751.00/6–454: Telegram
No. 637
The Ambassador in France (Dillon) to the
Department of State1
4720. We are impressed by growing sentiment among parliamentarians and qualified observers, including Jacques Fauvet of Le Monde, that not only is fall of Laniel government imminent but that prospects for dissolution have increased. Gazier and Pineau (Socialists) told us at the beginning of week that in their opinion unless something is forthcoming from Geneva by the time current Indochina debate closes government will not survive that crisis. This conclusion is widely shared and even more optimistic observers think that if Government survives Indochina debate it will only be on basis of some negative ordre du jour which will simply serve to put off the crisis for a week or so. After that government will be upset on one of number of other issues if not on Indochina itself again.
[Page 1415]We can find little reason to disagree with these prognostications. Certainly Laniel himself has worn his reserves and good will very thin. Assembly is tired of the old reasons for giving the Government breathing spell—“France cannot be without a Government while she is negotiating at Bermuda, Berlin, Geneva” and, they ask, “What other reason is there?” News that Laniel’s brother, Senator Rene Laniel, is involved in some questionable financial transactions has not enhanced the Prime Minister’s present prestige either. In addition, L’Express incident resulting in Jacquet’s resignation and contributing to difficulties of choosing new Commander-in-Chief for Indochina have all served to discredit Government and increase parliamentary impatience.
One factor which is said to have made it possible for Government to survive its recent votes of confidence has been that prospects for forming new government were slim and any crisis would be prolonged. They remain slim. There is talk of an Edgar Faure, a Mendes-France or a Pinay government but no evidence that matters have advanced beyond the “feeler” stage.
L’Express article claiming that Faure was well advanced in forming government has been largely discredited and resulted in little but a L’Express–Faure feud now receiving attention press. It has not helped Faure. On the other hand, Mendes-France is always a good contender particularly now when he is enjoying prestige of having been right in the sense of “I told you so” on Indochina. Pinay’s prospects are temporarily sidetracked for simple reason that he is ill with jaundice.
While government crisis appears to be in offing and prospects for formation of new government have not improved, prospect of dissolution is becoming more accepted. At dinner June 2 Jacques Fauvet, Chamant and Duchet (Independent Deputy and Senator) devoted evening to detailed study of Assembly membership by departments in order determing prospects for independents “in the forthcoming elections”.
In considering latter prospect, it is recalled that Article 52 of the constitution states that general elections must take place at least 20 days and at most 30 days after dissolution and that new Assembly meets with full powers on third Thursday following such general elections. Therefore not impossible that with dissolution prolongation of period when France is without government (and Assembly) might conceivably be shorter than without dissolution and prolonged crisis. While it is difficult to prognosticate regarding results of general elections, there is no reason to expect that a chamber elected now would be any less favorable to US policies and objectives than present one and there are reasons to hope that a new chamber would be considerably more favorable to European unity [Page 1416] and to EDC than present chamber. (In recent by-elections pro-European, pro-EDC candidates have won and many competent observers believe that in general elections bitter end opponents of EDC on the right would lose out and a new National Assembly would immediately face up to the EDC and ratify it by a substantial majority.)
In any case, next hump is outcome current Indochina debate, now expected for June 9, when shape of things to come should be more clearly outlined.
- Repeated to Geneva.↩