Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957, Western European Security and Integration, Volume IV

117. Memorandum From the Officer in Charge of Economic Organization Affairs, Office of European Regional Affairs (Barnett) to the Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs (Merchant)¹

Washington, August 19, 1955.

SUBJECT

• European integration: Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy

On the basis of discussions of your memorandum of August 15, which I have discussed with Messrs. Schaetzel (S/AE), Reinstein, Tyler, Boochever, Nunley,² Tenney³ and Edwin Martin⁴ (USRO), I am making this interim response, with the request for guidance on next steps which of course RA would clear as needed with interested offices.

The AEC opinion on the feasibility of U.S. arrangements with groupings of countries is extremely discouraging (Tab A).⁵

I am persuaded that we should try to deal with the German problem as you suggest but that two difficulties seem to preclude an injection of decisive U.S. influence within a short-time framework. First, Spaak and other “Europeans” want us to stay in the background at this stage (Tab B).⁶ Second, our law limits our present room for maneuver. Following adjournment of the current Geneva conference, however, AEC can hardly avoid entering into active and urgent consultations with S/AE and the regional bureaus to appraise the political and security implications of the massive and to some extent competitive interchanges of information which have been taking place. These consultations must, I believe necessarily, deal with the problem of security which is at the heart of our lack of political maneuver under present circumstances. I would hope that EUR could participate so as to accelerate changes in AEC practice and/or legislation which, consistent with national security, would give us the greater flexibility we need for using our very great resources in the field of peaceful applications of atomic energy more effectively for foreign policy purposes.

Meanwhile, I recommend the following course of action:

1. We should inform our Missions in the Six Countries and the U.K., for their background, that we support Spaak, as Chairman of the Community of Six Brussels Study Group, in his desire to develop a Six-Country initiative to revitalize European integration through peaceful uses of atomic energy. We should also inform them that it may be difficult for the U.S. to respond quickly and fully to a Six-Country proposal for collaboration and assistance from us.

2. We should inform our Missions in OEEC countries that we do not regard sympathy for and encouragement of the efforts being made by the Community of Six as being in any way inconsistent with full U.S. association in the investigations of the OEEC. The Community of Six is exploring the feasibility of creating supranational arrangements for the development and administration of atomic energy resources; through this mechanism they collectively may be able to accomplish results that would be impossible for single members of the Community. The OEEC seeks to exchange information and knowledge which would maximize the collective knowledge of Atlantic Community countries, including members of the Community of Six. The IAEA will be a global agency with which and through which both OEEC and CSC can work in their relations with the Soviet Bloc countries and other underdeveloped parts of the world. These activities may overlap; we do not regard them as conflicting with each other.

3. EUR should form a Working Group, chaired by RA, to begin urgent study of U.S. resources, informational and material, in the field of peaceful uses of atomic energy available as a means for revitalizing European cooperation and integration, and particularly strengthening the association of Germany with the West. The cooperation of GER, WE, BNA, S/AE, E and OIR should be enlisted:

a. This Group’s immediate purpose would be to draw up an inventory of questions and problems to be made the subject of discussion with representatives from our Missions in Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Italy, France, Germany, and the U.K. and from USRO and our CSC Mission who will be attending the Senior Economic Officers Meeting in Paris on September 19–21. The session with these officers should take place for one day following adjournment of the Senior Officers Sessions. Robert Schaetzel (S/AE) should be present for this session.

b. The Working Group should then, in the light of the Paris discussion, proceed to the preparation of such factual studies and statements of policy guidance as can contribute to the effective and coordinated day to day handling of problems confronting our European Missions in the immediate future.

c. Although the possibility that we may have to prepare a policy position for submission and adoption by NSC should not be ruled out, we should try to establish the position we desire by bilateral agreement between the Department and the AEC and thereafter, if and as necessary, prepare the legislative proposals we desire.

4. Immediate steps should be taken to implement the new plan for direct representation to the High Authority at Luxembourg. Joe Palmer has worked out with Paul Tenney all staffing details, except when the Chief of Mission will be announced. The Chief of Mission should, I believe, be announced at once and be present at the Paris Meeting (3a above).

5. Mr. Nunley is preparing a schedule of activity for M. Rene Mayer when he comes to the United States this coming winter.⁷

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 840.00/8–1955. Confidential.
2. William T. Nunley, Public Affairs Adviser, RA.
3. E. Paul Tenney, Executive Director, EUR.
4. Edwin M. Martin, Director of the Office of Political Affairs, U.S. Mission to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and European Regional Organizations (USRO).
5. See footnote 3, Document 114.
6. Tab B summarizes Spaak’s strategy for further European integration efforts.
7. In a handwritten note on the source text, Merchant commented as follows: “I suggest moving ahead on paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 and holding up on action under 1 and 2.”