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

740.5/8–1754: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Embassy in Belgium ¹

top secret

Washington, August 17, 1954—7:16 p.m.

173. For Bruce. Subject is French proposals for EDC modifications.

Although detailed consideration French proposals primarily matter for EDC countries at Brussels meeting Department believes it important General US views on proposals should be made very clear both to French and other EDC countries. Accordingly following statement US views has been prepared in amplification Edcol 10² for use us Ambassadors all addressee capitals in discussing French proposals with Governments which accredited.

In general Department feels French proposals are open following basic criticisms:

(1) Many if not most involve basic modifications of Treaty requiring reconsideration by Parliaments which have ratified. Such reconsideration can only result in unacceptable delay.

(2) French proposals water down postpone or virtually eliminate supra-national features EDC. This has effect in certain respects of giving German EDC force status tending toward that of German national army, which would be disturbing to those in France and elsewhere whose primary concern is danger uncontrolled German rearmament. On other hand elimination or emasculation supra-national features in certain cases gives French, Germans, or any other nation virtual veto over important EDC decisions.

(3) French proposals contain several serious discriminations against Germans. Certainty out of question attempt impose anything on Germans more discriminatory than appeared in original draft. Aside from our objections to principle involved such proposals pose cruel dilemma for Adenauer whose position in Germany of such fundamental importance to West.

(4) Certain of French proposals raise fundamental questions relationship EDC to US, UK and NATO.

US representatives will probably not become involved in detailed discussion French proposals but if specific items are discussed arguments used Coled 18³ can be used.⁴

Dulles

1. Drafted by Fessenden; cleared by Merchant and Tyler. Sent also to Paris, The Hague, London, Rome, Luxembourg, and Bonn.
2. Dated Aug. 16, p. 1042.
3. Not printed, but see footnote 2, p. 1039.
4. In telegram 131 from Brussels, Aug. 19, Alger reported that Bruce had discussed the U.S. position outlined in the source text with Spaak at lunch the previous day. This was presumably the same meeting reported upon in part in telegram 128, infra. Alger added that the United States position had also been made known to De Staercke and Rothschild subsequently. “Rothschild observed that Belgian Government fully agreed with first three points our position regarding French proposals but added that British position as conveyed to Belgians was certainly much less opposed to proposals.” Both Rothschild and De Staercke characterized the British reaction as paradoxical; opposing modifications which would require resubmission of the treaty to Parliaments, while simultaneously calling on EDC countries to in effect accept the substance of the French proposals as a means of obtaining French ratification” (740.5/8–1954).