Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers, 1944, General: Economic and Social Matters, Volume II

840.70/11–2944: Telegram

The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Winant) to the Secretary of State

London, November 29, 1944—8 p.m.
[Received November 30—3:40 a.m.]

10574. From EITO Delegation.

I. There was a meeting of the heads of delegations called last evening November 28 by Noel-Baker which Hooker attended at his own request and at which the Soviet, French and Greek Delegations were not represented (the first two because the revision of the draft agreement had already been discussed with them). Hondelink also was present at Noel-Baker’s invitation. Noel-Baker presented the revision of the draft agreement and explained briefly the changes. There was no discussion and it was agreed that a meeting would be held Thursday November 30 for that purpose.

II. Noel-Baker saying that he was speaking as chairman of the Conference and not as head of the British Delegation and giving only his personal opinion then recommended without any prior consultation with us that a “stop-gap organization” be set up immediately. He expressed the view that the delegates there present should constitute themselves the board of the “stop-gap organization” and should employ a staff with a view to making it easier for both the board and the staff to be merged into the organization of EITO. He also recommended that the “stop-gap organization” should report to and consider itself constituted by the Conference. There was no discussion except for a brief comment by the Netherlands delegate, Huender, which, implied that he did not consider such a device to be altogether necessary. It was agreed that this proposal also would be open for discussion at the meeting to be held on Thursday, November 30.

III. At the close of the meeting Hooker stated privately to Noel-Baker that his action in broaching a “stop-gap organization” had taken us by surprise and put the United States Delegation in an embarrassing position. He reminded Noel-Baker that the British had stated that their proposal was merely tentative and that they were awaiting our suggestions. He also reminded Noel-Baker that we had already made clear that we considered it undesirable and provocative to the Soviets to affiliate or tie in any “stop-gap organization” in any way with the Conference and considered it incompatible with the principle agreed on by both Delegations that the Soviets should be offered full participation in any “stop-gap organization” and that we should endeavor to take [make] any such participation possible. Noel-Baker replied (a) that Ronald had specially urged him to bring up the matter, (b) that he was merely expressing his own personal views and (c) that perhaps after all it might not be necessary to have any such “stop-gap organization”. Hooker replied that unless [he] received instructions to the contrary from the Department he would be obliged to oppose the formation of any interim body that was in any way affiliated with the Conference, for the reasons given above.

This morning Hooker repeated to Ronald the same observations that he made last evening to Noel-Baker. Ronald stated that he was inclined to doubt the desirability of affiliating any interim body with the Conference.

[IV.] We now understand that there is not unanimity among the British as to the necessity for an interim body. One of the officials of the Ministry of War Transport informed Hooker privately last, evening that Hurcomb had stated to the Department that he did not consider any interim body to be necessary. Leathers today made the same statement to Clay and Reed of MEA. We are also informed that General Napier, Chief Transportation Officer of SHAEF, discouraged with the lack of progress on EITO or on the formation of an interim body has instructed his representative here, Brigadier Blakey, to cease insisting on the formation of an interim body and to act merely as an observer.

V. As indicated in the Embassy’s 10464 of November 27 it has been our position that since we have been at all times pressing for the implementation of the Interim Commission we cannot very well oppose the formation of “stop-gap organization” that would do substantially what the Interim Commission was intended to do, if it is insisted upon by the British and agreed to by the other interested powers. (Regardless of the actual necessity at this late date of an interim organization, we feel that this position is sound.) Clay states that he agrees that position is sound procedurally in view of Department’s instructions to Delegation. (In view of the existing state of confusion on the subject, however, we believe that we should let events take their course without opposing the formation of such a body if the British becomes crystallized in its favor and it has the approval of the other interested powers.) Provided it is not affiliated with the Conference and the other recommendations in the Embassy’s 10464 of November 27 are substantially followed. (We believe we should devote our main efforts to the early formation of EITO itself in the hope that if our progress is sufficiently rapid the “stop-gap organization” proposal will be abandoned.[)] The “stop-gap” idea may well boil down to some very informal means of getting EITO’s work started slightly in advance of its formal creation.

VI. The above comments are made in the light of Williams’s wire from Paris to Clay and Hooker repeated to the Department as Embassy’s 10492 of November 28 which appears to show that need of setting up a “stop-gap organization” at this time is of subordinate importance to need of reaching agreement on technical provisions followed by setting up of EITO on permanent basis either with or without Russian participation. Clay wishes to point out that if the reply which the Russians have promised “at the earliest possible moment” gives no assurance of their eventual participation our comments in point 3 Embassy’s 10464, may be applicable to EITO as well as to a “stop-gap organization”.

VII. Reed of MEA asks us to say that he agrees with the views expressed by Williams and Appleton. We note in this connection Williams’ reference to Napier’s “feeling of urgency”.

VIII. Ronald informs us that Wormser of the French Embassy has indicated informally that the French are in substantial accord with the revision of the draft agreement including Article XI as revised; but did not wish to play a leading part in presenting it to the other Continental Delegations.

IX. The text distributed to the delegates at last evening’s meeting differed from the revised text in the hands of the Department in that it contained an added section more fully defining the obligations of the organization to governments whose participation in EITO is deferred by the working of the “Ronald formula” which will be telegraphed to the Department separately. [EITO Delegation.]

Winant