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

740.5/1–2153: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Embassy in France ¹

secret

Washington, January 24, 1953—4:06 p.m.

4028. Re Paris Embtels 4031,² 4032,³ 4053,⁴ and Polto 1192,⁵ all rptd info Brussels, Rome, The Hague, Bonn, London, and circular infotel sent Bonn, Brussels, The Hague, London, Rome, Jan 22, 1953, 5:00 a.m.⁶

Reference telegrams indicate protocols or interpretive modifications EDC Treaty will be subject of considerable attention by Government of EDC countries in immediate future. Although no definite decision yet reached, EDC Interim Commission may become forum for discussion Treaty protocols, with possibility that matter will be further discussed by Foreign Ministers at February 15 Brussels meeting.

In view above likely that EDC Governments will be seeking comments from U.S. missions regarding our attitude toward protocols to Treaty. Points below have therefore been prepared for your guidance in discussing U.S. attitude toward protocols to Treaty with foreign governments. Guidance at this time confined to general U.S. attitude toward EDC, since specific information not yet available regarding actual proposals by French or others. To extent proposals have so far been made manifest they do not appear to present insuperable difficulties or run counter to essential principles EDC Treaty.

(1) As general principle, U.S. believes in flexible attitude toward minor modifications to EDC Treaty through protocols or interpretations, providing such changes can be accomplished (a) with minimum of delay; (b) without reopening Treaty or Contractuals to actual amendments; (c) without violating essential features of system of six-country integration; (d) without prejudicing German defense contribution; and (e) without leading U.S. public opinion to conclude situation disintegrating.

(2) U.S. not in any sense encouraging modifications to Treaty. Would be best if protocols or interpretations could be confined to French proposals, although realize that some other EDC countries will maintain they also have right to submit protocols. If others insist on protocols of their own, these should be confined to those absolutely essential to ratification. In any case, no protocols should be submitted which will reopen old wounds arising out of Articles which were negotiated after bitter debate.

(3) U.S. not in any sense interfering; modifications in EDC Treaty mainly a matter for Europeans themselves to work out. Must also remember, however, that U.S. involved in two important ways: (a) Some Articles do definitely affect the U.S., such as Article 13 with its NATO implications and requirements for SACEUR approval; and (b) U.S. has already ratified Contractuals and NATO–EDC Protocol, and modifications affecting these agreements would have serious repercussions for U.S. by raising the question of reconsideration by the U.S. Senate. This makes it important as general rule that modifications be worked out in EDC, rather than NATO framework.

(4) Regarding procedure for negotiating protocols, we hope it will be possible for EDC countries to proceed expeditiously, possibly along following lines. If a country must propose protocols, they should be submitted all at one time and prior to opening of negotiations. If Interim Commission becomes forum, it should concentrate solely on task of negotiating protocols. Every effort should be made to complete negotiations before February 15 Foreign Ministers meeting in Brussels so that any unresolved issues can be settled by Ministers.

(5) Highly important that all Governments push steadily ahead with parliamentary and other steps required to obtain ratification. Temptation will be great to hold back and await outcome protocol negotiations. To do so, however, would be to lose valuable time in ratification process, which in most countries must go through a number of preliminary steps before the time of basic decision is arrived at.

As foregoing indicates, no change in basic U.S. policy re EDC. U.S. continues to give fullest support to EDC as best means for strengthening defense of Europe through German contribution and as essential step in Europe’s continued progress toward unity. Inaugural Address and recent Eisenhower statements to Ridgway and Adenauer make this abundantly clear and should be cited as often as possible as conclusive evidence U.S. support of EDC.

After specific proposals have been made, U.S. will be in position consider what if any steps be taken to help promote ratification. However, it is already clear one factor favorable to ratification would be closer British military association with EDF. U.S. attitude continues to be one of encouraging British association with the functional as distinct from constitutional aspects of the Community of Six.

Department would appreciate any information re (a) your country’s attitude toward French protocols or (b) any protocols or interpretive modifications which country itself may propose.⁷

Dulles

1. Drafted by Fessenden, cleared by Perkins, Bonbright, Riddleberger, and Secretary Dulles. Approved for transmission by Parsons. Sent also to Brussels, Rome, The Hague, Bonn, Luxembourg, and repeated to London.
2. Summarized in footnote 5, p. 704.
3. Summarized in footnote 3, supra.
4. Supra.
5. Not printed; it reported a conversation between Draper and Vigeveno of the Dutch NATO Delegation in which Vigeveno stated that he shared the general impression of the Italian and German Delegations that the French intended to go very far in administering French EDC contingents along national lines, that the chief problem was in getting the French and Germans to agree with one another, that the major Dutch concern was continued delay in ratification, that the Italians and especially the French might demand still more changes during their respective Parliamentary debates, that René Mayer had probably made much greater concessions to the RPF than was generally known, and that French plans were to seek to honor such concessions at a later date (740.5/1–2053).
6. Not found in Department of State files.
7. In telegram 4129 from London, Jan. 27, Holmes reported that the United Kingdom concurred generally with the attitudes toward the EDC protocols expressed in the source text, particularly with regard to assuming a flexible attitude on minimum modifications which would not unduly delay ratification (740.5/1–2753).