396.1 LO/5–650: Telegram
The United States Delegation at the Tripartite Preparatory Meetings to the Secretary of State
Secto 166. Sub-committee A meeting reported Secto 143 and 1441 continued evening May 4. Consideration given to following French proposal designed to deal with question future economic relations between Europe and Western Hemisphere:
“The representatives of the US and Canada are prepared enter into relations with the competent organizations of the OEEC, with a view [Page 912] to examining the best methods of ensuring regular economic cooperation between the various countries concerned.”
Alphand in putting forward proposal emphasized need to provide for link between US and Europe in post 1952 and strong opposition to use article 2 of pact for this purpose. He recognized need to associate both Germany and European neutrals with measures for economic cooperation but felt German participation any aspects of pact out of question. In explanation proposal indicated view that desirable for OEEC remain European organization primarily, but that some link between it and US and Canada should be established.
Makins2 reiterated UK view that any relationship of US and Canada to OEEC would be an “external” relationship, which Alphand admitted. In response to question from Makins Alphand indicated his view that establishing relationship between OEEC and US and Canada would be possible before 1952 but would become necessary after 1952. He felt an indication now of intent to associate US and Canada with organization would be great psychological encouragement to Europe.
Perkins suggested US and Canada relationship would require new terms of reference for OEEC and be tantamount to establishing new organization. Makins for UK indicated view that until 1952 and probably thereafter OEEC and Council of Europe should also be developed, that problem of associating countries which were not signatory to pact was probably not capable of solution at moment but as non-military sides of pact were developed some method of association might be worked out. He reiterated UK view that US and Canada participation OEEC would always be on different basis from European countries and that difference in relationship had numerous drawbacks. He felt it desirable to consider at this stage, how to implement article 2, that in so doing functions of OEEC and Council of Europe should be taken into consideration. In looking to future he felt it was desirable avoid action along divergent lines and expressed UK view that North Atlantic Pact offered best framework for cooperative action in long run.
Perkins suggested that what was required at moment was an agreement to consider what should be done and not necessarily a choice between the two alternatives of extension of article 2 or US participation in European organizations. Alphand indicated an unwillingness to discuss any kind of relationship between Germany and pact. Jebb recapitulated much of what Makins said and reemphasized desire to avoid development of two “zones”, i. e., Europe and North Atlantic. Further discussion on French proposal postponed.
[Page 913]French proposal on migration then considered briefly without conclusion. Both Jebb and Perkins referred to work already under way within ILO and OEEC and expressed uncertainty as to what conference proposed by French would achieve. French reiterated their view that work now being carried on ILO and OEEC required “political direction”. Perkins emphasized our view of seriousness of problem and expressed interest in any concrete proposals for solution. Committee adjourned without further action on French proposal.
Sent Department Secto 166, repeated Paris 766.