this Government under normal circumstances would be willing to continue consultations with the French for the purpose of obtaining the agreement of the Provisional Government, such consultation might well prove lengthy and protracted, with the result that the issuance of invitations to the Conference would be greatly delayed and the date thereof indefinitely postponed.
5.
In the light of the position of the Provisional Government of the French Republic as thus set forth in its communication, it appears to the Government of the United States that the four sponsoring powers must reluctantly accept the decision of the Provisional Government and proceed with the issuance of the invitations on March 1, 12 o’clock noon, Washington time, in the name of the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union and the Republic of China as previously proposed (my 752, February 23, midnight69).
6.
This Government is further of the opinion that at the time the text of the invitations to the San Francisco Conference is made public the position of the Provisional Government of France regarding the foregoing matters should be fully and sympathetically explained by this Government to the press.
7.
It should be added that the Provisional Government of France stated in its communication to this Government that as regards the establishment of a “trusteeship” system, the Provisional Government is not in a position to pronounce itself on this question before receiving [Page 93] complete information concerning the nature and methods of application of this system. This question does not appear to require comment at this time.

Grew
  1. Not printed; it transmitted text of French note responding to Ambassador Caffery’s note sent to Foreign Minister Bidault in accordance with instruction in telegram 546, February 11, 11 p.m., to Paris, p. 67.↩

  2. Telegram 1455, February 25, 9 p.m., to London, repeated on the same date, mutatis mutandis, to Moscow as 423; to Chungking as 329; and to Mexico City for the Secretary of State as 415.

    In telegram 317, February 27, 6 p.m., from Chungking, the Chargé in China (Atcheson) reported a statement by the Chinese Political Vice Minister (K. C. Wu) that the Chinese Government would go along with us in all these matters (500.CC/2–2745). For the Soviet response, see telegram 570, February 27, midnight, from Moscow, p. 98.

    ↩
  3. Not printed; it repeated text of instruction in telegram 1407, February 23, midnight, to London, p. 87.↩