740.5/8–1654: Telegram
The Chargé in Belgium (Sprouse) to the Department of State 1
niact
116. Deptels 1592 and 160,3 August 14. Rothschild, Foreign Minister’s Chef de Cabinet, told me this morning that Spaak’s preliminary reaction to French EDC proposals presented by French Ambassador late afternoon August 14, was that although many points were acceptable, document in “its present form and substance” was unacceptable. Rothschild described as nonsense French Ambassador’s statement to Spaak that French Foreign Office legal experts’ opinion was that proposals would not require negotiation or resubmission to Parliaments. He emphasized that Belgian opposition to discriminatory alterations or resubmission to Parliaments remains firm. Spaak and small group chief assistants beginning detailed study of proposals this morning.
Rothschild’s inquiry re US Government reaction to Mendes-France proposals gave me opportunity to explain US position on Mendes proposal regarding Soviet note along lines suggested Deptel 159. In view importance this matter Rothschild asked that we continue discussion with Spaak. Latter was fully in accord with US position that it would be disastrous to tie EDC ratification process in any way with reply to Soviet note and saw same dangers as did US Government although he pointed out it was not his idea to reject Soviet note out of hand or to put Western powers flatly in position of refusing to negotiate with Soviets. Spaak told me that French Ambassador in presenting Mendes proposals had said that French Foreign Office had instructed him to deny press reports that Mendes had in mind tying EDC ratification to reply to Soviet note.
Spaak strongly recommends that US and UK make official démarche orally or by note (and not just in confidence as was now being done) to EDC countries other than France prior to Brussels conference urging that no steps be taken which would in any way tie EDC treaty or its ratification to the reply to Soviet note or to other policy measures relating to Soviets. He believes that this should be done without any reference in démarche to Mendes proposal in order that other EDC countries may themselves bring up matter to ensure that French do not carry through this idea. Spaak speaks critically of French effort to tie overall French policy questions to EDC and feels that this practice can in effect distort original purpose of Brussels conference to extent that it might even be desirable to consider larger conference [Page 1042] with US and UK participation. He is not asking for such conference but points out that French proposals tend to move in that direction. I believe he also has in mind Mendes proposal for joint declaration.
Spaak obviously expects reply to his recommendation that US and UK make formal démarche prior to Brussels conference to other EDC countries as outlined preceding paragraph.4
- Repeated to Paris for Bruce and to London, Bonn, The Hague, Rome, and Luxembourg.↩
- Dated Aug. 14, p. 1036.↩
- Not printed; it transmitted to Brussels the texts of telegram 603 from Paris, Aug. 12, p. 1026, telegram 614 from Paris, Aug. 13, p. 1031, and telegram 552 to Paris, Aug. 12, p. 1029.↩
- In telegram Coled 16 from Paris, Aug. 15, Bruce reported that “De Staercke, who until now has been optimistic about outcome of Brussels meeting, was dismayed last night after reading French proposals. He termed them almost completely unacceptable and highly insolent. He found document loaded not only with flagrant changes in EDC treaty but also with basic violations of concept of European movement. He said he had informed Spaak that ‘Mendes has just presented us with corpse of Europe’” (740.5/8–1554). In telegram 480 from Bonn, Aug. 16, Conant stated that “Hallstein was deeply discouraged this morning re French proposals for Brussels meeting, saying they were beyond worst expectations. He has not had opportunity to discuss proposals in detail with Chancellor, who is returning to Bonn this afternoon for discussions with Cabinet, but says he is confident Adenauer will weigh them in light following four principles: 1. No changes can be accepted which would require further Bundestag ratification. 2. Proposals seriously damaging supranational character of EDC must equally be rejected. 3. No new discriminations against Germany can be agreed to. 4. Efficiency of defense machinery under EDC must be maintained” (740.5/8–1654). Telegram 118 from Brussels, Aug. 17, reported that Rothschild stated that after detailed study by Spaak and his assistants of the French proposals “throughout yesterday and until late last night Spaak’s conclusion is that proposals are, in effect, unacceptable. Spaak finds proposals contradictory, confused and in some cases insolent towards Germans” (740.5/8–1754).↩