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

740.5/3–1754: Telegram

The Ambassador in France ( Dillon ) to the Department of State ¹

secret
niact

Paris , March 17, 1954—1 p.m.

3393. Limit distribution. Alphand came to see me this afternoon at Bidault’s request to avoid publicity of another visit by me to Quai d’Orsay. He said that Bidault was very pleased with substance of US assurances.² However, after careful consideration they would like to make following observations as to ways in which document could be improved from their point of view without any change in substance.

1. Omission of phrase in last sentence of paragraph 3 [4] dealing with scars left by age-old conflicts of Europe and rewording of that sentence approximately as follows: “I am convinced that the coming into force of the EDC treaty will provide a realistic basis for consolidating Western defenses and will contribute to an ever-developing Atlantic community”.

2. The omission of the first sentence of unnumbered paragraph 4 [5], beginning “The US is confident that …” Bidault feels that this sentence would be interpreted as bringing undue personal pressure by the President on the French Assembly and cause resentment. Alphand suggested second sentence could then be reworded to start “When the European Defense Community treaty comes into force …” (Comment: The United States administration is very often accused here, particularly by Socialists, as in fact being opposed to European community and wishing EDC only as a device to rearm Germany. This first sentence admirably restates longstanding US position on Europe and we recommend that the idea stated in it not be omitted. According to Alphand, Bidault is concerned primarily with eliminating the idea of pressure in the words “The United States is confident that nations concerned will proceed promptly.” Bruce and I leave it to Department whether this aspect of sentence can be changed in view of fact date for ratification debate will already be fixed before statement is made public.)

3. Change the order of paragraphs, moving present paragraph 4 up to paragraph 2, after which present paragraph 2 would become paragraph 3 and present paragraph 3 would become paragraph 4.

4. Bidault also hopes that the new paragraph 2 could then be introduced by a linking word such as “therefore” or “consequently”. (Comment: We do not recommend such a linking word be inserted. I specifically discouraged Alphand on the possibility of inserting such a word as I told him that I thought it might mean a change in substance.)

5. To omit in present paragraph 4, i.e. new paragraph 2, the words “The Commissariat of”. Alphand pointed out that it is clear that the Commissariat does not have full responsibility for levels of armed forces and to specify the Commissariat in this paragraph might well cause unnecessary argument in the National Assembly about the respective powers of the Commissariat and the Council of Ministers.

6. Alphand then rather apologetically added that Maurice Schumann had asked him to say that he was not particularly happy with the last sentence of paragraph 6. He felt that the statement would be better if this paragraph were omitted. Alphand expressly stated that Bidault had made no request regarding paragraph 6, with which he was perfectly satisfied. We recommend no action be taken on this suggestion.

After discussion with Bruce, we both feel that the changes suggested by Bidault in paragraphs 1, 3, and 5 of this message do not represent any request for a change in substance. We recommend that these changes be made if changes are possible in light of your consultations in Washington.

Reference Deptel 3186.³ Alphand states that Bidault fully understands substance paragraphs 2 and 3.⁴

Dillon

1. Repeated to Bonn and London.
2. Reference is to text in telegram 3067 to Paris, Mar. 6, p. 892, as amended by telegram 3091, Mar. 9, p. 896.
3. Not printed; it informed the Embassy in France inter alia of the Department of State’s concern that Bidault understand (a) that United States assurances would be in the form of simultaneous letters to the Prime Ministers of the EDC countries and (b) that an obligation existed to Congress to obtain a definite French commitment as to the time of the ratification debate before the text of the assurances could be made public (740.5/3–1554).
4. In a memorandum to Dulles of Mar. 18, Merchant recommended approval of the changes requested by Bidault in the source text with the exception of (a) the omission of the first sentence of the fifth unnumbered paragraph whose deletion was deemed unwise in light of Congressional consultation which had taken place, and (b) linking of the first two numbered paragraphs, as suggested in numbered paragraph 4 of the source text, which Merchant opposed “because it is a change in substance, and we have in any case already helped meet the French point by re-arranging the order of paragraphs” (740.5/3–1854). The following day, Dulles submitted to President Eisenhower a revised text of the United States assurances which had taken into account those changes desired by Bidault which had met Merchant’s approval. In a covering memorandum, Dulles informed the President that Dillon, Hughes, and Bruce “have recommended that we accept those of the French suggestions which do not alter the substance of the statement”, and he recommended Presidential approval which was indicated on the memorandum by the words “OK, DE”, and by a memorandum for the Secretary of State by Presidential Secretary Ann C. Whitman, Mar. 20, 1954 (740.5/3–1954). In telegram 3536 to Paris, Apr. 7, the Embassy in France was informed of the Presidential approval of the changes in the proposed statement of assurances as well as the reasons for the disapproval of several of Bidault’s requests (740.5/4–654). In telegram 3794 from Paris, Apr. 8, Dillon reported that he had given the changes in the text of the assurances to Alphand who had then stated that as the schedule stood, the British statement of assurances would be made on Apr. 14, the French Cabinet would set the date of ratification debate on Apr. 15, and that, therefore, the text of the U.S. assurances should be released no later than Apr. 17 (740.5/4–854). For the text of the message sent by President Eisenhower to the Prime Ministers of the six nations signatory to the European Defense Community Treaty, entitled “U.S. Assurances Concerning EDC”, released by the White House on Apr. 16, see Department of State Bulletin, Apr. 26, 1954, pp. 619–620.