Foreign Relations of the United States, 1947, The British Commonwealth; Europe, Volume III

840.50 Recovery/9–2047: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the Embassy in France

secret
us urgent
niact

Washington, September 20, 1947—3 p. m.

3604. For Clayton and Caffery. 1. Dept understands from Moore that CEEC delegates and technical experts will leave Paris Sept 22 after signing report without specific plans for continuance work of technical committees in improving report as was contemplated in circtel Sept 7, 2 a.m., para 4. Moore also indicates your and Embassy Paris belief that in circumstances it would be difficult to press now for continuance technical committee work. Further Dept feels that if US urged, before first report is completed, that plans be made for immediate revision, reaction in Europe and here would be bad.

2. Under these circumstances, Dept desires your urgent comment, and that of Douglas, on following revised schedule of procedure which would not be communicated to delegates now, except for advising Exec Comm of point b and, if you wish, point c, below.

a. SecState upon receipt of report will make public statement of general character indicating significance of sixteen countries having prepared preliminary report on economic plans and intention of US Govt and Harriman Committee to study carefully with view to formulating recommendations to Congress.

b. Executive Committee would be invited, after receipt of report here, to come to Washington to consult with US Govt officials in early October. Committee would meet with interdepartmental group and with Harriman and other Committees. Meetings would be kept short, small, and attended by minimum publicity.

c. Technical experts would not accompany Exec Comm to US. Dept fearful that gathering such experts in Washington would have effect of reconvening conference here under US supervision and detract seriously from SecState emphasis on European initiative and European character of recovery program. In addition, larger group would require larger US group including technical experts from number US agencies, which would make meetings unmanageable from standpoints of speed and publicity. At your discretion you may indicate to Exec Comm our view that technical experts should not accompany Committee to Washington, and reasons therefore. However, there will be a requirement for further information on some technical reports, particularly from Harriman Committee. Exec Comm should be considering how this will be made available.

d. To extent meeting of Exec Comm with US officials leads former to undertake issuance “supplementary reports” (or revisions of chapters and appendices preliminary report), CEEC, or just working parties, could be reconvened by Oct 20 and one or more technical reports could be amended and transmitted to SecState in time for meeting of Congressional Committees in Nov or for possible special session Congress, end of Nov or early Dec. Reconvened meetings in Paris of CEEC or working Committees would receive US friendly aid, particularly on questions of specifications, availabilities, etc., as contemplated in circtel Sept 7, 2 a. m., and Embtel 3686.¹

e. Dept presenting to President on Monday proposals for Executive action to meet immediate needs critical countries and for Special Session Congress about Dec 1. Dept must present any request for interim assistance as first installment of assistance under Marshall Plan or at minimum as temporary assistance required until longer-range assistance under workable European recovery plan can be started. On this account US Govt must be satisfied with present report or be able to point to satisfactory revisions completed or in progress. Being able to point to reconvened CEEC or working parties as evidence of continued European effort would help in this connection, showing that basic of Harvard speech concept, the idea of European initiative, has not been abandoned. Continued active labors by CEEC or working parties essential to preserve underlying principle of Marshall suggestion that European countries primarily responsible for plan. Failure their part continue developing and improving plan would clearly give impression here, which would be fatal, that they attempting to shift responsibility to US.

Re London’s 4976,² Douglas may wish not to make statement on preliminary report if statement made by SecState. In any event, statement should avoid indicating acceptance by Dept or US of report as satisfactory basis for making recommendations to Congress.

Sent Paris as 3604 for Clayton and Caffery; repeated London for Douglas as 4081.

Lovett

1. Telegram 3686, from Paris, not printed, but see reference to it in telegram 5094, supra.
2. In telegram 4976, September 15, from London, not printed, Ambassador Douglas reported that: “Bevin’s concern reported in Emtel 4950, September 12 has abated. He agrees with me that the necessity for a statement has passed but suggests the possibility of a statement by me here in London on the 22nd …” (840.50 Recovery/9–1547)