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

851.00/9–2349: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the Secretary of State, at New York¹

top secret

Washington, September 24, 1949—2 p. m.

496. For the Secretary. If you approve we will send following reply to Paris 3961, Sept 23. Begin reply.

Bonnet’s report as described ur 3961 bears little relation to facts and appears to be interpretive speculation of his own based primarily on columns by Alsops and others. We know of no statements by Secretary or other responsible officials from which such interpretations could reasonably be derived. Memos of principal conversations enroute to you by airmail.²

Following indicates general trend our thinking on these problems.

World today requires development of new and probably radical methods of dealing with economic and political problems which respect no national frontiers. Problems are of divergent character and scope and affect different areas in different degrees. Consequently, agencies and machinery for dealing with them vary widely in nature and differ and overlap in membership, as for example, Benelux, Brussels Treaty, OEEC, Council of Europe, Atlantic Pact, GATT, and UN.

Ultimate objective is provision of machinery for dealing effectively with such problems on worldwide basis. In near future, progress depends upon developing means for dealing with specific problems among small numbers of nations most directly concerned and gradually building outward from such nuclei. Current efforts of Fr, Belg and Itals to liberalize trade and financial arrangements, with which we are most sympathetic, are one example. Anglo-Canadian-US talks are another example. Neither should in any way be exclusive but serve to promote wider arrangements. We certainly have no thought any US relationship with UK or Canada being independent of relationship of US or others to continent, of continent having been “sacrificed in favor of England” or of putting latter in favored position regarding continent, of Brit “desolidarization” from continent, of US losing interest in continental economic, political or strategic problems or European integration. On contrary, our thought is exactly reverse, as should be clearly evident from our participation in economic and military fields.

In recent conversations we have repeatedly emphasized to Fr importance we attach to European integration. We have also emphasized our belief German problems can only be solved in European framework. We feel strongly (though we have probably not informed Fr adequately of our thought) that problem of UK relationship to European integration can only be solved in Atlantic framework, which latest tripartite discussions should facilitate. End reply.

If you approve, your calling in Schuman and taking same line with him would be more effective than anything Bruce can do and would provide best basis for Brace’s continuing efforts.³

Webb

1. Secretary of State Acheson was attending the Fourth Regular Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations, at New York.
2. Not printed.
3. In telegram 1186 from New York, September 25, Mr. Acheson approved the proposed reply, which had been drafted by Theodore C. Achilles, Deputy Director of the Office of European Affairs. It was sent from the Department of State to Paris as telegram 3618, September 26. For an account of Mr. Acheson’s conversation of September 26 with Mr. Schuman, see telegram 1188 from New York, p. 338.