Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957, Foreign Aid and Economic Defense Policy, Volume X

236. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in France¹

Washington, November 23, 1956—6:58 p.m.

Topol 877. Re Polto 1180² rptd London Polto 132.

1. Believe proposed combination of OEEC and OELAC committees desirable in bringing close relationship between European government decisions on allocations and industry implementation such decisions. Should also greatly strengthen OEEC whose regular staff not adequate deal with technical aspects present problem. Antitrust immunity to US companies granted through MEEC not available to US companies for cooperation with OELAC or OEEC until MEEC requested to resume full operation under plan of action, therefore doubt whether US company observers would be willing participate.

2. Envisage committee as replacement for the OEEC–OELAC part of the coordination mechanism previously established. Believe it most undesirable however seek also replace MEEC by such committee. Three main reasons this view a) MEEC as now approved provides assurances companies need on antitrust aspects and which could not be provided for a new mechanism without delay b) MEEC has membership 15 companies many not important in foreign marketing but whose operations require coordination if maximum efficiency of effort is to result c) oil supply problem will have repercussions outside Europe. Consider it impractical and undesirable rely only on one mechanism and that in Europe to deal with world problem especially in its Afro-Asian aspects.

3. Agree your negative view on visit high level OEEC Secretariat team at this time. Unquestionably premature and possibly counter productive. Visit before long might well be useful but will concert with you before pursuing subject.

Hoover

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 840.2553/11–2156. Confidential; Priority. Drafted by Moline and approved by Kalijarvi. Repeated to London.
2. Dated November 21, not printed. (Ibid.)