Office of the Historian

840.50 Recovery/3–2548: Telegram

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

secret
Paris, March 25, 1948—9 p. m.

1611. From Labouisse for Department distribution only. Following comments as requested your 926, March 23,1 are submitted regarding Berlin’s 667 to Department:2

(1)
We agree that Murphy would be logical person to serve on council3 on occasions when this body constituted by Foreign Ministers. [Page 404] It is not believed that meetings at this level would occur more than two or three times a year.
(2)
Other general CEEC meetings of council will probably have representation at level of persons responsible for ERP program in their home countries. It would seem logical that bizone representative should be top economic man. We believe question whether there should be one or two representatives should be resolved by bizone itself but, in case only one person, he should be an American.
(3)
In view of fact that CEEC organization will probably play major role European Recovery Program, we believe bizone should have continuous representation at seat of organization. Such official would maintain constant liaison with Secretariat and when top economic man unable be present, would attend the meetings of Executive Committee which will be in session a good deal of the time, particularly in initial period. Such representative should be an American acquainted both with German economy and the overall European Recovery Program. [Labouisse.]

Caffery
  1. In telegram 926 to Paris, not printed, the Department of State asked that comments on Berlin’s 667 be submitted quickly (840.50 Recovery/3–2248).↩
  2. In telegram 667 from Berlin, March 22, 1948, not printed, the U.S. Political Adviser asked for the Department’s views on Bizonal participation in the CEEC meeting at Paris (840.50 Recovery/3–2248).↩
  3. The reference here is to the Council of the proposed Organization for European Economic Cooperation (CEEC).↩