Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, Western Europe, Volume III

840.50 Recovery/3–2348: Telegram

The Ambassador in France (Caffery) to the Secretary of State

secret

Paris, March 23, 1948—4 p. m.

1540. Rece 30. In summary, the first week of the CEEC meeting has been characterized by a rapid organization of the working party and by the adoption of a tight time schedule in an effort to have the drafting work completed when ERP legislation is enacted. While this activity is encouraging, there is little evidence that a majority of the delegations have instructions from their home governments which will permit them to come up with the type of continuing organization we have in mind.

The closest approach to the US concept has been the original French proposals which are also receiving support from the Italian delegation. The French accept necessity for executive committee as method of ensuring cooperation of national governments but do not feel it should be in permanent session. They have advocated a strong secretariat with clearly defined powers. They advocate specification of functions of organization in some detail and granting to organization of specific powers. French delegates appear to understand necessity for something new and dynamic, and indicate they believe both French public and other western European peoples are also expecting something both important and different in kind from previous organizations.

British approach, which has been reported in other telegrams, appears to us to lead to creation of weak organization with primary responsibility for programming the other principal decisions centered in Washington. British have never stated this to be their objective but, on the contrary, state that only way to get strong organization in Europe is to have nations representatives of high rank assigned full time at seat of organization. They argue that their proposal for placing principal emphasis on role of national representatives insure governmental support. British also argue that given uncertainties as to form of act and wishes of administrator, there must be great flexibility, and that consequently statement of functions of organization should be limited to broad generalities. Although we recognize value of flexibility, we are concerned at vagueness of generalities and are not persuaded that British argument in favor of vagueness is genuine desire to create organization which can adjust itself to meet responsibilities placed upon it, but may be desire to create organization too weak to assume responsibility. As previously reported, British have not wanted much of a secretariat and have contended that delegation of any authority to a secretariat would involve encroachment of sovereignty. Although they have apparently indicated willingness to move somewhat from their original position, they have not as yet gotten around to specifying any real functions which secretariat might perform. Judging from their draft paper on structure of organization and procedures (Rece number 23),¹ emphasis is upon executive committee and they appear to expect that the organization would be in fact run by a full time chairman of the executive committee. Since as envisaged in British draft, chairman of executive committee would be a national representative, international flavor of organization might be prejudiced by giving him position of such predominance.

While attitude of many of the smaller countries remains undefined, there is a tendency for them to think along lines of the British approach. Their delegates are probably acting in this initial phase of the work under rather limited instructions from their home government and the British approach fits more easily into such a framework than would an approach requiring a bold and unprecedented experiment in international organization.

In view of the foregoing, Labouisse met yesterday evening with the executive committee of the working party (composed of British, French, Italian, Belgian, Scandinavian and Irish delegates). He expressed to the committee the view that the American people and Congress were expecting something of a dynamic and dramatic nature from the current discussions; that, while the form of organization and nature of multilateral undertakings were matters for the European countries themselves to determine, he was prepared, in response to the committee’s invitation, to outline the type of strong CEEC organization which, in our opinion, was necessary to integrate and coordinate European programs with ERP assistance. Furthermore, provision should be made for a real check on performance under the multilateral undertakings and for a clearly defined relationship between the organization and the US special representative. He also outlined other basic points contained document ERPC 73/1 March 8.²

The executive committee informed Labouisse that they recognized the need for closer working relations in the drafting work and therefore suggested that we send observers to the three drafting committees³ and that Labouisse meet from time to time with the executive committee. We are conforming to this request beginning with committee meetings this morning and believe that it will prove helpful.

Our preliminary conclusion is that the original drafting work will be somewhat strengthened as a result of our conversation yesterday but that when the delegates return to their home countries this weekend, their draft agreement and charger [charter?] will fall somewhat short of meeting the US concept. By Thursday or Friday, we should be able to give you a more detailed appraisal of the situation. In view of the limited concept of the organization held by some of the smaller countries, notably Switzerland, it is difficult for us to see how agreement can be reached on an organization capable of unifying economic recovery efforts in Europe unless there is a change in the basic British policy on this question.

At the request of the executive committee, Labouisse is meeting with the entire working party Wednesday afternoon. He will take this opportunity to incorporate in his comments Department’s views expressed in Cere 3.

Caffery

1. Telegram 1518 from Paris, Rece 23, March 21, 1948, not printed, contained the list of draft proposals prepared by the British (840.50 Recovery/3–2148).
2. Not printed.
3. These were: Committee I—Structure and Functions; Committee II—Administrative and Financial System; and Committee III—Multilateral Agreement.