Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers, 1945, General: Political and Economic Matters, Volume II

840.50/3–445: Telegram

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

London, March 4, 1945—7 p.m.
[Received 10:25 p.m.]

2232. Further meetings on EEC and ECO were held on Friday and Saturday.⁵⁹ (For report of first meeting see Embassy’s 2116, March 1, 9 p.m.). The French delegation is leaving for Paris Monday morning. The next meeting will be held on Friday, March 9.

I

1. Rapid progress was made on EEC and a draft text of a report and recommendation has been agreed tentatively except on one point, which concerns the relations between EEC and ECO.

2. The analysis of the economic questions of the transition period and the description of the proposed functions of the EEC and the fields in which its services may prove to be useful are, we believe, in harmony with the Department’s views. The tentative draft text of the part setting forth the recommendations and the proposed terms of reference is sent in the immediately following telegram.⁶⁰

3. As regards the question of membership and of what countries should be invited to join, the position has been changed by the Yalta Conference.⁶¹ None of the countries has advanced any suggestion of regionalism and the French and British took it for granted from the outset that invitations should be sent to, and that membership should consist of, all the European Allies, except that the invitation of Poland should be postponed until the new government is established.

4. We have reexamined our files on EEC and note that (I) the Department in its aide-mémoire of September 27, 1944⁶² agreed with the United Kingdom position that all the European Allies should enter into EEC; (II) that subsequent modification of this position following discussions with Ambassador Harriman were the outcome of the Soviet-Polish dispute which is now on the way to settlement; (III) that the Department remains strongly opposed to economic regionalism.

5. In these circumstances we have concluded that it would be most unwise and would place us in an anomalous position if we became the sole advocates of a regional approach. We have therefore agreed tentatively to the position indicated in the last sentence of paragraph 3 above, and unless we hear anything to the contrary from the Department, we do not propose to raise any issue on this point.

6. It appears to us that no obstacle remains to agreement on recommendations with respect to EEC, except insofar as relations with ECO may be involved.

II

7. There has been general agreement on the urgency of the European coal question and on the need for an ECO. Divergent views have, however, been expressed concerning the powers of ECO and its relations to EEC.

8. Until shortly before the discussions began, the Foreign Office considered that ECO should be an advisory subcommittee of an advisory EEC. Ronald expressed this view unambiguously in informal conversations with Hawkins and Sobolev. We learn confidentially that subsequently the Ministry of Fuel and Power opposed this position and at a ministerial committee meeting succeeded in getting its own position adopted against Foreign Office views. Thus the United Kingdom position now is that ECO should in general operate on the basis of recommendations but should have power of executive decision in emergency matters within Europe. The words “within Europe” were inserted in the draft note on ECO, section C (I) in order to make clear that ECO operations would in no way prejudice Combined Coal Committee action. The spokesmen for the MFP⁶⁴ at the meeting also took a strong position against having ECO set up as a subcommittee of EEC.

9. In regard to the two partially interrelated issues, (I) whether ECO should have executive or only advisory powers; (II) whether ECO should be a subcommittee of EEC or have a more or less independent status like EITO, the French expressed views in line with the views of the Ministry of Fuel and Power. The Soviet, however, expressed the view emphatically that ECO should be a subcommittee of EEC along with any other commodity committees. This is the only point on which Borishenko, who lacks detailed instructions, took a strong position. He did not specifically refer in the general meeting to the question whether advisory or executive powers should be given to ECO, but in the drafting committee meeting he repeatedly indicated that the ECO should be advisory.

10. The core of the question seems to be that the British officials concerned with coal fear that there would be undue delay if decisions on a mass of detailed business, partly having to do with the disposition within Europe of a large number of relatively small quantities of coal, had in each case to be referred back to each government, and particularly if the reference back had to be made through EEC rather than directly.

11. In accordance with the Department’s views, we have expressed a preference for setting up ECO as an advisory subcommittee of EEC but have so far refrained from pressing the point to a serious issue. We have tentatively endeavored to meet what there is of substance in the MFP and the French case by recognizing that it would be undesirable to set up a clumsy committee structure under which all matters of detail on ECO would have to be referred to EEC before being referred to governments. We have suggested that ECO should report directly to governments but that EEC should have the power to review recommendations of ECO, and should exercise that right, not as a matter of course, but when it considered that review was necessary in the interests of coordination.

12. Section II of the immediately following telegram contains the draft note on ECO, paragraph C (I) of which the United Kingdom and French members of the coal drafting group proposes, and following it that which Berger suggested as a substitute.

13. We consider it premature to raise questions concerning the form of United States, United Kingdom and USSR participation in ECO until the implications of paragraph C (I) have been fully clarified through private conversations with the other participants.

Winant

59. March 2 and 3.
60. Infra.
61. For documentation on this Conference, see Foreign Relations, The Conferences at Malta and Yalta, 1945.
62. Foreign Relations, 1944, vol. ii, p. 622.
64. Ministry of Fuel and Power.