840.50 Recovery/9–949
Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs (Perkins) to the Secretary of State
Both the Department and ECA have felt growing concern over the general psychological outlook of pessimism prevailing in OEEC which, while primarily due to growing European awareness of the intractability of the dollar deficit problem, stems also from the organizational lack within OEEC of a leader with sufficient authority, stature and international prestige to influence the member governments toward greater European cooperation. This view is strongly shared by the French and Belgian Governments which believe that it is necessary to [Page 422] have a permanent head of OEEC of substantial political stature and leadership.
About a year ago Schuman raised informally with Ambassador Harriman in Paris the possibility of creating a new permanent position of “Director General of OEEC” and endeavoring to persuade Mr. Spaak (whose outstanding qualities of statesmanship are internationally recognized) to take the job. The British at that time strongly opposed this idea, and it was dropped when Spaak indicated that he was not then available because of his heavy responsibilities as Belgian Prime Minister and Foreign Minister.
Since Spaak’s withdrawal from the Belgian Government he has told us and Schuman that he is now available and would be very much interested in taking the proposed job of Director General of OEEC.
M. Schuman, with whom Spaak has also talked, has told Ambassador Harriman and our Paris Embassy that he very strongly supports the idea and that he is prepared at an appropriate moment to take the initiative in raising the question with the other OEEC members, M. Schuman’s thought was that the best time to sound out the others would be after his arrival in the United States following the conclusion of the US-UK-Canadian talks. Schuman was clearly suspicious that the British might attempt to prevent Spaak’s appointment if they were informed of it prematurely, and he appeared to wish first to approach the other OEEC members.
It is very probable that prior to raising the subject with other OEEC members, Schuman will talk to you about it when he sees you on September 14.
In view of Spaak’s outstanding qualities of statesmanship and leadership he could give OEEC much needed additional strength during the coming critical period and it would therefore be very useful if you would indicate to Schuman that, while fully realizing only the OEEC countries can decide whether or not Spaak should be named to this post, we attach very great importance to this possibility and hope it can be realized. It would also be well to inquire how and when he intends to approach the other OEEC countries and the British and obtain his views on how and when we might appropriately support his initiative. If the opportunity arises it might be well to point out the undesirability of public comment on this problem emanating from Washington and possibly resulting in a feeling that we were trying to determine an OEEC matter.
You may also wish to indicate to M. Schuman that our recognition of the desirability of obtaining the leadership of Mr. Spaak in no sense implies lack of confidence in the present French Executive Secretary, Mr. Marjolin. On the contrary we feel he has done a very [Page 423] outstanding job and would hope that arrangements would be worked out within the OEEC so that the creation of the post of Director General would strengthen rather than weaken the important influence which he now exercises.1
- In his talk with Schuman on September 15, Acheson indicated the United: States interest in obtaining Spaak’s leadership for the OEEC. Schuman favored, the idea and said that he would take the lead in raising this question with the other members of OEEC. (Memorandum by Douglas MacArthur 2d, chief of the Division of Western European Affairs, of conversation of Acheson, Schuman, Ambassador at Large Philip C. Jessup, and Satterthwaite, 840.00/9–1549.)↩