740.5/3–752: Telegram

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

secret
priority

5397. Subj is Eur Def Community. Conf resumed sessions yesterday fol Lisbon recess.2

1.
Alphand reported to Steering Comite on Fr Assembly debate and resolution concerning EDC. He said Assembly had endorsed principles of Eur unity and integration on which Fr fon policy in Eur is based. Assembly had, however, made a number of recommendations of which Fr deleg in conf would have to take account. This Assembly had expressed desire that treaty: underline defensive character of EDC; provide for an equitable hearing of finan burden among member states, having regard for special additional burden borne by Fr in Indochina; be strengthened by guarantee from US and UK ensuring future maintenance of EDC as now envisioned; ensure that there will be no recreation on Ger natl army and gen staff, while at same time not embodying any provisions which will discriminate against Ger; provide for highest degree of integration possible, under supranational auth; provide for maintenance of reasonable proportion among forces contributed by the seven member states; and provide for the gradual coming into full power and functions of institutions of the community. These conditions, Alphand added, would seem to require no substantial changes in basic agreements so far attained by conf.
2.
In his capacity as chairman of the conf, Alphand said, he thought it appropriate to report on decisions reached in London and Lisbon. These were as fols:
(a)
It was decided in London that the art of the EDC treaty dealing with the production of armaments should provide that there would be no production of certain armaments in strategically exposed areas. There would be a list appended to this art and there was to be also a declaration by the Ger Govt. There remains for the conf drafting problem in this respect.
(b)
As to internal police forces it was decided in London that EDF treaty should provide that member states might maintain only such police forces as are necessary to carry out internal police functions, and that EDC commissariat should be empowered to see to it that this provision is respected and to make recommendations regarding its implementation to member states.
(c)
Agreement was reached in London on Ger financial contribution. It remains for conference to settle, in accordance with Lisbon discussions, the details for the first year of all financial contributions including the German. This matter was not quite ripe yet at the moment to be tackled by the conference, but would be soon.
(d)
Concerning mutual guarantees between NATO and EDF principles were agreed in London and Lisbon.
(e)
Concerning institutional relations between EDC and NATO, and particularly consultations between councils of two organizations, detailed agreements were reached in London and Lisbon on which confs might now put formal stamp of approval.
(f)
Concerning US and UK guarantees for future maintenance of EDF, Alphand said US and UK Foreign Mins had issued a communiqué in London. He read this communiqué and said it was an important and gratifying step indicating intentions of US and UK. It was not, however, final word on subject. French Govt will carry on further conversations on this subj, of which it will keep conf informed.
3.
In response to question by Alphand whether anybody had comments or statements to make, Blank said German parliament had also had debate in course of which basic principles of EDF had likewise been approved and recommendations had been made which, like French, would not, to his mind, create any difficulty but of which German delegation would also have to take account. Blank expressed high hope that conf could soon successfully conclude its work. Conditions or recommendations put forward by the French Assembly seemed to him not to give rise to any difficulties. He reviewed them seriatim:
(a)
Defensive character of EDF had always clearly been understood. Gers ready to accept any new language designed to make it even clearer.
(b)
That financial burden would be equitably distributed and that account would be taken special situation in Indochina had also previously been agreed.
(c)
Germany would present no objection to a guarantee from US and UK. In fact Ger would like to see US and UK extend guarantee against any party to EDC ever seceding from it.
(d)
As to recreation of Ger Natl Army and general staff, Blank said he felt hurt that it was thought necessary to mention this. Gers had said often enough they did not want a national army and if there was to be no national army there would be no general staff. It was for this purpose, that is to avoid recreating a national army, that Germany had participated in this conference. Blank said he would state solemnly once again, and he was authorized so to state, that German Govt wanted no national army. But he must draw attention to fact that there must be no discrimination, which means that, save for exceptions so far agreed, other parties to EDF would also not maintain national armies and general staffs.
(e)
Desirability of as much integration under Supranational authority as possible had also been agreed.
(f)
Same held for maintenance of reasonable proportion between forces contributed by member states.
(g)
As for fact that Community would assume powers and functions gradually—no one ever thought that it could be done all at once.
Blank then commented on Alphand’s report of agreements reached in London and Lisbon. He said Adenauer had concurred in armament production agreement and drafting problem should not raise great difficulty. Blank said he heard for first time about agreement on internal police of which Alphand had spoken. He said he was not aware that there had been any such agreement reached in London. However, he said, he thought it was a good idea, consonant with principles to which German delegation adhered. In fact, if there was anything he had against this idea it was that he had not thought of it himself. Concerning financial questions and question of EDCNATO relations, German delegation was quite satisfied with solution which had been put forward.
4.
Lombardo stated he had little to add beyond thanking Alphand for his reports and for his contribution to agreements which had been obtained. Lombardo announced that, happily, Italian Parliament had had no debate and had made no recommendations on EDC.
5.
Van Vredenburch said he agreed with consensus so far expressed that conference was now entering final phase of its work. He would suggest in fact that it might help for conference to set itself a deadline for completion of treaty draft. Van Vredenburch noted that Dutch Parliament had also debated EDC and that, although no definite recommendations had been made by Dutch Parliament, Dutch delegation would have to have due regard for what had been said in debate. He hoped that conference would complete its work in spirit of compromise and conciliation.
6.
De Staercke said his view also was that decisive steps had been taken in last few weeks and that signature of treaty could be accomplished in a matter of weeks. He endorsed suggestion of setting deadline. He added that Belgian Parliament had, like Dutch had, not made definite recommendations or set conditions. But he said it may do so at any time and it was important therefore that equilibrium of agreement so far reached not be upset. For Belgian delegation, conference report to Lisbon meeting formed basis for definitive treaty draft.
7.
Alphand answered De Staercke and Van Vredenburch by agreeing that report to Lisbon meeting stated basic agreements which would not be departed from. However, he said, one had to keep an eye on need for eventual ratification of treaty and therefore French would make some new suggestions to implement recommendations made by their Parliament. However, he did not expect these would raise any difficulties. Alphand then proposed April 15 as deadline for completion of treaty and military protocol. A number of other annexed documents, most important of which was convention on status of EDF, would be finished some time later, but general principles governing them would appear in treaty. Blank expressed preference for earlier deadline of March 31. After some discussion April 6 was agreed upon as deadline, Alphand remarking that he hoped nobody would inform the press about it.
8.
Alphand then distributed a paper, prepared by secretariat, listing all matters, both those of substance and those presenting only minor drafting problems, which still remained to be settled. Steering Committee would also have to review once more, for form, all articles in existing treaty draft. (Secretariat has prepared and we have translated and are pouching today new treaty draft incorporating all agreements reached prior to Lisbon.) Alphand proposed, and it was agreed, that technical committees work through weekend and that Steering Committee meet again next Tuesday. We are transmitting Secretariat’s list of remaining questions in immediately following cable.
9.
At meeting yesterday morning Juridical Committee reviewed progress made by committee which had been studying questions of status of forces (see Embtel 4846, Feb 8, rptd London 1337, Bonn 399;2 Embassy despatch 1692 to Dept, Dec 27, 1951, CC HICOG Bonn).3 It noted that task assumed had perhaps been somewhat too ambitious and that transitional solutions would perhaps have to be adopted on some questions. Consensus however was that work could [Page 623]be completed some time after signature of treaty and before ratification. The treaty itself would contain statement of gen principles. Germans announced they were about to introduce a number of compromise proposals. Status Comite was directed to receive and consider these during next week and report again to Juridical Comite shortly thereafter.
[
Dunn
]
  1. Repeated to London, Bonn, The Hague, Rome, Brussels, and Luxembourg.
  2. Reference is to the Steering Committee meeting of Mar. 6. See editorial note, supra.
  3. Not printed. (740.5/2–852)
  4. Not printed. (740.5/12–2751)