740.5/8–2054: Telegram
The Ambassador in Belgium (Alger) to the Department of State 1
niact
158. Limit distribution. Mendes-France asked me to see him this afternoon and I called at French Embassy shortly after lunch. Present during conference were also French Ambassador and Sasouse.
Mendes opened conversation by referring to personal message from the Secretary transmitted to him through Andre Mayer by cable from the French Embassy at Washington2 and asking that I convey to the Secretary his appreciation of the Secretary’s complimentary statements regarding his recent efforts.
Mendes then gave a brief résumé of the course of the conference and said that, while it might be possible to arrive at some agreement, the prospects at present were not good. He said, therefore, that in anticipation of possible failure he felt that the US, UK and French should consider what measures or action could be taken to minimize possible damage to western unity and to show continued solidarity. He emphasized this was matter of immediate importance and not something for next month or next week. He said he was ready and willing to join in any such steps but he had nothing definite in mind. Asked whether he envisaged joint declaration, he repeated that he had no proposals to offer.
Mendes then said that, prior to conference and at time when he had not even considered possibility of failure, he had envisaged talks with the UK and US after the conference to take stock of the situation and see what should be done next. He said that he had made arrangements before conference to stop off in England for a few hours on way back to Paris to see Winston Churchill at Chequers. He said he believed [Page 1057] Churchill had been in touch with American Ambassador in London to arrange that latter be present at meeting in order to have US participation.
He gave impression of being very pessimistic regarding outcome of conference. Referring to Spaak proposal presented at conference this morning (which called for declaration of principles outlining points to be made subject for discussion between EDC partners after French ratification with view to possible amendment of treaty), he said he had only brief look at document and expected to study the proposal with his assistants prior to meeting this afternoon. His preliminary reaction was that declaration would not be acceptable to National Assembly as it did not have juridical status and would not be binding. He said that right to ask for amendment of treaty after ratification need not be embodied in declaration of principles as this right was already provided in treaty itself. He said that he had made all concessions this morning and his EDC partners had conceded nothing and that he could not return to National Assembly empty handed. He believed that he would probably have majority for the treaty if his proposed protocol were approved by conference, but that without agreement upon his proposals by his EDC partners, he could not obtain ratification. He realized that the other EDC countries had good reasons for their objections to his proposals and he could not blame them but they did not seem to be sufficiently aware of his problem with respect to National Assembly. He said that his proposals actually represented “new things” added to treaty and that only these, and not entire EDC treaty, would have to be submitted to Parliaments. He did not think Parliamentary approval other EDC countries would take a long time.
When he spoke of unwillingness of his EDC partners to accept his proposals even though he had made many concessions, I pointed out that his proposals had not made US Government happy. In reply to my query, he said that he was aware US Government views in this regard.
I asked him whether he expected to present EDC treaty to National Assembly in event Brussels conference failed. He said that he could not answer that question as this was decision for his Cabinet. He spoke of likelihood of “excitement” in France if Brussels conference failed and the damage that would be done. When I reminded him that it was my impression that feeling in US was that decision should be reached in any event in order to avoid continued delay, and that it would be preferable to have decision one way or other rather than present uncertainty, Mendes replied that decision regarding EDC would be made here in Brussels if conference failed and not in National Assembly in Paris.
I inquired whether in event failure Brussels conference individual members National Assembly would not make reappraisal their positions [Page 1058] and that of France with view to avoiding situation where France would be isolated. Mendes replied that on contrary reappraisal would be unfavorable rather than favorable in relation to EDC partners and blame would be on them for failure to meet French difficulties.
I asked whether in the event EDC were not ratified by National Assembly French Government would make reappraisal of its policies in order to see what solution might be found. He said that many courses were possible but he was not considering them at present. He did not elaborate.
Asked whether he expected the conference to end soon, he enigmatically replied that it might end this afternoon, tomorrow or Sunday.
At end of conversation we agreed to answer any press queries regarding our meeting by stating Mendes wished to keep US Government informed progress of conference and conversation devoted to this subject. We learn that French delegation press officer informed press in advance of our meeting but both Mendes and French Ambassador said they were not aware that meeting had been publicized.3
- Repeated to Paris for Bruce and to London, Bonn, Rome, The Hague, and Luxembourg.↩
- See telegram 632 to Paris, Aug. 19, p. 1049.↩
- In telegram 185 to Brussels, Aug. 20, Dulles stated: “Only message regarding EDC which I have sent to Mendes-France in past few days was authorization to mutual friend to communicate to Mendes-France discussion I had with former on this subject August 18”. Dulles then proceeded to quote copiously from the memorandum of conversation he had dictated at the time of his visit with André Mayer (telegram 632, p. 1049). Dulles concluded by stating: “If Mendes-France has already received this expression of my thoughts through intermediary with such surprising rapidity and if it is to this conversation that he refers, I am at a loss to understand construction apparently being placed upon it. You are authorized in your discretion to inform delegations including French of general content of above quoted conversation and fact that I have dispatched no other recent message to Mendes-France on this subject”. (740.5/8–2054)↩