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

740.5/5–152: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Embassy in France ¹

secret
niact

Washington, May 3, 1952—3:55 p.m.

6494. Urtels 6619,² rptd London 1825, Bonn 729; 6671,³ rptd London 1838, Bonn 738; and 6709 May 1,⁴ rptd London 1846, Bonn 746.

Fol are our comments on draft declaration quoted your 6671.

1. We consider that declaration shld be issued at time of signing of EDC Treaty rather than contractuals since it deals more directly with former than with latter. If EDC signed on day fol signature of contractuals, this point cld be covered by deletion of “today” from first sentence of declaration.

2. Use of words “agrmts” and “conventions” is inconsistent. We wld favor use of latter but do not feel strongly on this point.

3. Word “possible” shld be inserted in second sentence, para 2, so it wld read “lend them every possible cooperation and support”.

4. We still prefer deletion Fr language of penultimate para and will only accept it if Brit agree and Fr continue to insist on it. We wonder what “convincing” arguments were which you refer to in Para 2 of Embtel 6671. Re para 3 urtel 6709, if this para retained, agree to deletion “as such and”.

5. Re para 3 urtel 6709 we strongly prefer retention “their fair share”. Accept modification to read “defense of the area of the North Atlantic Treaty”. As pointed out in earlier tels, this specific sentence derives from Senate res on US forces abroad and we consider it highly important to keep language from that res.

6. Request that order of phrases in second half of last sentence of declaration quoted urtel 6671 be changed so as to read “having regard to their obligs under the NAT, their interest in the integrity of EDC, and their special responsibilities in Ger”. Purpose of change is to put phrases in logical order of scope and importance.

7. We have greatest difficulty with interrelated problems of status of NY guarantee of Sept 1950 and Paris guarantee of Nov 1951 (not published). An important consideration in our minds is question of necessity for Senate action. After careful study I have come to firm conclusion that new system of interlocking guarantees among NATO, EDC and Brussels Pact countries affords adequate guarantees for security of FedRep. NY declaration was given to Adenauer at his request at a time when it was not contemplated that FedRep wld be party to EDC and thus guaranteed both by NATO and EDC countries. Thus when NATO–EDC–Brussels Pact arrangements come into effect FedRep will be protected on as favorable a basis as other Eur countries and I believe this is all Adenauer can reasonably ask.

Berlin, although in a somewhat different position since it is not covered by specific territorial guarantees from the NATO, EDC, and Brussels Pact countries, is protected under Art VI of the NAT by the presence of US, UK and Fr forces there. This fact coupled with language of tripartite declaration re maintaining US–UK forces on Continent of Eur, constitutes best guarantee we can give Berlin. Recognizing the special situation in that city however we are prepared to reaffirm in the tripartite declaration our support and protection for Berlin. I propose therefore that fol two paras be placed at end of declaration and ltrs to Adenauer and Reuter (urtel 6619) be eliminated:

“The three Powers consider that the new arrangements for mutual security guarantees among the Parties to the NAT, the Parties to the Brussels Pact and the Members of the EDC supersede the assurances contained in the declaration of the three FonMins at NY on Sept 19, 1950.

“The integrity and welfare of Berlin and the maintenance of the position of the three Powers there are regarded by the three Powers as essential elements of the peace of the free world in the present internatl situation. Accordingly they reaffirm that they will treat any attack against their forces in Berlin from any quarter as an attack upon themselves under Art VI of the NAT”.

This procedure will of course require consultation with Adenauer and Reuter. I therefore urge that tripartite agreement be reached rapidly in Paris on text of declaration and that HICOMers be requested to discuss problem with them. In addition to points discussed above it shld be stressed that we agreed to Nov 1951 security guarantee at time when mutual NATO–EDC–Brussels Pact guarantees were not worked out, that FedRep is now as well guaranteed as other Eur countries and that unnecessary duplication of guarantees shld be avoided. Moreover Nov 1951 agreement wld require Senate consent before coming into effect. We are not at all confident that such consent cld be obtained since this guarantee wld duplicate other guarantees already given or being given and furthermore is unlimited as to time (as compared with NAT which is limited by terms of arts 12 and 13). If the Senate refused consent or attached a reservation, the entire package of contractual—EDC–NATO protocol might be delayed indefinitely.

For foregoing reasons request that Brit and Fr, and subsequently Adenauer and Reuter be strongly urged to accept arrangement outlined above. From viewpoint US Govt I doubt that any other course is now possible and I believe that tripartite declaration satisfactorily meets Fr desires for assurance re integrity of EDC and Ger desires for security guarantees.⁵

Acheson

1. Drafted by Calhoun of GPA. Cleared by Lewis of GER, Raymond of L/GER, Bruce, Parsons of EUR, and Acheson. A handwritten notation at the bottom of the source text reads: “approved Acheson”. Repeated to Bonn, London, and Berlin.
2. Summarized in footnote 2, supra.
3. Supra.
4. Not printed; it reported that the British representative to the tripartite drafting committee was still without instructions from the Foreign Office about the maintenance of a unilateral security guarantee for Germany which the French continued to oppose as depriving the contemplated U.S.–U.K. declaration of most of its political purpose and appeal. The matter had been referred to Eden, and the drafting committee would resume its meeting as soon as Eden’s decision was obtained. Meantime, some further work had been done on amending the draft declaration as it stood (740.5/5–152).
5. Further drafting sessions at Paris produced yet another draft tripartite declaration along the lines suggested in telegram 6494 to Paris. This draft tripartite declaration was transmitted to the Department in telegram 6817 from Paris, May 5 (740.5/5–552). The Department responded in telegram 2959 to Bonn, May 6, insisting on the retention of various phrases and paragraphs designed to delimit carefully the extension of U.S. commitments and simplify the declaration of U.S. intent in Berlin in order to ensure Senate approval, and instructing the Office of the High Commissioner to discuss this matter with both Adenauer and Mayor Reuter in concert with French and British officials (662A.00/5–652). Further discussions at Paris and Bonn produced a further redraft of the tripartite declaration contained in telegram 7111 from Paris, May 16, p. 660.