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

740.5/3–2252: Telegram

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

secret
priority

Paris, March 22, 1952—6 p.m.

5798. Subj is European defense community. Ref: Embtel 5627, March 15² rptd London 1555, Bonn 524 and Deptel 4578³ to London March 19 rptd Bonn 2115.

1. British Emb officer here informs us of misgivings in UK FonOff (much along lines London’s 4125 to Dept, March 20⁴ rptd Bonn 404) concerning proposed Brussels pact-EDC security guaranty. Britain would be binding herself, under proposal, to Italy and Germany for period which might possibly exceed duration of NAT and might certainly exceed presence US troops in Europe. This gives rise to uncomfortable feeling in some UK FonOff circles. Caution has been advised, and as result our informant did not believe Eden had discussed matter with Schuman (as had been expected he would) except, perhaps, casually.

2. Our informant mentioned that UK FonOff opinion had brought out advantages to Brit inherent in proposal as well. Proposal would ensure continuing validity for UK of Brussels pact guaranty itself, which would otherwise lose all substance for UK upon creation of EDC. (UK would be left with guaranty from countries no longer disposing of substantial armed forces.) Furthermore, there is obvious argument in answer to fear of UK commitment lasting past NATO. That is that UK itself would benefit from reciprocal nature of such commitment in event NATO should cease to exist. Nevertheless, our impression is that prevailing atmosphere is one of caution. Matter will, of course, be brought up in cabinet, though it has not been as yet.

3. Possible outcome, our informant suggested, might be qualified acceptance of proposal and extension of guaranty only for period of duration of NAT. Such qualified acceptance however, might well fail to serve purpose of solving current impasse in EDC conf re an internal security guaranty, since reason for Dutch position on latter is precisely a long-range uneasiness at being closely bound to Italy and Germany by arrangement divorced from UK. (See The Hague’s 983 to Dept,⁵ March 19, rptd London 224, Bonn 28). Such qualified acceptance might therefore be expected at very least to revive Benelux arguments for limiting duration such treaty to duration NAT. This argument, when made at first Paris EDC ministers meeting, ran into vigorous opposition from Adenauer, Schuman and De Gasperi.

Bonsal

1. Repeated to London, Bonn, Brussels, The Hague, Rome, and Luxembourg.
2. Not printed; it reported that at a meeting of the Juridical Committee of the EDC Conference held on Mar. 14, the French Delegate submitted for approval two unofficial working draft protocols designed to extend mutual defense guarantees between the Brussels Pact countries and the EDC nations. The Committee swiftly approved the two drafts with the addition of a reference to Article 51 of the U.N. Charter. The observer from the United Kingdom informed the Committee that a British answer to the protocols would require Cabinet action but that he was conscious of the need for speed (740.5/3–1552). Texts of the working draft protocols on mutual defense guarantees were dispatched to the Department in telegrams 5628 and 5629 from Paris, Mar. 15 (740.5/3–1552).
3. Not printed; it reported that “Brussels Pact–EDC Security Guarantee formula provides good solution apparent impasse Dutch-Ger positions re automatic internal def commitments EDC” and also would appear to make more likely French ratification of the EDC Treaty while solving the problem of reconciling commitments under the two treaties which the Dutch Delegation had stressed must be faced. For these reasons, the Embassy in the United Kingdom was instructed to make known to the Foreign Office “our favorable attitude toward this solution”. (740.5/3–1852)
4. Not printed; it reported that the Department’s favorable views toward the proposed Brussels Pact–EDC security guarantee had been conveyed to the Foreign Office whose response was that the proposal was under study but that while the United Kingdom was aware of the obvious advantages of the proposal to the continental countries, there was less direct advantage to Britain. “One factor in their thinking is what their position would be if NATO terminates 17 years from now and they are left with a 50 year EDC commitment”. (740.5/3–1952)
5. Not printed; it informed the Department of a meeting of the Benelux political committee at The Hague on Mar. 14 as reported to Embassy officials by a member of the Dutch Foreign Office (740.5/3–1952).