Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, Western European Security, Volume V, Part 1

611.51/4–2653: Telegram

The Ambassador in France (Dillon) to the Department of State ¹

secret
priority

Paris, April 26, 1953—9 p.m.

5672. Limited distribution. Reference Embtel 5624, April 23.²

1. Second session bipartite talks with French held afternoon April 26. Present were Bidault, Pleven, Bourges-Maunoury for French; Dulles, Humphrey, Wilson, Stassen, Dillon and Draper for US; with advisers.³

2. US del had previously agreed on memo re aid, which Dulles read to French and made copies available to them. Text this memo contained immediately following telegram.⁴

3. Dulles stated had two oral observations to make re this memo. We will need help French Government in getting to US the information needed for presentation aid program to Congress. Embassy and MSA Mission will be in touch with French re this. Second point related to EDC. Nothing specific included in memo, as we have already made our position clear. EDC can succeed only if it reflects real desires peoples concerned. However, progress of EDC will be much in our minds and those of Congress as aid program considered.

4. Bidault expressed appreciation for US comprehension French problems.⁵ Bourges-Maunoury indicated that US memo clarified situation for him re meeting external financial problems. Regarding FY 54 aid, Bourges-Maunoury inquired whether $100 million referred to paragraph 5 (a) memo would be in form budget-supporting OSP. Also what form would the $460 million in paragraph 5(b) take. Stassen indicated that re both 5 (a) and (b), it is US intention have government-to-government agreement whereby we would provide funds for items to be included in French budget. Where items purchased, do not intend have 10 percent counterpart deduction. However, $60 million to be made immediately available and part of remaining $400 million mentioned paragraph 5(b) would be in form defense support aid, and such aid would require 10 percent counterpart be made available for US use. Implementation of arrangements foreseen by memo to be worked out with Ambassador and Labouisse.

5. Re paragraph 5(c) memo, Bourges-Maunoury asked whether additional IC effort mentioned is additional national armies light battalions already planned. Dulles confirmed what we have in mind is program for increase of ASIC forces discussed by Letoumeau when in Washington,⁶ but US military not wholly satisfied and might have some suggestions to make. We must be able defend program before Congress on basis testimony our military people. Asked Nash to comment. Nash said Defense pleased with full frank discussion with Letourneau and with information given. Our military people had suggestions rather than criticisms to offer. He mentioned two military factors of concern to our military, but added that plan French laid out in Washington appears to hold promise of success. Nash also referred to assurance given Letourneau that US would undertake furnish equipment for additional battalions, and fact that if Vietnam national forces could be developed in units larger than battalions, would be more self-confident and effective.

6. Bourges-Maunoury said aid in prospect is substantial and enables French envisage financial problems in better light. However, budget economies will still be necessary in 1953 and 1954. French objective will be make them without harming military potential.

7. Pleven said helped considerably to have these aid indications for FY 54. Fully realized they are subject Congressional action, and inquired when final vote likely come and when French aid figure would be confirmed. Went on discuss French force levels. Had originally hoped activate larger forces than goals recently set. Even presently planned forces would cost 30 billion francs more in CY 54 and Letourneau program 90 billion more. Must consider what can do with resources available, including aid. Hopes to consult with US experts regarding new weapons and other savings. Asked if special program (paragraph 5(a) memo) would be of kind to help French budget. Stassen confirmed this.

8. Pleven went on to speak of difficult and intricate problems posed for France by IC. Made point that if additional effort in IC, to which we had indicated a willingness to contribute a portion, were to require additional French outlays, might pose insoluble difficulties.

9. Bidault spoke of French internal political problems in relation IC war. Some French are saying leave IC to cut expenses. Bidault said that defense of IC will go on, with US help and that of ASIC. It is French aim to build latter up.

10. Dulles replied Pleven question re timetable by saying should know Congressional action toward late June and should have fairly definitive figure for French by August. Stressed importance French developing program that will commend itself to Congress and American people. Again expressed confidence in future of French and our desire help over present difficulties.

11. Other matters touched on being reported separately.⁷

12. Stassen and Ohly bring full details.

Dillon

1. The source text directs the Department of State to pass comes of this cable to the Departments of Defense and Treasury, the Mutual Security Agency, and to the Office of the Director for Mutual Security.
2. Ante, p. 369.
3. The six-page U.S. Delegation minutes of this meeting (including the second part described in telegram 5679, Apr. 27, infra), which indicate that the meeting took place at the Quai d’Orsay at 3:30 p.m., are in file 740.5/4–2653.
4. Telegram 5673 from Paris, Apr. 26 (751.5 MSP/4–2653). The memorandum stated that the United States would make available to France $60 million as an advance payment on fiscal 1954 U.S. aid to France. Additionally, the United States would give favorable consideration to a proposal for an Export–Import Bank loan of $100 million and would recommend to Congress with respect to fiscal 1954 MSP appropriations, $100 million for equipment for French metropolitan forces assigned to SACEUR, and up to a maximum of $460 million additional aid. These proposals were in addition to anticipated end-item deliveries and certain offshore procurement contracts which would proceed under normal procedures.
5. According to the minutes referred to in footnote 3, above, the meeting recessed for 15 minutes at this point while the French considered the U.S. memorandum. When it reconvened, Bourgès-Maunoury referred to a French aide-mémoire which had been given to the U.S. representatives at the beginning of the meeting (a copy is attached as Annex I to the U.S. Delegation minutes), explaining the French balance-of-payments situation, and stated that the United States memorandum clarified the situation regarding how France’s balance-of-payments problems might be met.
6. See footnote 4, p. 370.
7. Telegram 5679, Apr. 27, infra.