740.00/11–2451: Telegram
The Consul at Strasbourg ( Andrews) to the Acting Secretary of State 1
63. Ref Contel 62, Dept 24th2 concerning US and CE delegations. The four specific agenda items having been terminated 22nd, on following day general debate on Union of Europe was resumed and it proved to be most provocative and significant day of whole conference. Reynaud started debate by stating that as result present meeting Europeans had come to understand that US was rearming not to win a war but to prevent it; that European delegates had been able to reassure US delegates as to Europe’s will to resist; that Amer criticism of Eur cartels had been largely justified; that Eur had not only received US aid but had also been able to learn US methods of achieving greater productivity; and that for poor man (i.e., in Eur) to give up half his bread ration was bigger sacrifice than for rich man (i.e., in US) to give up television sets. Reynaud has been criticized by Amers and Eurs alike for not appearing afternoon session.
[Page 71]Following Amer speakers in no uncertain terms assailed Western Eur and CE for talking too much about Eur difficulties and offering them as alibis and for failure to unite in one or another manner: Keating, Smith, Cox, Benton, Judd, Ellsworth, McMahon, Wiley, Humphrey and Green. A salient feature of most Amer speeches was criticism of tax evasion in Eur as contrasted with tax payment in US and increased burden on US tax payer resulting from aid to Eur.
In an interjection Cox made this statement to speaker Finn Moe:
“Somehow I feel a chill coming over this assembly. It must be apparent to the gentleman and his Eur colleagues that there is at the moment in development a fretful and vexed reaction to what the US del has witnessed here in the meetings during this week. It is not going to be a wholly encouraging story that the del can take back home. We came full of hope, and, while we are not leaving with that hope cast down, we are going away somewhat disappointed. It is apparent, to me at least, that this whole effort to realize the objective of the Council of Europe will be destroyed unless the chasm which seemingly exists as between the English group on the one hand (the countries associated with Great Brit) and the French group on the other hand (the countries associated with France) can be narrowed, and narrowed speedily.” Use of word “chill” by Cox had impressive effect on Eur dels and word was in fact later used by several of them. Meanwhile there were several Eur speeches in rebuttal, those of Boothby, Hall and Gerstenmaier being able and forceful and those of Moe and Layton giving rise to pertinent questioning by Amers which was inadequately answered. Eur observers here deplored Moe’s speech and answers because he underlined Eur difficulties and Lay ton’s speech because of its length and confusion.
In the closing Amer speech, Green admitted US del’s tendency not to appreciate difficulties which had beset Eur for fifty years and difficulty uninvaded and unbombed US comprehend impact of war. He mentioned tendency in debate of Eur Parliamentarians to underestimate sacrifices made by US in time of war and now in time of peace. He also referred to Eur tax evasion. He backed up previous statements his del by stating that there had been too much talk about difficulties instead of Eur planning for future. Green summed up his speech by stating that only justification for depression was that there did not seem to be general European appreciation of necessity for immediate action. He thereupon read declaration of Amer del, copy of which is being transmitted by despatch and substantive part of which reads as follows: “We agree however with expressions of deep regret that more realistic progress has not been made towards Eur Union, economic and political, [Page 72] and express the hope that the tendency may be overcome to emphasize the difficulties which stand in the way of economic and political integration, rather than the advantages that wld flow from such action.”
Spaak was on the spot but his rebuttal speech concluding the conference was able, succinct, and diplomatic. He referred to three things to which US dels had attached importance but which surprised him: Trusts and cartels, nonpayment of taxes in Eur, and lowering of Eur customs barriers. In reply he wld state that US wld appear to be “land of cartels and trusts”; that taxes were heavy in Eur as well as in US but that evasion tax payment in Eur was by small minority only; and that US might well lower its own tariffs. Spaak explained that much of impression of confusion given by Eur dels had been due to their honesty since there had not been “prior consultations”. Admitting that CE dels had perhaps insisted too much on Eur misfortunes Spaak remarked upon devastation caused in Eur by two wars and upon fact that unification Eur had been initiated on three years before and added that among CE’s achievements were widening of its scope activities, possibility discuss any subject, human rights convention, Schuman Plan, and Eur Army plan. He asked that Amer dels not return US with thought that no progress was being made toward united Eur and he recognized Judd’s suggestion that it was not enough for US to give unconditional aid but that in his (Spaak’s) opinion US shld give more aid to those countries prepared to work for unity than to those who were not so prepared.3
Conference was closed at 7:15 p.m. 23rd. Subsequent despatches will amplify tels thus far sent.4
- Repeated to all NATO missions except Ottawa and Lisbon, and to Bonn and Vienna.↩
- Not printed.↩
- In telegram 64 from Strasbourg, November 26, Minister of the Embassy in France Philip Bonsai reported that before the opening of the Consultative Assembly that day Secretary-General Jacques Camille Paris had informed him that “largely as a result beneficial work accomplished at Conference between Congressional and Assembly Delegations” there would probably emerge a recommendation for a conference of European political leaders, including government officials and parliamentarians for the purpose of drafting a plan for a new European political structure. (740.00/11–2651)↩
- See telegram 75 from Strasbourg, Document 38.↩