841.00/4–551: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Gifford) to the Secretary of State 1
5263. State pass ECA/W. Re Deptel 4419, March 30 (rptd Paris unnumbered).2 Spofford, Batt and I believe serious situation is developing here as result of Brit misunderstanding of US position re economic support aid in FY 1952 to UK as reported by Franks.
In informal conversations with Embassy officer Wednesday, Makins and later Gaitskell referred to talks in Washington with Franks. Both indicated that Brit Govt understand (1) that present Brit economic situation wld make it difficult for US Govt to request Congress for specific amount of economic support aid to Brit next fiscal year and (2) that Congress must be informed soon that such request cannot now be made. They pointed out, however, that UK Govt has assumed that “Nitze exercise” leading to burden-sharing criteria represented official US commitment that US wld take into account, in determining aid, needs of any NATO country, findings of burden-sharing study. They said Brit officials understand from Franks reports of Washington talks, (the reports have reportedly shocked Brit Ministers) that Congress will be told not only that it is not intended to request economic support aid for UK at this time, but that US Govt has decided that UK needs no such aid. In other words, that presentation to Congress will not recognize possibility that outcome of burden-sharing study in which US is full participant might change present US position. They emphasized that UK Mins wld regard this as prejudging outcome of burden-sharing study before it is completed. Gaitskell admitted that burden-sharing study may disclose no reason for US to change present position, but he believes that US shld at least recognize possibility that it might do so. He believes also that US failure to do so, by prejudging results of burden-sharing exercise, wld weaken and complicate Britain’s position vis-à-vis other countries.
[Page 928]Impression was gained from Gaitskell and Makins’ comments that official belief here that US statement to Congress will “close and lock door” is crux of problem here. If we interpret reftel correctly, this Brit belief wld have to be based on some misunderstanding of what was said to Franks by US officials in Washington. Regardless of origin, however, official attitude here is, we believe, accurately reflected in Gaitskell’s comments. Gaitskell obviously confused over situation and disturbed because, during his forthcoming budget speech in Parliament, he will almost certainly be interrogated about aid which UK might expect to receive from US during coming fiscal year.
If it is the official US intention, as we believe it is, to make clear to Congress that, while no request is now to be made to cover US economic support aid to UK, US Govt will give due consideration to any requirements for aid which might be disclosed by burden-sharing exercise, that policy shld be made crystal clear to the British. Authority is requested to make it clear to high officials here as soon as possible.
When we refer herein to economic support aid we exclude end item aid, but not necessarily technical assistance, OD, etc.