Office of the Historian
No. 298

665.001/9–851: Telegram

The Chargé in France (Bonsal) to the Secretary of State 1

secret
Paris, September 8, 1951—5 p.m.

1529. FonOff is still extremely dubious about procedure for Italian treaty revision as outlined to Fr Emb, Washington last week, and Schuman is expected to put forward new proposals in Washington which go beyond those reported in Embtels 1382 and 367 [356],3 July 7 and 17 but which preserve principle, to which FonOff attaches importance, of not attempting to give legal sanction to an arrangement which by its nature is separate and distinct from legal revision. Fr are, of course, entirely in agreement re objectives of affording Italy relief from mil provisions of treaty as well as “moral satisfaction” (see also Embtel 1178 [1176], August 234) but profess to see an important distinction between (a) “revision by agreement” which we envisage, and (b) “benevolent unilateral renunciation of certain rights”, in this case rights to prohibit certain activities, which is procedure they favor.

Renunciation procedure envisaged by FonOff, although this now surrounded by considerable formality, is deemed by them to be free from the disadvantages which would be involved for instance by contractual arrangements between Italy and certain signatories of treaty. In discussing this matter with us, Boegner, Chief FonOff Southern Eur Division, said FonOff is concerned over precedent that would be created for instance, for Suez and Iranian questions by unilateral (i.e., nonunanimous) revisions.

Procedure which Schuman will probably suggest in Washington consists of three stages:

(a) Tripartite declaration such as proposed in recent Fr note to Dept and Brit FonOff;

(b) Submission of this declaration to UNGA for approval or “consecration”;

(c) Individual communications to Italy by the three Western Powers and by treaty signatories who are willing to join in confirming or approving the declaration and informing Italy what practical conclusions (renunciations) are deemed to flow from it. These communications would merely indicate that as far as their [Page 654] senders are concerned, Italy would be free to ignore the treaty provisions in question.

Bonsal
  1. Repeated to London and Rome.↩
  2. Document 285.↩
  3. Not printed, but see footnote 4, ibid.↩
  4. Telegram 1176 summarized a press release from the French Foreign Ministry on August 22 which resulted from Schuman’s personal interest in having the French on record on the subject of Italian treaty revision. (665.001/8–2351)↩