The Ambassador in France (Bruce) to the
Department of State
4699. 1. Fol is report on tripartite meeting on Ger security controls Sat afternoon at FonMin. Parodi opened meeting with review of progress of negots between Fr and Gers on security controls agrmt. Last apparent step forward had been Berard–Hallstein conv of Jan 7 (see Deptel 4120, Jan 172). Hallstein had assented that EDC agrmt was not sufficient and that Ger declaration or Ger-Allied agrmt wld be acceptable providing that restriction be made temporary, that they be justified by exposed Ger position, and that scientific research, merchant marine and construction of civil aircraft not be restricted. Since then, further Fr approaches to FedRep have been treated evasively.
2. Parodi reiterated his govt
does not feel EDC security
guarantees sufficient to satisfy Fr public opinion that Ger menace will be removed. He then
brought forward proposal that Ger
make declaration on lines of fol Fr draft which wld be attached to
contractual agrmt between FedRep
and 3 powers. He pointed out that Art 26 of Ger basic law gave FedRep full powers to enforce any required security [Page 8] restrictions. Fol is
translation of Fr proposed protocol to be annexed to contractual
4. [sic] Fol Parodi’s reading, discussion was limited to procedure, and substance of restrictions in quoted proposal was not discussed. Brit rep stated strong feeling of his govt that FedRep wld not accept such statement as part of contractual agrmt. He referred to Jan 22 meeting between HICOM and Adenauer in which Adenauer, in Brit opinion, made abundantly clear his stand.3 Brit member had instructions from his govt to return to original Brit proposal that declaration he made by FedRep at the same time as contractual convention but formally independent of convention. I stated that, from what info we had, it was also our impression that attempts to get security agrmt into contractual convention wld be fruitless. At this point, Parodi said disparingly that he did not know what to do next.[Page 9]
5. I thereupon suggested we rely on judgment of HICOM who are closer to sit and can better judge Ger temper. I mentioned second possibility of relying EDC control. Parodi pointed out that here question arises, which is concern to Fr, whether commissariat of EDC can discriminate against Ger in framework of community. I suggested that perhaps discrimination cld be supported by specific or implied ref in EDC treaty to Ger unilateral declaration if latter is determined to be effectively binding.
Brit member said they agreed with Fr that some form of security guarantee was necessary, and problem was on question of form. Parodi then asked me if unilateral declaration by Ger on such matters as atomic weapons control would satisfy us. I said, so far as I knew, this would probably be sufficient.
6. We had evidently reached impasse with Brit member maintaining his govt’s stand that only practicable solution was to permit Ger unilateral declaration outside convention, and Parodi saying this was unacceptable to his govt. Brit member then proposed awaiting next meeting Tues between HICOM and Adenauer to see if any progress is made on Fr proposal. If problem not resolved, cld then ask Adenauer to make counterproposal which wld be sufficiently binding on FedRep to satisfy Fr. Parodi assented to this.4
- Repeated to Bonn and London.↩
- Not printed.↩
- McCloy had reported on Jan. 23 that in the meeting the preceding day Adenauer had stated that the EDC discussions in Paris had produced a satisfactory formula on security safeguards and hence there was no need to discuss them in Bonn. When pressed by François-Poncet. Adenauer stated further that the Allies would never find a Chancellor who would sign a discriminatory armaments declaration. (Telegram 1224 from Bonn, 262.0041/1–2352)↩
- For a report on the High Commissioners discussion with Adenauer on Feb. 5, see telegram 1437, infra.↩