Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, Western European Security, Volume V, Part 2

740.5/12–3054: Telegram

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

confidential
niact

Paris, December 30, 1954—11 a.m.

2742. As reported Embtel 2741² vote on article I Billotte report now embodied in new draft law postponed until 5 p.m. today. In last night’s vote on “project as a whole”, Government won 287–256, or seven less than 38-vote majority on identical issue Monday. Increase of five in hostile votes due primarily to four opposing MRP votes shifted from abstentions. Otherwise vote virtually carbon copy Monday’s results in spite impassioned oratory on both sides. Breakdown shows gain on one ARS vote, and loss of one each in radical, MRP and uninscribed groups. In addition to four more opposing MRP votes, there were two more Social Republicans and one additional Socialist voting against, while one less Radical and one less UDSR voted against.

Following vote last night, before session closed several deputies notably Triboulet (Social Republican) expressed fervent hope France would not be subjected to further humiliation in eyes of world by spectacle of Assembly wrangling over procedural matters and refusing to face up to its responsibilities. Before vote Mendes-France had stated no Frenchman would permit these delays if he had to read reactions in foreign press to sorry figure Assembly was cutting. This latest delay in final vote is clearly due to Communist filibustering and Assembly as whole seems fed up with debate by this time.

Assembly will meet on budget this morning and from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. at which time Letroque[r] intends to open voting immediately. However Communists will try every possible delaying tactic and may succeed in forcing new explanations of vote first on grounds yesterday’s lengthy explanations of vote were directed to double vote of confidence and not to this single issue.

As result Mendes-France outburst mentioned Embtel 2741,³ general fatigue and continued intrigue on part opposition, atmosphere in Assembly is heavy. Barring some new disaster, predictions here are to effect Mendes-France will get less votes for article I than in last night’s vote but will scrape through. Parliamentary correspondents give him from eight to twenty-vote majority.

Letroquer also announced last night that immediately after vote on article I three resolutions pertaining to Paris Agreements will be discussed. These are:

1) Loustaunau-Lacau (Peasant) resolution along lines his amendment which was withdrawn as result pressure from government. It calls for “strict application” Paris Agreements. Meaning is unclear to everyone and since author is a crackpot, it is unlikely we will ever know exactly what he wants.

2) Maurice Faure (Radical Socialist) resolution on arms control agency. Faure feels strongly on this subject and did not introduce formal amendment in debate only because of his feeling agreements must be ratified at once. His resolution may well be passed.

3) Resolution introduced by Pierre Courant (Independent) which we have not seen but we understand relates to Four-Power talks.

Talk on these resolutions may take some time although Letroquer optimistically hopes to get back to budget debate by tonight. Passage these resolutions probably not too serious in sense they have no binding force on government and merely express desire of Assembly. Maurice Faure resolution is of course potentially most troublesome and relates to issue on which considerable feeling has been shown by elements which have supported Mendes-France during debate and which government can use later if it wishes.

Dillon

1. Repeated to Bonn and London.
2. Not printed; it informed the Department of State that parliamentary procedures had forced a postponement on article I of the Billotte report (740.5/12–2954).
3. Telegram 2741 (see footnote 2, above) reported that Mendès-France “who is obviously near breaking point” was the object of an insulting attack by Claudius-Petit of the UDSR who questioned Mendès-France’s good faith and honesty on the Paris Agreements. In reply, Mendès-France indulged in sharp polemics with Claudius-Petit which detracted from the government’s presentation in the Embassy’s opinion.