Foreign Relations of the United States, 1951, Europe: Political and Economic Developments, Volume IV, Part 1

No. 1

740.00/1–551: Telegram

The Ambassador in Sweden ( Butterworth) to the Secretary of State ²

confidential

Stockholm, January 5, 1951—6 p.m.

779. Secretary General of Foreign Office³ handed me informally memorandum which is transcribed below. He proposes to hand copies to the British and French and subsequently to other powers. This memorandum has the approval of the Cabinet and the Swedish Government is taking the initiative in this wise because it does not feel it desirable to act either with Council at Strasbourg⁴ or with OEEC at Paris and in order that the governments concerned may have a chance to study the proposal quietly without having to take a public position in the near future which might through haste be adverse. I therefore assured him we would treat it in strict confidence. (Copy memorandum attached.)

• “(1) The latest developments have stressed the urgency of strengthening the unity of Europe and of finding the practical expression of the community of aims of the European countries. After the war different forms have been tried to bring about a firmer organization of the European cooperation. Valuable experience has been gained. Taking advantage of this experience it should now be possible to take another step towards the integration of Europe through further efforts.
• (2) On the one hand, in the OEEC there has been created an organism where new forms have been tried for direct administrative cooperation for common purposes between the European Governments. Within the given technical framework it has proved possible to solve quickly international conflicts in the economic field and to reach results of great practical importance.
• At the same time, through the Council of Europe, one has strived to link the European cooperation directly to parliamentary opinion in the different countries. The aim is to gain in national politics the necessary support for the cooperative efforts and to take advantage of the initiatives which should be forthcoming from the political discussion in the different countries.
• (3) The advantage of trying different methods to create the administrative-political framework for increased European unity through the two organizations mentioned above, as well as other international bodies, is apparent. However, the split of the efforts between different organizations represents a serious weakness. It is impossible to avoid overlapping and difficult to find appropriate forms for such cooperation between the organizations as would make it possible to share the advantages gained within one of them with international bodies founded on other principles. It, therefore, is important to consider the possibilities of eliminating the present division, while building on the experience gained in different fields, and the traditions developed within the various organizations.
• (4) The time may now have come to submit the problems referred to above to a first study. Within the Council of Europe the problem of a revision of the statute has been brought up through a series of initiatives from the Consultative Assemblies; these are at the present time being studied by a special committee. As to the OEEC, the scheduled termination of the American aid warrants a reconsideration of the Paris convention of the 16th April, 1948, with a view to adjusting it to the new conditions. Even if it should be considered premature to establish already at this time a new organization within which the two bodies mentioned above could be merged, full agreement should exist concerning the desirability of such a development being kept in view when discussing the fundamental statutes of the two organizations.
• The Swedish Government would greet it with satisfaction if the Paris convention⁵ could be revised in such a way as to make possible the creation, in the near future, of a new organization into which the two bodies mentioned above would be assimilated. It seems that the discussion of this problem within the Council of Europe would not have to be entered upon, until the development inside the OEEC could be more clearly assessed.
• (5) When considering the possible methods of bringing the new organization into being it should be noted that the objectives of the two organizations are not at variance. On the contrary, the objectives of the Paris organization cover an important, perhaps in fact the most important, part of the activities within the scope of the Council of Europe. Consequently, the objectives of a new organization would not have to go beyond those of the Council of Europe, although the latter should probably be supplemented by a more detailed definition of the economic aims.
• (6) With regard to constitutional structure it can be noted that the Council of the OEEC, on the ministerial level, has, in different respects, been entrusted with a wider authority than the committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. It would not seem necessary to create another body authorized to make decisions on behalf of the new organization, or to limit the competence of the Council in comparison with the rules at present in force within the OEEC.
• (7) Apart from the Council, the Charter of the OEEC provides for an Executive Committee to act as a leading administrative body, as well as for several technical committees for special tasks. The Executive Committee, to which there is no counterpart within the Council of Europe, has proved to be a valuable instrument in the solution of practical problems as well as problems of principle and ought to be retained practically without alterations by a new organization. The same applies to the use of special committees. There would, of course, be nothing to prevent an extension, within the framework of a new organization, of the committee structure along the lines worked out in Paris. It does not, however, seem desirable to lay down statutory rules for those committees to any greater extent than has been done in the Paris convention; experience shows that there are great advantages in leaving the shaping of this part of the administrative structure to practice.
• (8) The third main body within the OEEC is the Secretariat. Experience so far supports the conclusion that, in the main, a convenient form has been found, within the OEEC, both for the structure of the Secretariat and for its competence in relation to that of the other bodies of the organization. The secretariat of a new organization could be directly modeled after the pattern of the Secretariat of the OEEC, possibly with the extensions required by the wider objectives of the new organization.
• (9) The basic difference in the structure of the Council of Europe and the OEEC is of course the Consultative Assembly which forms an essential part of the Council of Europe but lacks any counterpart in the OEEC. A consultative assembly of this kind would of course, form a necessary element in a new organization. The rules governing the competence of a consultative assembly could probably remain with practically no alterations; it would seem advisable, however, to add a modification to the effect that the decisions of the council of the organization should automatically be placed on the agenda of the assembly. The assembly would thus not only retain the power to take initiatives which it now holds under the statutes of the Council of Europe, but would also automatically enter into the position of a controlling and reviewing body, both with regard to the constitutional conditions of the participating countries and in view of the necessity not to delay important decisions through procedural arrangements. It would not seem advisable to widen the authority of the assembly in such a way as to require the deciding body of the new organization to consult the assembly before taking a final decision. Nor could it at present be a question of vesting the assembly with the authority to bind the participating countries by its decisions.
• (10) The Swedish Government are well aware of the difficulties that are liable to arise in connection with the proposed merger.
• At the present the two organizations concerned do not embrace the same geographical areas, some members of the OEEC not being members of the Council of Europe. When preparing the statutes of the new organization one should, of course, strive to reach such solutions, as would enable all the present members of the OEEC to join the new organization. This necessitates no doubt a reconsideration of certain points of detail in the rules concerning the objectives of the new organization and the competence to be given to its different bodies. The Swedish Government are, however, convinced that this reconsideration will make possible the wide participation desirable, without modifying the general principles outlined above. Another problem that will arise is connected with the position within the OEEC of North American nations. In the opinion of the Swedish Government it should be possible to find a solution also of this problem within the framework of the new organization. Stockholm, 5 January 1951.”⁶

Butterworth

2. Repeated to Paris and London.
3. Dag Hammarskjold.
4. Reference is to the Council of Europe.
5. For documentation on the Paris Convention establishing the Organization for European Economic Cooperation, see Foreign Relations, 1948, vol. iii, pp. 352 ff.
6. In a letter of January 5 to Paul-Henri Spaak, President of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, a copy of which was given to the Embassy in Italy, translated, and transmitted by Minister Llewellyn Thompson to the Department of State on January 24, Ugo La Malfa, Italian Minister of Foreign Trade, repeated his proposal presented to the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe during its session of November 1950, suggesting that all member nations of the Council of Europe should present to the Council any projects they favored bearing on European coordination and unity as a means of vitalizing the role of the Council. (Despatch 2165 from Rome, January 24, 740.00/1–2451) On January 6, Milton Katz, the U.S. Special Representative in Europe under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1948 sent ECA Administrator William C. Foster the summary of a memorandum which Dirk Stikker, Secretary-General of the OEEC, had circulated “to Embassies, The Hague and to OEEC Dels.” Stikker’s memorandum stressed, in Katz’ words, “the necessity of insuring closer economic cooperation between countries of Western Europe, US and Canada” and argued that the need to establish an organization to deal with raw materials “within compass of world trade should itself be a world organization.” Stikker informed Katz when he presented the memorandum that he planned to discuss it with OEEC representatives and those from the United States and Canada when the OEEC Council of Ministers met on January 12. (Telegram Repto circular 2 from Paris, January 6, ECA message files, FRC 53A278, Paris) In telegram Repto 160 from Paris, January 11, Katz informed Foster that during an interview that day Hammarskjold had said that “His government was anxious to avoid making a formal proposal” concerning the reorganization of European supranational institutions “at this time.” Hammarskjold added that in putting forth the proposal contained in telegram 779, the Swedish Government was “keenly aware of the need to proceed with great care. If this little hot-house plant should be taken out from under glass case at this point, he feared it would quickly be frozen.” (ECA message files, FRC 53A278, Paris) In telegram Repto 1977 from Paris, April 28, Katz reported that the OEEC Council had informally discussed the “Swed memo relationship with Council of Eur” but that Hammarskjold was supported only by the Austrian and German representatives. “Apart from these two countries, Swed proposal received only cautious comment. Tone was largely set by Morrison of UK who stated that his govt not enthusiastic even on appointment of comite until its terms of ref and purpose were made clear.” (ECA message files, FRC 53A278, Paris)