740.5/5–2551: Telegram
The United States Special Representative in Europe (Katz) to the Administrator for Economic Cooperation (Foster)1
priority
Repto 2440. ECA/W for Foster and Bissell; Dept for Webb, Perkins and Cabot. Limit distribution. This joint Spofford–Katz message.
1. FEB convened for organizing meeting afternoon May 22. A snag developed in election chairmanship concerning which a few words of background necessary.
2. Following events described Repto 1840, 1962, 2151, sent London Repto 333, 355, 406,2 problem chairmanship FEB became involved with problem exec sec NATO. After decision appointment Sutton,3 French indicated they wished become candidates chairmanship FEB. We indicated we wld be glad support this, if French put forward candidate of suitable rank and standing. While we expressed appreciation Clermont-Tonnerre, we referred to questions which had been previously discussed concerning level of FEB and importance US Govt attached to suitably high level.
3. French Govt thereupon put forward name of Jacques Rueff, well known French economist and financial official, and formerly chairman of the Inter-Allied Reparations Agency, Brussels. In discussions in London, Spofford and Alphand both received impression from Hoyer-Millar that this acceptable to Brit Govt, although Hoyer-Millar did indicate Brit had some questions about individual principally because of lack of previous OEEC experience.
4. However, in Paris, Hall-Patch and Roll showed considerable disturbance. Hall-Patch informed us Chancellor Exchequer had not been adequately consulted, and that when question really brought to his attention, he raised serious question. In private talks, Hall-Patch indicated Brit objections principally (a) Rueff old-style classical [Page 165] economist who was alleged at one time to have written a pamphlet arguing that unemployment insurance benefits tended to promote unemployment and (b) that Rueff was a candidate for election to the National Assembly, running as member of party almost as far right as De Gaulle.
5. At mtg FEB, Roll, present as UK rep, indicated support for idea of a French chairman but that Rueff not acceptable. Mtg was adjourned to straighten situation out. There were numerous private talks and 3 additional meetings of FEB restricted to heads of dels in course May 22 and 23.
6. At mtgs it was clear that all other dels welcomed French chairmanship and with possible exception Norwegians were glad to accept Rueff. Norwegian rep gave UK mild support but raised question chiefly on ground that dels had not been given sufficient notice. At same time, he also indicated his govt was prepared accept Rueff. UK expressed willingness welcome French chairmanship but persisted in objecting to individual. At same time private talks among delegs indicated support for idea of vice-chairmanship to be offered Roll of UK, who indicated wld be disposed accept. We stated informally our support. Finally, in late evening mtg May 23, FEB agreed (a) welcome French chairmanship (b) accept Clermont-Tonnerre as temporary chairman. It was understood that delegs wld expect agreement on identity French permanent chairman as soon as possible. Dutch rep specifically stated that if temporary chairmanship shld last more than 2 weeks he wld raise formal objection, and insist on selection permanent chairman. Informally understood “permanent” chairman hold office one year eligible re-election.
7. Spofford saw Gaitskell in London May 24. He gathered Brit position well dug in. Gaitskell seemed base his objection to Rueff on latter’s economic philosophy. Spofford also got impression Gaitskell might still have lingering thoughts possibility Roll as chairman. This of course wholly contradictory to explicit and formal statement UK rep at FEB meeting that UK welcomed French chairmanship. Moreover, Hall-Patch in private conversation reporting Gaitskell’s attitude had emphasized acceptance idea of French chairmanship. Aside from indirect light which this residual notion about Roll might throw on Brit motives and attitude, it wld be hard to take it seriously under present circumstances.
8. Brit motives far from clear. There is possibility that it represents continuation their effort to play down role FEB and keep it from playing really effective part in NATO, especially if free from any possible Brit control. There is also possibility that purpose is prevent development French continental leadership for so important a NATO body. At same time it is also possible that their attitude represents nothing more than essentially trivial internal differences [Page 166] and confusion within Brit Govt, especially between Treas and FonOff and between London NATO contingent and Paris contingent. Perhaps principal lesson to be learned is importance special care to avoid confusion in view geographical separation between London and Paris.
9. We propose not take lead in attempting solution, feeling wiser let Brit and French work it out. FEB delegs, including US deleg, put considerable common pressure on Brit to find prompt solution indicating unequivocally, while each member had right consider personal qualification candidate for chairman, no member had right to block selection approved by all others except for clear and compelling reasons. Discussion in FEB further indicated general opinion that objections to Rueff advanced by Brit were not weighty enough to meet this standard. Alphand stated only valid point made against Rueff was his candidacy for election to National Assembly and promised examine possibility Rueff withdraw candidacy if elected chairman FEB. No further information yet this point. Might, of course, constitute face-saving device if deadlock continues and deemed necessary withdraw Rueff in favor of another French candidate.
10. FEB will convene afternoon May 24 [sic] under temporary chairmanship Clermont-Tonnerre, to continue its initial business.
- Repeated to London for Spofford, Gifford, and Batt and to Paris for Bruce and Parkman.↩
- These three telegrams are not printed.↩
- Nigel Sutton, an American who had been Secretary-General of the Inter-Allied Reparations Agency in Brussels since 1946, was appointed Executive Secretary of NATO on May 22. His duties in that post were to assist Spofford in his capacity as Chairman of the Council Deputies and to help direct the international staff of the Council Deputies in the coordination of the work of the civilian agencies of NATO.↩