Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957, Western Europe and Canada, Volume XXVII

17. Telegram From the Embassy in France to the Department of State¹

Paris, March 3, 1956— 6 p.m.

3999. Pineau’s speech at Anglo-American Press Club yesterday seems to have hit fan squarely. US and British correspondents and officers of British Embassy who were present have expressed great concern at various of his remarks. Netherlands Ambassador² states Dutch press also agitated. Pineau spoke from notes only and no text exists. As agencies and other correspondents have cabled his remarks in extenso we are not doing so.

Jebb and Ambassador decided prior to their joint conversation with Massigli this morning that Jebb would lead in raising subject and that Ambassador would back up his remarks. Jebb dwelt on extremely unfavorable reactions in British press this morning. Massigli threw up his hands when speech mentioned and said he had no knowledge of it prior to hearing press reaction after Pineau’s departure for Bonn.³

[1 paragraph (5½ lines of source text) not declassified]

Massigli further said that Pineau would be back in Paris tomorrow morning prior to his departure for Karachi in afternoon.⁴ He said he would talk to Pineau about speech and make clear unfortunate repercussions. Massigli also said that Ismay had just telephoned to ask for appointment with Pineau Sunday before departure for Karachi presumably to discuss speech.

Concurrently Achilles took occasion to advise Margerie that US correspondents and Embassy officers had been much concerned at certain of Pineau’s remarks, notably following:

1. Statement in Figaro quoting Pineau as saying that he was “in profound disagreement toward policy followed by Western countries in recent years”. (He is elsewhere quoted as saying “various aspects of Western policy”.) Achilles remarked that this statement coupled with statement Pineau desired to assist in bringing East and West together and announcement of his acceptance of invitation to visit Moscow May 14 could not but disturb American opinion.⁵

2. Remark that “neutralization (of Germany) has different meaning within framework of disarmament from that in framework of general policy of rearmament” seemed to indicate new departure in French policy concerning which elucidation would be welcome.

3. Vague reference to certain powers seeking to inherit what France would give up in North Africa was similar to but, coming from Foreign Ministry, far more serious than Auriol’s and Soustelle’s similar references (Embtel 3989 and 3995).⁶

Margerie took full notes and said that he would bring these expressions of concern to Pineau’s attention tomorrow.

Our own view is that Pineau’s speech gives little cause for alarm as indicating any major change in French policy but that its effect in US and other countries, including France, may be highly unfortunate.

Speech is basically only public reaffirmation of what Pineau told Ambassador during their first interview and contains nothing new (Embtel 3488 February 4).⁷ Fact that speech was extemporaneous is result of Pineau’s lack of experience in high office and presumably will serve as sharp lesson to him for future. We fully agree with Massigli that individual sentences, while most unfortunate, should not be considered as representing firm position on Pineau’s part, much less on part of French Government. We believe Pineau to be thoroughly pro-Western and pro-American. In fact, one motive for his speech may have been to counteract his reputation of being “American stooge”. Socialist Party, even more than others, is in internal turmoil over Algeria and he may also have been trying to placate leftwing Socialists who are objecting to reinforced military efforts in Algeria. Nevertheless, his statements were obviously unfortunate and his choice of forum deplorable.⁸

Dillon

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 751.00/3–356. Confidential; Priority. Repeated to Bonn, London, and The Hague.
2. Baron Carel van Boetzelaer van Oosterhout.
3. On March 3, Pineau and Heinrich von Brentano, Foreign Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany, met at Bonn and discussed the Saar question. Jean de la Grandville, Second Counselor of the French Embassy in Washington, informed the Department of State of the content of the meeting on March 12. The German Government accepted in principle the idea of a Moselle Canal, agreed to the continuation of the French lease of the Warndt mines and to guarantee to supply a fixed amount of coal to France in the future. The French recognized that the Saar would ultimately become part of the Federal Republic. The memorandum of the conversation with de la Grandville and further documentation on the Saar question is in Department of State, Central File 762.002.
4. Pineau also attended the second session of the SEATO Council in Karachi.
5. Prime Minister Mollet and Pineau visited the Soviet Union, May 15–19.
6. In telegram 3989, March 2, Dillon reported that Vincent Auriol, former President of France, in an article in France-Soir, accused the United States and United Kingdom of “intrigues” in French North Africa. (Department of State, Central Files, 751S.00/3–256) In telegram 3995, March 3, Dillon noted that in a lecture on Algeria, Jacques Soustelle, former Governor-General of Algeria, “deplored” the lack of interest of France’s allies in events in Algeria. (Ibid., 751S.00/3–356)
7. Telegram 3488 reported on this conversation, which Dillon described as a “tour d’horizon.” Pineau told Dillon that, as a result of the situation in Algeria, President Coty’s official visit to Chile would be postponed, and that France would seek cultural exchanges with the Soviet Union. He stressed the importance the French Government placed on the search for a general agreement on disarmament and the need to prevent the Soviet Union from exploiting the “peace and disarmament theme.” (Ibid., 611.611/2–456)
8. On March 4, Pineau called Ambassador Dillon to the Quai d’Orsay to explain that he had been seriously misquoted (telegram 4008 from Paris, March 4; ibid., 751.00/3–456) and Prime Minister Guy Mollet took the occasion of an interview with the Columbia Broadcasting System, which was broadcast in the United States on March 4, to try to counteract the impression given by Pineau’s speech. (Telegram 4003 from Paris, March 3; ibid., 751.00/3–356)