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

740.5/2–2753: Telegram

The United States Observer to the Interim Committee of the European Defense Community (Bruce) to the Department of State ¹

secret
priority

Paris, February 27, 1953—4 p.m.

Coled 1. Subject is European Defense Community—Council of Ministers meeting in Rome.

1. Alphand gave very brief report of discussion in EDC interim committee on protocols, indicating that agreement had been reached on number of protocols but that important differences in views still exist.

2. Adenauer then gave very long speech emphasizing great and immediate danger of Soviet threat and urgent necessity for defense preparations. He said information available to German security services on large-scale preparations by Russians was in complete accord with information available to United States services. He apparently referred to figure of 220 divisions in Russia alone, with buildup substantially completed, plus a substantial buildup of satellite forces. Chancellor said that Soviets could rely upon satellite countries. He also referred to substantial number of bridges in place across Vistula for military purposes and to near completion of double lines of communication from Russia. (Alphand believes picture Chancellor painted is far too bland and is at variance with NATO information. He has asked us to review notes on Chancellor’s remarks this afternoon. We hope to cable exact information at that time). Chancellor then made a very impressive run-down of all the meetings held by western powers to prepare defense of west and to make possible a German contribution. He said that at time when satisfactory agreements had been reached by all concerned, entire issue and security of entire western world had been placed in doubt by new request for protocols from French Government. Not only were protocols in flat contradiction to initiative of French Government itself and to effective defense of Europe but that this unexplained unilateral action had compromised problem of ratification in other EDC countries. Chancellor firmly insisted that EDC treaty had to be ratified quickly by all concerned as it is. There was no alternative. Continental countries had to settle their differences and to make possible a single, strong defense force in Europe supported willingly by all EDC partners or United States and England would be forced to prepare their defense on basis of peripheral strategy.

3. Bidault was clearly angry at Chancellor’s remarks. He made equally flat statement that protocols were not in any way inconsistent with EDC treaty. He said that if situation was as grave as Chancellor claimed, why not accept these interpretative protocols in interest of all concerned so that ratification of EDC treaty could proceed.

4. Van Zeeland intervened at this point to underline that difficulties of ratification in France were facts which had to be met and resolved. He said France did have problems in meeting her defense responsibilities outside Europe and other European countries certainly wished to have France in position to meet those responsibilities. He believed that protocols had been substantially improved from their original form and thought perhaps other ministers not aware of progress made. He was certain that protocols could be brought in line with EDC treaty and still provide France with flexibility she needed. De Gasperi made a few conciliatory remarks and supported Chancellor’s comments on difficulties for ratification created by French action. Beyen did likewise and underlined that EDC countries had to show themselves capable of common action. If not, from his six years’ experience in US, he was certain Americans would lose patience.

5. At next morning’s meeting, to everyone’s surprise Bidault made very reasonable and positive statement in reply to Chancellor. He said flatly that French Govt would continue its European policy. French Government would proceed with ratification of treaty even if its request for protocols were rejected by other EDC countries. He hoped, however, that other EDC countries would help France accomplish common objective of ratification by giving their agreement to French requests. He underlined repeatedly that France is not asking for anything that is not an interpretation and clarification of EDC treaty. France wished to observe letter and spirit of treaty. Unfortunately, Bidault then apparently proceeded into a schoolmaster dissertation on problems and responsibilities of France throughout world, ending on very nationalistic note and dispelling part of improved atmosphere created by his first remarks.

6. Other five ministers quickly replied to Bidault that they were prepared to help France secure ratification. Each stated his government would be prepared to accept protocols if they were changed to observe “letter and intent” of EDC treaty.

7. All of ministers suported Chancellor’s remarks on urgency of ratification and participated in criticism of France for having made ratification problems difficult in other countries. De Gasperi recalled experience of French-Italian customs union, where subsequent requests for changes had led to no action. De Gasperi indicated he planned to complete ratification in Lower House by April 1. Adenauer said he would complete Bundestag third reading by March 15, no matter what decision was taken by Karlsruhe Court. Dutch also spoke of intent to complete ratification in Lower House by end of March. French remarked that whether or not protocols should be submitted to Parliaments along with EDC treaty should be decided by each country in accordance with its constitutional procedures.

8. Van Zeeland summed up discussions on EDC by instructing EDC interim committee to reach quick agreement on protocols “along lines of EDC treaty”. This language dismayed other delegations except French. However, De Staercke assures us that he and other heads of delegations will interpret instructions of Council of Ministers to work out protocols in accordance with “letter and intent” of present treaty.

9. Unfortunately, when an effort was made to work out a communiqué, the task was given to officials of Quai d’Orsay other than Alphand. These officials created new suspicions of French by vetoing all efforts of other delegations to put any positive note in communiqué.

10. Nearly everyone concerned is pleased with results of Rome discussions on EDC. Conflict between Adenauer and Bidault had been awaited with considerable misgiving. Ministers’ discussions did not clear up any of the disagreements on language of protocols but it should improve atmosphere of discussions in EDC interim committee. Most encouraging note is feeling that French Government by Bidault’s remarks is now much more committed to proceed with ratification and that continued discussions will involve French more and more in a situation from which there is no possibility of postponement or escape.

11. Above is constructed entirely from conversations with officials in attendance. We hope to obtain minutes of discussions later.

Bruce

1. Repeated to Bonn, Luxembourg, The Hague, Brussels, Rome, and London.