840.50/2–745: Telegram

The Ambassador in the United Kingdom ( Winant ) to the Secretary of State

1333. The questions raised in Department’s 859, February 3, 11 a.m. [p.m.] regarding participation in EEC and ECO have been discussed here in detail by Penrose,38a Berger,39 Thayer,40 and Mosely.41 Hawkins had left before your message arrived.

Our comments are as follows:

1.
We believe it to be essential to make further efforts to obtain the cooperation of USSR in both EEC and ECO. In the very near future it will be impracticable to deal with the economic questions involved unless wide participation of united and associated nations in Europe is obtained, and this depends on success in persuading the Soviets to join. This applies particularly to the general subject matter of paragraphs 2 and 3 of Department’s 859, February 3.
2.
We believe that the procedure which gives the best chance of obtaining Soviet participation and agreement is still that suggested in Embassy’s 11323, December 20, 9 p.m. and 11343, December 21, 7 p.m.42 Informal meetings as small as possible give the best chance of clearing difficulties with the Soviet. Once these difficulties are removed the rest will be fairly plain sailing.
3.
Once four power agreement is reached on the main issues, including the form and scope of participation, it will be easy to arrange for other countries to join the discussions after a brief interval. This will be facilitated by Ronald’s earlier personal conversations with some Allied officials, the chief purpose of which was to ask them to begin thinking on the subject so that delay would be minimized later.
4.
Though Sobolev informed Penrose in a conversation yesterday that he has not yet received any instructions on EEC, we think that hope of Soviet participation should not yet be abandoned. If by March 1 the Soviets have not replied we think the meeting should start on a three power basis, for reasons given in paragraph 5 below.
5.
We have already persuaded the Foreign Office to adopt, and the French have accepted, the procedure of preliminary four power talks in preference to the original Foreign Office proposal. It would be embarrassing to change our position at this stage. We do not think the Foreign Office would favor the proposal in the penultimate paragraph of Department’s 859, February 3, particularly because of possible effects on the French and Soviet attitudes. The United Kingdom have expressed no change in their view that at least a Soviet observer should be present, and their attitude on French participation seems to imply that the French place much stock on being treated in somewhat special category. If this is so it seems probable that a proposal for a change which would remove them from such a category would produce an unfavorable reaction and necessitate further negotiation. If discussions are to begin on March 1 the time is short and further delay might be caused by proposals for a new procedure unless we were assured that they would meet an immediately favorable response. It is our belief that the proposal for wider initial participation would not meet with such a response.
6.
Our conclusions are (1) that the present procedure should be adhered to for the initial talks; (2) that as soon as sufficient preliminary agreement on general principles is obtained at the initial meeting, there should be an adjournment for 10 days to allow invitations to be sent out to other proposed participants to join in discussions on a wider basis; (3) that every effort should be made by new approaches to obtain Soviet participation; (4) that in any case the initial talks should start about March 1, on a four power basis if possible, otherwise on a three power basis.

Please bring this message to the attention of Hawkins.

Repeated to Moscow as No. 37, to Paris as No. 62.

Winant
  1. Ernest F. Penrose, Special Assistant to the American Ambassador in the United Kingdom.
  2. Samuel D. Berger, United States Representative on the London Coal Committee.
  3. Charles W. Thayer, Third Secretary of Embassy and Vice Consul at London, on leave for military service.
  4. Philip E. Mosely, Chief, Division of Territorial Studies; temporarily assigned to the Embassy at London to assist in the work of the European Advisory Commission.
  5. Foreign Relations, 1944, vol. ii, pp. 635 and 637, respectively.