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

740.5/2–1253: Telegram

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

secret
priority

Paris, February 12, 1953—1 a.m.

4503. Limit distribution. Subject is European Defense Community.

This cable transmits report of meeting of heads of EDC delegations held this afternoon.¹ Translation of note submitted at meeting by French containing their proposed protocols is forwarded in immediately following three cables.²

1. Alphand opened meeting by reaffirming intention of French Government to ratify treaty. He explained that need to interpret and to clarify treaty before ratification arose mainly because of problems resulting from France’s defense responsibilities in Indochina and other non-European territories.

2. He stressed that proposals of French Government would not be inconsistent with the spirit or the letter of the treaty.

(a) Protocol on interchangeability of personnel was needed for rotation of officers and NCO’s between EDC contingents and national forces needed for Indochina and other non-European defense responsibilities. France was faced with situation of fact, and practical means to conserve rank and privileges of personnel were required. He stressed that it was not intended that rotation be extensive unless required by crisis situation such as Indochina.

Alphand said that after recruitment French personnel would be divided into European contingents and national contingents. He stressed that instruction, discipline and training of European contingents would be same in every respect as contingents from other EDC countries. European contingents of French origin would be subject to European statutes as soon as they are drawn up just as other contingents. He pointed out that French proposals are based on and are entirely consistent with Article 10(5), Article 31, and Article 11 of military protocol.

(b) Alphand’s comments on Article 13 are being reported tomorrow in separate message.³

(c) Protocol on extension of weighted voting under Article 43 bis stems from theoretical, if not psychological, considerations. After passing cut-off date set in Article 43 bis, France may be called on to make substantial defense contributions outside of the EDC reducing her EDC contribution. French Government must show that provisions of 43 bis are extended to take care of such a contingency.

(d) Protocol on schools designed to demonstrate that EDF schools can be used by French national forces, since clearly France cannot afford to maintain a military school system separate from the EDF schools. He said financial consequences would have to be worked out.

(e) Article 107 protocol was merely to clarify right which France has under the treaty to produce, import and export armaments for use in connection with defense of overseas territories.

(f) Article 75 protocol was also only to make more explicit fact that until European mobilizations plans are drawn up by the commissariat, national plans remain in effect.

3. Two other points on which French wish decisions before ratification are following:

(a) Question of status of non-German EDC forces stationed in Germany. Preliminary discussions have already been held on this problem. Final decision should be subject of a project d’accord between Federal Republic and EDC Commissariat.

(b) Procedures for handling end-item aid from United States destined for EDC contingents.

4. Alphand continued that he knew other delegations wished to know if these were the only requests French had to make. On this he could give no final answer. Each government must make its own judgment on the basis of its own parliamentary situation. He assured other delegations that if any additional texts were submitted by France, they would also be within letter and spirit of treaty.

In quick succession, other delegations said they were willing to be of assistance but insisted on basic principle that protocols must not change or modify the treaty. De Staercke and Van Starkenborgh in particular took very strong position that French must adhere to promise in Bidault’s letter repeated in expose Alphand had just made and must not upset delicate balance in treaty which was reached only after long and difficult negotiation. Von Kessel, German delegate, pointed out that he recognized and appreciated position French were in, but that French must also recognize problems which existed in Germany, underlining need of keeping discussions and protocols in a completely “European” context. Lombardo, for Italians, reaffirmed what other delegates had said, pointing out that Italy has submitted treaty to Parliament with intention of pushing ratification through as rapidly as possible and that proposals must not complicate situation in Italy.

5. De Staercke raised uniform length of service question. His government felt that this question could no longer be avoided, and that it could not ratify treaty until it was able to give Parliament a clear indication of its commitments. Other delegations unanimously expressed their willingness to consider De Staercke’s request.

6. On a different subject, Hoyer Millar, for United Kingdom, stated that United Kingdom proposal on military association dealt with only the technical military aspects of British EDC association, and did not cover political association, on which he expected to have something later. He said that text was tentative only, and not final, and that United Kingdom was prepared to modify or change its proposal if discussions indicated this desirable.

7. Next meeting of Directing Committee scheduled Friday, February 20. Delegations hope to have discussed protocols sufficiently with their governments to permit them to make fair amount of progress before Ministers’ meeting in Rome on 24th.

8. All delegations agreed that protocols and discussions should be kept absolutely secret and that nothing should be said to press.

Dunn

1. In telegram 4462 from Paris, Feb. 10, Dunn had reported that he had accepted Alphand’s invitation to attend the closed meeting of the heads of delegations of the EDC Interim Committee at which the French protocols were to be presented (740.5/2–1053). The EDC Interim Committee had been created by protocol at the time of the signing of the EDC Treaty in May 1952 in order to act as a steering and coordinating body during the interim period between Treaty signing and full ratification by all member nations. See editorial note, p. 684. The Interim Committee established its own subcommittees to deal with the various problems that emerged during the interim period. Further documentation on the detailed workings of the Interim Committee may be found in the Bruce Mission files, lot 57 M 38. See editorial note, p. 734.
2. Telegrams 4504, 4505, 4506, and 4509, infra, pp. 722, 724, and 725, respectively.
3. See telegram 4508, Feb. 12, p. 726.