740.5/11–2550: Telegram
The Ambassador in France (Bruce), at Strasbourg, to the Secretary of State
97. Speech before Council of Europe Assembly by French Foreign Minister Schuman Friday 24th and Assembly’s subsequent debate and vote on European army was “historic” both for formulation European policy and for development of Council of Europe as institution. This judgment expressed yesterday and today in public and in private by President Spaak, by Secretary General Paris1 of Council and by numerous delegates to Assembly has our full concurrence.
There can be no doubt as to sense of responsibility of Assembly delegates in their speeches and votes on this issue. They fully recognized that they were not merely launching idea whose practical application was at best problematical as when in August they followed Churchill’s original initiative to propose a European army2 but that [Page 486] they were taking a stand on a vital policy question for security of Europe and free world that was being simultaneously considered at high governmental and intergovernmental levels. Within assembly both speech of Foreign Minister Schuman and those of most important French, British Conservative and other delegates who followed him were, of course, directed particularly at winning over Germans and most of all German Social Democrats. (From beginning it was clear that whether or not France is isolated at governmental level, Schuman’s presentation French thesis had endorsement majority of Consultative Assembly which is representative of non-Communists in national Parliament.) Germans promised to give trouble not because they preferred recreate German national army as part Atlantic force but because they might refuse vote proposed resolution3 on grounds it was not “European” enough. First speech by a German (Von Rechenberg)4 in fact caused considerable worry because he appeared inclined abstain in absence closer approach European federal government as prerequisite German contribution European defense. Efforts of non-Germans to convince Germans that they were making sincere and generous offer that would, if accepted, help toward eventual political unification of Europe and toward German equality gradually had its effect. German Christian Democrat spokesman Von Brentano5 attributed his party’s affirmative vote in large part to words of Schuman and German Rightist Von Rechenberg attributed his to sincerity toward Germans shown by Reynaud,6 Macmillan7 and others. In his speech closing 1950 session Spaak went so far to say that this debate [Page 487] might be regarded as “real start of genuine Franco-German reconciliation”.
Failure to break down opposition German Socialists leaves unsettled question whether SPD opposed to rearmament under all circumstances or whether they will swing around if their conditions met. Non-Socialist delegates of other countries, at least of France, tend to former belief. On other hand, following interdelegation meeting of Socialists prior to debate both French Socialists and British Labourites (including Denis Healey, not an MP but member of party policy making group) privately expressed conviction that German Socialists would in last resort join European defense forces.
Beyond Assembly, many speeches (and naturally also those of Germans) were aimed at persuasion US and secondarily British Government that Europe really preferred Pleven plan to that of US on method of achieving German contribution to European defense as part Atlantic system led by US. French Socialist Mollet was most explicit but not alone in arguing that opposition to resolution submitted by General Affairs Committee (Contels 94, November 24, and 96 November 25, repeated Paris 69 and 71, London and Frankfort unnumbered)8 risked increasing chances of only alternative solution concerning German rearmament, i.e., US plan. At same time important to recognize that both text of recommendation and speeches of delegates (with single exception Belgian Socialist Rolin9) avoided entering into advocacy of specific terms presented in regular Pleven plan, either as to size of units or formula for political control. Furthermore, there was full repeated and explicit appreciation of revolutionary US decision to send US troops to Europe in peace time as part of Atlantic defense force.
Delegates did not raise question of whether their governments should proceed with integrated continental force should UK refuse join proposed European army.
Stature of Council of Europe and particularly its Assembly inevitably raised not only by tone of yesterday’s debate but also by presence Schuman. Spaak quite justified in pointing with pride to fact that it is now to Strasbourg Assembly that Foreign Ministers are coming to defend their European policies. He even characterized Assembly as “already most important platform from which to speak in Europe”. Also to be noted that once more at Strasbourg when major European issue at stake there were numerous splits within national delegations, some among delegates same national party and no across the board line-up separating Socialists from others. Line-up was on [Page 488] European issue as such. Finally remarkable given 20th century parliamentary habits, that votes of members were actually changed by arguments presented in debate.10
Sent Department 97, repeated Paris 72, London, Frankfort unnumbered. Department pass Defense. Pouched Oslo, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Reykjavik, Dublin, Luxembourg, Rome, Brussels, The Hague, Athens, Ankara.
- Jacques Camille Paris, Secretary-General of the Council of Europe.↩
- For text of speech by Winston Churchill to the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, August 11, 1950, see Royal Institute of International Affairs, Documents on International Affairs, 1949–50, pp. 326–331. On the same date, the Assembly adopted the following resolution: “The Assembly, in order to express its devotion to the maintenance of peace and its resolve to sustain the action of the Security Council of the United Nations in defense of peaceful peoples against aggression, calls for the immediate creation of a unified European Army, under the authority of a European Minister of Defense, subject to proper European democratic control and acting in full co-operation with the United States and Canada.” This resolution followed the wording proposed by Churchill in his speech, except for addition of the phrase “under the authority of a European Minister of Defense.” ( Ibid., p. 331)↩
- The resolution referred to here, which was debated and adopted by a large majority vote on November 24, opened with the words of the resolution adopted by the Consultative Assembly in its preceding meeting on August 11, Quoted in the preceding footnote. The last sentence of the earlier resolution was continued as follows: “having taken note of the statement made to it by the French Minister for Foreign Affairs on the subject of the creation of a European Army. 1. Welcomes the decision of the North Atlantic Treaty Powers to form a joint Atlantic Force for the defence of Western Europe, with the full participation of the United States and Canada; 2. Considers that the defence of a territory, which includes Western Germany, naturally requires German participation, but that this is only conceivable within the framework of a permanent European defence organization; 3. Emphasises the importance of the principle enunciated in the statement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, that no discrimination must be made between the participating powers; 4. Reaffirms the necessity; for the creation of a European Army, in accordance with the Assembly’s Recommendation of 11th August; and 5. Urges the Governments concerned to overcome the differences which exist between them oil the problems of military and political structure, so that without delay the European Army may make its contribution to the Atlantic Force.” (Despatch 200 from Strasbourg, November 29, not printed; 740.00/11–2950)↩
- Hans-Albrecht Freiherr von Rechenberg.↩
- Heinrich von Brentano, spokesman for the non-Socialist German Delegates.↩
- Paul Reynaud, French Delegate to the Council of Europe.↩
- Harold Macmillan, British Conservative leader.↩
- Neither printed.↩
- Henri Rolin, President of the Belgian Senate, delegate to numerous international conferences.↩
- Par further documentation on the meetings of the Council of Europe, see pp. 767 ff.↩