Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, Germany and Austria, Volume VII, Part 2

762.022/3–1754: Telegram

No. 673
The United States Representative to the European Coal and Steel Community (Bruce) to the Department of State¹

secret
priority

Paris, March 17, 1954—8 p.m.

Coled 190. Limited distribution.

1. At yesterday’s meeting on Saar Blankenhorn gave Francois-Poncet a new draft statement of principles prepared on Blankenhorn’s own responsibility.² We are pouching copies today to Merchant, Conant and Aldrich.³ With only a few significant exceptions noted below, this new German paper is very close to Council of Europe Report⁴ as approved in February and in one or two instances even makes concessions to French beyond those already accepted by Germans in Council of Europe Committee. In particular, it withdraws from almost all the bargaining positions which still remained in German statement presented to Maurice Schumann by Hallstein and transmitted Coled 176.⁵

2. New German paper appears to depart from Council of Europe solution in only three major important respects:

(a) On economic problem, German paper reproduces in substance the compromise agreed to by Council of Europe Committee. However, it provides in addition that equal economic access for Germany to Saar as defined in paragraph 12 of Council of Europe Report shall be brought about within two years of effective date Saar statute. In discussing this addition with Francois-Poncet, Blankenhorn admitted Germans willing bargain about length of period but felt need for some assurance that equal access would be accomplished within a given period. German paper also adds provision that new Franco-Saar economic treaty must be agreed by Germans.

(b) Provisions paragraph 19 Council of Europe Report re US, UK, French and FedRep guarantee of statute completely omitted (for reasons see Coled 168⁶).

(c) Provision in Council of Europe Report for Deputy Commissioner of Saar origin also omitted.

3. In commenting on German paper to Blankenhorn yesterday, Francois-Poncet made it clear he was bound by rigid instructions from Quai d’Orsay which gave him little leeway to deviate from provisions of Quai d’Orsay paper transmitted Paris Embtel 3278, March 9.⁷ (Germans understand Maurice Schumann may have come to Bonn Monday to see Francois-Poncet.) Francois-Poncet made a number of criticisms of German paper, of which four were of major importance:

(a) On economic questions he stated flatly his instructions did not permit him to go beyond position stated paragraph 8 of Quai d’Orsay’s paper. This meant that Franco-Saar economic union must be retained in present form, without substantial change until creation of European common market. On related points Francois-Poncet made comments burden of which was that present provisions of Franco-Saar conventions were untouchable.

(b) Concerning guarantee of Saar statute, French insisted on adoption in full of Council of Europe Report provisions (restated in paragraph 12 of Quai d’Orsay paper), including requirement that FedRep associate itself with tripartite agreement to support statute during peace treaty negotiations.

(c) Francois-Poncet insisted that Saar representative should have full voting status in European Councils of Ministers. German paper had followed Council of Europe Report in giving Saar representatives non-voting “consultative” status.

(d) Francois-Poncet strongly objected to statement in preamble to German paper that European settlement was subject entry into force EDC. He said French might not object to Adenauer’s making such statement in Bundestag but could not accept its being written into text of statement of principles.

4. Our comments and recommendations on this Saar question in light of latest developments will be forwarded separately.⁸

Bruce

1. Repeated to London and Bonn eyes only for Aldrich and Conant.
2. For a report on this meeting, see telegram 2883, supra.
3. Transmitted in telegram 3584 from Paris, Mar. 29. (762.022/3–2954)
4. Regarding van Naters’ report on the Saar, see Document 640.
5. See footnote 3, Document 668.
6. See footnote 4, Document 669.
7. See footnote 3, Document 667.
8. No telegram from Bruce as described has been found in Department of State files.