840.50 Recovery/7–3147: Telegram
The Ambassador in France (Caffery) to the Secretary of State
3044. For Lovett from Clayton. The Ambassador and I conferred yesterday with Belgian Prime Minister Spaak and the Belgian Ambassador here regarding the work of the Paris conference.
Spaak inquired as to the conditions under which assistance might be made available by the United States. I replied that the conditions were those set forth in the Secretary’s Harvard address, including the survey of requirements, measures of self-help and those designed to increase mutual interchange of goods. The additional requirements of any program were those implicit in the necessity of convincing the American people that the plan made economic sense and would actually result in a self-supporting European economy after a transitional period of three or four years.
This led to a discussion of possible means to eliminate exchange and other trade barriers within the European group. Spaak mentioned that any plan for the transferability of currencies among member countries would have to deal with the question of ultimate convertibility into dollars of excess amounts accumulated by one member country of currencies of other members. I replied that we had been thinking in terms of commodity assistance to Europe, but that I would study carefully the letter which he said he would send me on this and other points.
Spaak also raised a question of means of allocating among member countries the increase in production which would result from the program. I replied that we were anxious to avoid any move in the direction of cartelization or bilateralism; that in some cases, such as France with wheat, the increase in production would be consumed within the producing country, and that I felt that economic distribution of output could best be effected by elimination of trade barriers, and adherence to principles of multilateralism.
[Page 342]Finally, Spaak expressed his concern that some countries would agree “in principle” to sound measures, but would fail at a later date to implement their commitments. I replied that we were thinking in terms of “concrete measures.” [Clayton.]