740.00119 EW/12–2945: Telegram
The Ambassador in France ( Caffery ) to the Secretary of State
urgent niact
[Received December 29—1:54 p.m.]
7408. For the Secretary. At the meeting of the Council of Ministers yesterday the Cabinet discussed the invitation to the French Govt to associate itself with the Big Three and China in the peace treaties settlement with Italy, the Balkan States and Finland.1 Bidault2 arrived late at the Cabinet meeting (going directly there from his wedding ceremony) when discussion was in full swing; he left immediately after the meeting on his wedding trip. I, therefore, saw Chauvel3 this morning to ascertain what decisions had been taken by the Govt and when a reply to our note (Moscow’s 457 to Paris4) could be expected.
Chauvel was in a state of considerable confusion as to exactly what happened at the Council of Ministers yesterday. He had seen Bidault briefly after the meeting, but the latter was in haste to depart and had given him only a vague account. Subsequently he saw Francis Gay (MRP Minister of State who will act as Foreign Minister in Bidault’s absence) but Gay had little more to add.
Chauvel said that from the scanty information at his disposal the Cabinet had decided to reply to our note by asking for further information [Page 2] as to exactly what we envisaged as the role of the Peace Conference vis-à-vis the countries which would prepare the treaties for submittal to the Conference. (The press reports this. See my 7409, December 295). Specifically he “believes the French note will inquire as to how the powers participating in the Conference will be permitted to make known their views. When differences of opinion occur between the two or three powers preparing the treaty and other members of the Conference will the question be put to a vote and if so will the vote be in secret or public?” Furthermore, the French would like to know to what degree the Big Three will take into account recommendations of other powers participating in the Conference. (Until these questions have been answered the French will withhold saying that they would like the Conference to be held at Paris, although it is obvious that they want it here very much.)
I asked Chauvel if the French reply had reached the drafting stage and he replied with considerable embarrassment that it had not, since the Foreign Office itself still did not have sufficient information or minutes of the Cabinet meeting yesterday to permit it to draft. He added that for this reason the indications he had given me above should not be accepted as setting forth the exact sense of the French reply but rather as an indication of what had been told him briefly by Bidault and Gay.
I said to Chauvel that from what little he had conveyed to me it appeared possible that no reply would be forthcoming from the French for at least several days. He agreed that this would probably be the case. I said to him that speaking personally the shilly-shally, delay and questions that the French were posing before giving a final reply reminded me of what had happened when they were invited to participate in sponsoring the San Francisco Conference and that if they carried this on very long they would probably find themselves in the position of having the Big Three and China proceed without them. I said that we would regret this very much as Secretary Byrnes had done what he could to find a solution to this pressing problem which would not compromise France’s legitimate interests, that it was solely due to Mr. Byrnes’ efforts that France received the consideration she had received.
Chauvel showed great distress throughout the conversation and indicated that the Foreign Ministry would like to go along with us. He repeated, however, that everything was in a terrible state of confusion. Bidault’s departure on his wedding trip and the fact that Francis Gay was not well briefed and knew little about pressing foreign questions left the Foreign Ministry in a position where there is [Page 3] no one of cabinet rank or of sufficient influence to impress on de Gaulle6 that it is in France’s interest to associate itself whole-heartedly with the Moscow decision.
He suggested that I see de Gaulle. I said “No, de Gaulle will not go back on a decision the Cabinet has taken on his insistence and against the opposition of some of the Ministers. I explained all this to Bidault who understood the situation very well and said he would explain it to de Gaulle; but apparently on account of his wedding excitement, et cetera, he did not do so effectively. I know de Gaulle and I know when I can persuade him to change his position, but this time I would only expose myself to a rebuff.” I added “I regret you are making it very difficult for your friends to help you, and if you persist in your attitude, you will be left out in the cold.”
Chauvel said he understood perfectly, thanked me and said he would do the best he could, as fast as he could.
- According to the Report of the Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers of December 16–26, 1945, issued as communiqué on December 27, 1945, the United States, United Kingdom, and Soviet Governments had agreed and had requested the adherence of the French and Chinese Governments to a procedure for the preparation of the treaties of peace with Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary, Rumania, and Finland. According to the agreed procedure, only members of the Council of Foreign Ministers who were signatories of the surrender terms for a defeated country would participate in the preparation of the peace treaty for that country. For the text of the communiqué of the Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers, see telegram 4284, December 27, 1945, from Moscow, Foreign Relations, 1945, vol. ii, p. 815. The text of the invitation to the French and Chinese Governments to adhere to the agreed procedure for the preparation of the peace treaties is included in telegram 457, December 22, 1945, from Moscow to Paris, ibid., p. 741. For the documentation on the Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers, December 16–26, 1945, see ibid., pp. 560 ff.↩
- Georges Bidault, French Foreign Minister.↩
- Jean Chauvel, Secretary General of the French Foreign Ministry.↩
- Foreign Relations, 1945, vol. ii, p. 741.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Charles de Gaulle, President of the French Provisional Government until January 26, 1946.↩