No. 10

740.5/5–951

Memorandum by Herbert W. Hill of the Division of European Affairs to the Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs ( Perkins )

M. Paul Reynaud is sponsoring a resolution Friday in the Assembly of the Council of Europe inviting Congress to send representatives to the fall session, to observe and to discuss problems of the Atlantic area.1 This is partly the result of communications from Senator Gillette.2 While it is not directly a proposal of Atlantic [Page 33] Union, it is undoubtedly regarded as a possible step in that direction.

The latest Departmental statement on Atlantic Union is in a letter to Senator Connally of April 6,3 in which it “considers Congressional examination as an appropriate and practical way of discovering the extent of existing possibilities as well as difficulties. The communication addressed by Senator Gillette on behalf of the sponsors of the resolution (Atlantic Union) to the Parliamentary bodies of certain other countries may prove helpful to this end.”

The Reynaud proposal is in line with this statement. Further, the Department should not antagonize this group in Congress, as it did a year ago.

Position: The Department of State has consistently supported every practical device for securing closer cooperation among the free nations of the North Atlantic community. It regards Congressional examination of proposals for Atlantic Union as an appropriate and practical way of discovering the extent of existing possibilities as well as difficulties. The Department of State would not offer any objections to sending Congressional representatives to participate as observers in meetings of the Council of Europe. Such a decision properly belongs to Congress itself. The Department believes, however, that discussion of the problems of the Atlantic community is needed both in Congress and by the people who would have to decide the issue of union, and this proposal will form a point for such discussion. It believes that direct contact between Congressional representatives and European parliamentary representatives should serve several useful purposes, including the development of a better understanding of mutual problems and the opportunity to explore the advantages of closer unity and to examine the obstacles.

Insofar as the Department may be called upon for advice on the proposal it would offer the following observations:

1.
The Council of Europe is still an unproven instrument of effective international cooperation. Those who see this proposal as a way to secure closer Atlantic Union should consider whether the Council is an appropriate instrument, especially since the Council is a European body with a European orientation.
2.
Significant cooperation between the United States and the United Nations is already being achieved through existing international organizations such as NATO and the experience being [Page 34] gained may provide a basis for closer unity in the future. Whether or not a stronger organization may eventually be needed the Department would object at present to any development which might weaken the effectiveness of existing organizations. U.S. participation in the Council of Europe would not necessarily have any such result.
3.
In view of the current Congressional and public controversy over European relations, the utility of any proposal to extend the area of collaboration with Europe must be carefully weighed. The proposal to send US observers to the Council of Europe would not represent a major departure from existing US policy, but the significance of such a step might be exaggerated both by its friends and its foes. False hopes might be aroused among the proponents of cooperation, which the Council of Europe is inadequate to fulfill. Also, the die-hard isolationists would probably denounce the proposal as a first step toward the surrender of US sovereignty. This might confuse open and forthright discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of Atlantic Union itself and possibly cause the true issues to be buried by an elaborate discussion of subsidiary issues.

If the Reynaud proposal is to have any value for the US it must be made perfectly clear that the US is not joining the Council of Europe, or considering it, but that Congress is sending representatives to talk with representatives of European parliaments about the problems of the North Atlantic. Moreover, the Council of Europe is a limited body and it is worth remembering that it lacks legal authority and the power to represent governments in international negotiations.

  1. Reynaud’s resolution was unanimously adopted by the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe on May 12.
  2. Reference is to a letter sent by Senator Guy M. Gillette to various European leaders on January 24, 1951, “calling for exploration of the possibilities of forming an Atlantic Union.” Senator Gillette enclosed a copy of Senate Concurrent Resolution 56 entitled “Strengthening of UN and its Development Into a World Federation,” which, Gillette explained, had been originally introduced in both Houses of Congress on July 26, 1949 and had been reintroduced “in the present Congress.” The resolution was first introduced by Senator Tobey and is printed in Congressional Record, vol. 95, p. 10143. It was subsequently reintroduced on September 1, 1950 by Senator Kefauver. (Ibid., vol. 96, p. 14047) Gillette stated that he was sending his letter at the request of Kefauver, “and, I believe, with the concurrence of the other co-sponsors.” Among the co-sponsors, whom Gillette listed at the close of his letter, were Senators Aiken, Flanders, Fulbright, Humphrey, Kilgore, McClellan, Murray, and Nixon. Gillette’s letter was included as “Tab 2” to the source text.
  3. Not found in Department of State files.