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

740.5/5–1252: Circular telegram

The Secretary of State to Certain Diplomatic Offices ¹

secret
priority

Washington, May 12, 1952—7:25 p.m.

941. 1. Re Paris tel 6968 May 11² and subj to qualification in para 2 below, request all recipients this tel support at every opportunity timetable for Contractual–EDC–NATO Protocol finalization set forth paras 1 and 2. Agree most important not to let slip May 19 date for EDC Mins mtg. Rome pls express great appreciation special arrangements made by De Gasperi at most awkward time for him.

2. Pending results of mtgs and negotiations taking place this week Paris and Bonn and in view of various questions involved in visit by Secy to Strasbourg during Council of Mins mtg, we do not wish to make any commitment now re his willingness to go there. If in end some issues do have to go to mins before Contractuals can be signed, it may be preferable urge tripartite talks Paris 21st and quadripartite 22nd. Additional advantage wld be to allow one more day before deadline of 24th is reached (a) for govt approval final text of Contractuals as fixed by mins, and (b) for tech work of engrossing documents for signature. (In referring here to tripartite talks we mean any talks which may be needed to reach common position before seeing Adenauer rather than talks on gen subjs envisaged para 4 Deptel to Paris 6490 May 3, 3 rptd Bonn 291³, London 5676. Latter talks cld be fitted in at time which proves mutually most convenient.)

3. Re para 3 reftel, we hope non-EDC NATO countries will not take too legalistic view of Lisbon res (C9–D/19⁴) and insist on close scrutiny entire text and annexes. In effect, they approved gen principles at Lisbon. In our view primary interest of NATO countries is in Protocols on relations EDC to NATO and on EDC guarantee to NATO. They shld already be familiar with these in view of NAC consideration at Lisbon and recently. If they were to have two weeks from May 21 to study EDC Treaty before signing NATO Protocol it wld prevent signature of EDC and NATO Protocol as one package with Sec present and make impossible Senate ratification NATO Protocol this session. We believe EDC and NATO members understand and share our view of importance ratification of Contractual and NATO Protocol by Congress this session.

4. Fail understand why Brit have pressed Draper give non-EDC countries two weeks to study final text of Treaty especially as Brit Amb submitted to us May 10 proposed schedule which differs from this. London pls clarify Brit position. In our view four days shld be ample for non-EDC countries to review limited number changes in text which may result from EDC Mins mtg. They will of course already have had from May 13 to 21st to review text as initialled.

5. In later tel will advise Sec’s itinerary and dates.

6. For Paris Only. There are two aspects of this timetable which we find disturbing. Reftel indicates four principals wld be in Strasbourg thru 24th and yet Contractual signatures are to take place that day in Bonn. We are not clear as to just what Schuman, Eden and Adenauer have to do in Strasbourg 24th or which days before that they have to be there. Do any of these mins have to arrive 21st, which was impression given us some time ago? Wld be helpful to have soonest confirmation in some detail of Council of Mins schedule with indication which days Eden, Schuman and Adenauer must be there.

Our more serious worry arises from possibility Secy might have to leave here before knowing whether EDC Mins mtg had resolved all difficulties or resulted in impasse. It is awkward enough to contemplate possibility Secy may have to leave before all difficulties re Contractuals have been resolved but we are most nervous about his being committed to trip before we know if EDC problems are settled and signature assured. In view of this wld appreciate if Dunn cld explore with EDC Dels to see if any possibility mins mtg might conclude May 20th.⁵

Acheson

1. Drafted by Parsons of RA, cleared with Perkins, Lewis, Jessup, and Bruce. Sent to Brussels, Ottawa, Copenhagen, Paris for Dunn and Draper, and to Rome, The Hague, Oslo, Lisbon, London, Athens, Ankara, Luxembourg, Reykjavik, and Bonn.
2. Not printed; it reported that the heads of the EDC conference delegations were all agreed that the earliest feasible date for the EDC Ministers meeting was May 19, that Eden apparently could not get away from London earlier than May 24 and De Gasperi could not be in Paris before May 26, and that therefore, the “most feasible schedule” would be one in which the contractuals would be signed in Bonn, May 24, and the EDC Treaty and EDC–NATO protocols signed in Paris on May 26. It added that Ismay, “Canadians, Norwegians and British have pressed Draper strongly to give non-EDC NATO countries up to two weeks after final EDC treaty is available to consult their govts before signing EDC–NATO protocol” (740.5/5–1152).
3. Ante, p. 652.
4. Dated Feb. 22, p. 252.
5. In telegram 7035 from Paris, May 14, Dunn reported inter alia that at a meeting of the EDC conference Steering Committee on May 13, Alphand had outlined in some detail the timetable for finalizing the EDC Treaty and related agreements while stressing the importance to the United States of holding to such a schedule. All delegations accepted May 19 as the date for the EDC Ministers meeting which would carry through, if necessary, to May 21. “He commented that he hoped contractuals might be signed at Bonn May 24 or 25 and that EDC treaty cld be signed in Paris May 26 or 27” (740.5/5–1452).