840.00/2–2248: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Embassy in France
615. In connection Bidault’s reference to some form of US association with Anglo-French-Benelux group (Embtel 980, Feb 22) see [Page 34] topsec letter Hickerson to Caffery, Feb 10,1 and particularly enclosures 5, 9 and 10. We would now like you to convey our views to Bidault along following lines:
We have made clear privately and publicly our hearty support for Bevin’s idea of closer association of western European countries in political, military and economic fields. As was case with ERP initiation and development of western European security program is responsibility of western European Govts. We have considerable doubt that treaties along Dunkirk model would be either adequate or suitable as basis. Benelux notes of Feb 19 seem to us to offer sound basis for such program, a basis much more realistic than Dunkirk approach. We agree with Spaak’s views as indicated Brussels 371, Feb 19.1
This country has heartily welcomed Bevin’s initiative to mobilize moral and material forces of free peoples of western Europe to maintain their moral and physical independence. We should not be asked to consider associating ourselves with such program until picture of what western European Govts themselves are going to do about it is much clearer. Recovery and security are obviously interrelated.
As regards security against Germany we consider four-power formula practically dead but we will continue to seek in association with French, British and Benelux appropriate means of preventing western European security again being threatened by Germany. We recognize French public desire for something directed explicity against Germany but feel Benelux formula including Article 53 and explicit mention of Germany should meet it.2
Sent Paris as 615; reptd London for Ambassador and Reber to indicate to British our views on Benelux formula as 673; and Brussels as 284.