840.50/2445
Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. Roy Veatch of the Office of Foreign Relief and Rehabilitation Operations
| Participants: | General Bethouart, Chief of the French Military Mission |
| M. Baudet, Acting Chief of the Fighting French Delegation | |
| Mr. Acheson | |
| Mr. Veatch |
General Bethouart handed to Mr. Acheson a note dated Algiers, August 14, 1943,92 explaining that this was the response of the French Committee of National Liberation to the draft agreement for a United Nations relief and rehabilitation administration which had been placed informally before that Committee by this Government.
Since the text of the note was in French, M. Baudet gave Mr. Acheson a brief résumé of the contents in English as a basis for their discussion.
M. Baudet placed some emphasis upon the statement of the French Committee that it would have to limit its commitment to the organization to the emergency relief period, leaving longer-range commitments with respect to the “reconstruction” functions of the organization to the decision of the provisional government of France when established. (M. Baudet and General Bethouart emphasized, at this point, the provision of the French constitution which would bar the creation of a provisional government for France until half of the total territory of metropolitan France had been liberated). This [Page 969] emphasis led Mr. Acheson to inquire regarding the French Committee’s understanding of the two periods which it mentions in its note, explaining that it was the conception of this Government that the proposed organization would undertake only emergency relief and rehabilitation connected with such relief, leaving the longer-range reconstruction problems to other agencies.
Discussion of this point brought out the fact that the French Committee had been confused by the word “rehabilitation” in the English text of the draft agreement, which in French they had translated as “reconstruction.” M. Baudet’s interpretation of the French position was that there would be no objection to participation by the French Committee in the work of the organization during the emergency period which might include the early stages of rehabilitation as well as relief.
M. Baudet and General Bethouart interpreted the concern of the French Committee to be directed more toward the period of time in which the operations were to take place, and the stage in the liberation of Europe during which they were to take place, rather than the nature of the functions. They were much concerned therefore regarding the division of responsibility between the Military and the proposed United Nations civilian organization during the early stages of relief and rehabilitation. They pressed Mr. Acheson therefore for as full a statement as possible regarding the relationship between the Military and the proposed civilian organization in liberated territories.
Mr. Acheson explained that it would be impossible in advance to say when the function of providing assistance to civilians in liberated areas would be turned over by the military to the proposed organization because the decision would necessarily rest with the Military so long as they were in control of the territory and there would be many unpredictable factors affecting that decision. He indicated however that it might be expected that the Military itself would undertake to meet civilian needs in liberated areas during the period of hostilities in that area and that they might also continue to render such assistance after hostilities had ended if the area were then used as a major base of operations for further military effort. He said however that the Military might very well invite the civilian relief and rehabilitation agency to begin to function in an area still under military control if there would be no conflict between such operations and military necessities.
General Bethouart seemed especially concerned over the relationship and the division of function between the Military and the civilian organizations during the emergency period of relief and rehabilitation in liberated areas, and he seemed somewhat critical of the indefiniteness of the relationship as it was explained by Mr. Acheson.
[Page 970]After the main discussion had been closed, M. Baudet said that he had heard that Governor Lehman’s organization and Lend-Lease were joining in studies of probable civilian needs in Europe and that these studies were organized country by country. He said that he would appreciate it if Mr. Acheson could tell him whether this report was correct.
In reply Mr. Acheson explained the purpose of the Office of Foreign Economic Coordination and the country studies being undertaken in connection with its work. M. Baudet then asked whether any foreigners were being invited to contribute materials to these studies and Mr. Acheson assured him that this Government would be in touch with the individual governments concerned at the appropriate time. He said also that the country committees here were using the excellent materials turned out by the Inter-Allied Committee on Postwar Requirements in London as a starting point in their consideration of needs in the European occupied countries—there was no intention here of duplicating the studies already made by the European allied governments through the Leith-Ross Committee.
- Not printed; for summary, see telegram No. 1419, August 15, noon, from the Consul General at Algiers, supra.↩