Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949, Western Europe, Volume IV

840.50 Recovery/11–2349: Telegram

The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Douglas) to the Secretary of State

secret
priority

London, November 23, 1949—7 p. m.

4684. ReDeptels 4139 November 16, 4193 November 21,¹ Embtel 4647 November 22.²

1. I have today received the following letter from Bevin dated November 21:

“Many thanks for your letter of 17 November containing the proposed draft of a message to the OEEC countries on the subject of strengthening the OEEC through the appointment of an outstanding European personality to a full-time position in the organization.

“We have given careful consideration to this suggestion and we have decided that, if, in the view of your government and of our OEEC colleagues, a proposal of this nature will help OEEC, we should offer no opposition to it provided no change in the convention is required.

“We therefore, suggest that the proposed message should be sent to the governments concerned, and that Mr. Van Zeeland should call a meeting of the Consultative Group which would examine the proposition in detail. The group should then make recommendations, through diplomatic channels, to all the members of OEEC, whose replies should then be considered subsequently by the Consultative Group.”

2. Since receiving the above, I have called on Bevin to discuss with him the following language in the second paragraph of the above message: “… we would offer no opposition to it …”. I asked him what he meant by this language, i.e., whether his government remain completely neutral or whether he meant that if the British position were asked, he could say that they favored it. He said, in effect, that he could go no further than a strict interpretation of the language, for, he said, this was exactly the language to which his government had agreed and he was bound by it. I then explained to him why it seemed to us important that the British Government take a more positive position, saying that a negative position would probably mean the defeat of the proposal. After considerable discussion, he agreed that he would put to his government the matter of its taking the position of favoring the proposal if their position is asked. He made it clear, however, that under no circumstances would his government become an enthusiastic initiator and advocate of the proposition.³

3. Bevin is leaving on Saturday and will not be able to give me an answer before he goes to Eastbourne, for, he said, his hours were completely occupied.

4. In regard to the language in the last paragraph of the letter quoted above: “We, therefore, suggest that the proposed messages should be sent to the governments concerned”, Bevin said this means all of the participating countries.

5. Harriman’s view as to whether the Consultative Group can work out in the face of the negative, or at best indifferent, British support to this proposition, recommendations covering title of the office, terms of reference of the office and procedure for putting it into effect, should govern our next move.

Sent Department 4684; repeated Paris (for Harriman) 922.

Douglas

1. Not printed.
2. In telegram No. 4647, not printed, Douglas informed Acheson of his delivery of the draft message to Bevin on November 18 and of his lengthy conversation concerning the message with Cripps on November 21. (103.ECA 02/11–2249)
3. In telegram No. 4797 from London, December 1, not printed, Douglas described a follow-up visit with Prime Minister Attlee on that date in which he received the same expression of British neutrality on this subject pending an opinion from the other OEEC countries. (840.50 Recovery/12–149)