850.33/7–2550: Circular telegram

The Secretary of State to Certain Diplomatic Offices 1


Fol are joint State–ECA instructions, supplementary to those in Depcirtel of June 2, 8 a. m. and Ecato circular 95,2 which shld be followed by all US reps in Eur in handling Schuman proposals re coal and steel.

Except as otherwise instructed, all expressions official US views to negotiating govts on draft text of treaty shld take place through Paris and Frankfort on basis instructions from Dept and ECA/W.
Gen policy re expression US views is that US shld avoid expression opinions on minor issues, such as number of members on High Authority, relationship of Auditor to Auth or Assembly, etc. but shld make US position clear on matters we regard as fundamental.
Principal major issue which has thus far emerged in negots is procedure for appealing from politico-economic decisions of Auth. On this point US considers Dutch proposal for settlement by FonMins on basis natl govt votes wld tend nullify supra-national character of Auth, which US believes of key importance. US considers supranational concept cld be better preserved by procedure along lines reported first para Section D, Article 8, of checklist transmitted to Perkins from Bruce whereby appeals wld be settled by common Assembly, or subcomite thereof, which wld represent peoples of [Page 742] participating nations rather than natl govts. For info missions other than Paris, this para reads as follows:

“On principle the best analysis seems to be this: The High Auth shld have the power to make decisions on their merits so long as it stays within the powers delegated to it by the Treaty. Ideally the decision shld probably be final so long as the Authority, on balance, retains the confidence of the Common Assembly. But if certain decisions are believed to have such serious consequences for an affected State that it must have a chance to air the question in some other forum, then the problem is really a political one, namely whether it is fair or wise to impose the hardship or burden on the affected State in the interest of the general European community. This is basically the kind of question which a parliament such as the Common Assembly is best fitted to resolve, by discussion and vote rather than by legal procedure; the choice shld be made by people who derive their authority directly or indirectly from the community and who are responsible to it.”

In connection general question appeals procedure Paris shld ascertain what, specifically, would be “defense matters” on which Dutch would make Auth subject to instructions from FonMins, as reported Tel 92, July 18 from The Hague. Wld such matters be limited to NATO decisions? Believe question of handling defense matters requires further study.
Appreciate US reps in Paris, Frankfort and elsewhere will be discussing Schuman Plan informally with reps other govts. However, essential no US rep shld express opinions purporting be US views except on basis instructions from or clearance with Dept and ECA/W.
  1. Sent to Paris, London, The Hague, Brussels, Luxembourg, Rome, and HICOG, Frankfort; all posts to pass to ECA Missions.
  2. Not printed.