740.5/4–554: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Embassy in France 1
Edcol 102. 1. Secretary today opened Mutual Security Presentation with public appearance before House Foreign Affairs Committee. EDC aspects summarized below for your background information:2
2. In prepared statement Secretary pointed out importance EDC to NATO. Emphasized NATO needs both German contribution and Franco-German unity. EDC was French proposal for accomplishing these ends. Two years since EDC Treaty signed. Netherlands, Belgium, and FedRep so far have ratified; Luxembourg may act very soon. In France and Italy parliamentary process not yet begun, but early date may soon be set. Secretary then went on to say: “These delays constitute a negative factor from the standpoint of the free world. They delay the capacity of NATO to draw on Germans for building the strength needed to implement NATO’s forward strategy. Also they prevent West Germany from joining the family of sovereign free nations. This is because the treaties to restore sovereignty to the West German Republic are by their terms contingent on EDC coming into force. There is, of course, a duly elected West German Government. But it is not yet a sovereign government.
It is obvious that the present status cannot continue much longer.”
3. In question period following statements, Secretary was asked for forecast on EDC. Secretary replied that there was hope, with some basis, that in France date will be set at beginning of Easter recess for Assembly debate to take place latter part of May. He pointed out that [Page 927] French authorities have not yet taken final decision. In Italy Cabinet has drafted bill necessary to put treaty into force and has indicated willingness make matter vote of confidence.
In response to question as to what US could do to assure success EDC, Secretary replied that there was little we should do at this time and certainly should exert no pressure. Only coercion involved is that of hard facts. Secretary felt confident that result of failure of EDC so grave that those with whom decision rests cannot do otherwise than approve.
4. No questions asked on Richards Amendment, and Secretary did not cover subject. Will cable later on this aspect.3
- Drafted by Fessenden. Repeated to Bonn, Brussels, The Hague, Rome, London, and Luxembourg.↩
- For the text of Dulles’ statement and the questions and answers that followed, see U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Hearings Before the Committee on Foreign Relations … on the Mutual Security Act of 1954 (Washington, 1954), pp. 1. ff.↩
- On Apr. 7 the Department of State reported further on the hearings in telegram Edcol 103 to Paris, 740.5/4–754, stating that Stassen had testified against reenactment of the Richards amendment. For the text of Stassen’s testimony, see ibid., pp. 27 ff. On the following day, the Administration’s bill was presented to the Committee without the amendment, in the firm belief that the EDC would come into being.↩