DEPARTMENT OF STATE Memorandum of Conversation
DATE: Dec. 16, 1950
SUBJECT: French Position on Reply to Soviet Note re CFM
PARTICIPANTS: F. Henri Bonnet, Ambassador of France The Secretary of State Ambassador Philip C. Jessup Mr. George W. Perkins, Assistant Secretary of State
COPIES TO. S/S, G, S/A, EUR, E, EE
The French Ambassador said that Mr. Schuman had asked him to come in to clarify their position on the proposed reply to the Soviet note proposing a CFM. The Ambassador said differences had developed in the preliminary meetings. As he understood it, the US apparently desired to determine whether such a meeting would be worthwhile before agreeing to it, particularly in connection with the Far East or whether the Soviets would merely take a negative position. The UK and France were more nearly together in feeling that the procedure would be simpler and felt we could simply get together to discuss the agenda for such a CFM.
The Ambassador made two points: first, from past experience it was clear that Soviet deputies had no authority and could really do nothing. Only the Foreign Minister could really talk and reach agreements. Therefore, the suggestion that talks be held at a lower level was equivalent to a refusal to talk. I pointed out in connection with this point that we had not proposed that there should be agreement in the preliminary talks.
The second point which the French Ambassador made was that the three Western powers should not give the impression that we are skeptical about the meeting or that we were
-2-
making it difficult to have a meeting. We want to leave the onus to the Russians.
I asked the French Ambassador if he knew what Mr. Schuman thought might come from such a meeting. Did he think it was worthwhile to have the meeting merely from a propaganda standpoint or did he think concrete results could be expected. The Ambassador said he did not know but he thought there was some faint hope there might be agreement on some points. When I pressed him as to what points he replied that he did not know but that perhaps in the East. I told him that I understood the point on the limitations on the authority of deputies in the preliminary meeting and that I would think over Mr. Schuman's message, and that I would, of course, be glad to discuss the matter with Mr. Bevin and Mr. Schuman in Brussels.
The French Ambassador then asked about our views on the meeting Tuesday afternoon concerning Germany. I said we had sent Ambassador Bruce, for transmission to Mr. Schuman, a preliminary outline of what we proposed to take up. He asked if European rearmament would be discussed and I replied this would be discussed in NATO - not in Tripartite meeting. He asked what other subjects might come up for discussion and was told that Germany and the CFM would probably occupy the time available on Tuesday afternoon and that we were not contemplating adding additional items to the agenda.
EUR:GWPerkins:elm