850.33/10–250: Telegram
The Ambassador in France (Bruce) to the Secretary of State
Subject: Schuman proposal.
1687. ReDeptel 1619.1 French have submitted improved version of memorandum contained Embtel 16112 and following cables to conference of six delegations prior to recess Friday. When conference reopens Wednesday, October 4, heads of delegations will be expected to present their comments on decisions summarized therein.
In conversations with French during past few days, we have commented on interim report and new memorandum on basis Deptels 1169, 1177, 1209, 1210 and 1448.3 In so doing, we have stressed what we believe are major preoccupations of Department and ECA: Greater emphasis on price flexibility and competition, cartel dangers in regional group approach, excessive concern with absorbing shocks, specific time limit to perequation funds and danger that excessive caution during initial period will lead to compromising permanently basic principles of proposal. However, we are anxious to have any additional guidance you may wish to send before Wednesday deadline for Monnet’s comments.
We have obtained copy of revised memorandum including annexes containing new articles subcommittee reports, which are in process translation. Tomlinson will bring them to Washington Thursday and be prepared at that time for any conversations Department and ECA may wish.
Re second paragraph reftel, you will have noted that memo transmitted Embtel 1611 and following dealt only with permanent economic and social features Schuman Plan. Measures outlined in Annex IV for initial phase of transition period and perequation problem are scheduled to be reviewed only after more definite understanding is reached on permanent policies and provisions and after completion [Page 754] balance sheet to permit measurement of magnitude of transitional problems. This review should not be really under way until second half of October.
Annex IV is not French Government policy and not the official position of any delegation. We are concerned nevertheless because it does reflect the thinking of many technicians at the working committee level and some of the delegates individually. However, our ideas on major points are shared by Monnet and other leading delegates and issues are still to be thrashed out.