840.00/2–748
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Director of the Office of European Affairs (Hickerson)
| Participants: | The British Ambassador, Lord Inverchapel |
| Mr. Lovett | |
| Mr. Hickerson |
The British Ambassador, Lord Inverchapel, came in to see Mr. Lovett by appointment made at the Ambassador’s request at 11 a. m. today to discuss his letter of February 6, 1948 (a copy of which is attached)1 in regard to Mr. Bevin’s proposals for a Western Union.
[Page 22]Mr. Lovett went over the Ambassador’s letter of February 6 paragraph by paragraph and discussed the subject of Mr. Bevin’s proposals along the following line:
Mr. Lovett said that Congress is now considering the European Recovery Program. This Program developed from an initiative taken in Europe in response to Secretary Marshall’s Harvard speech of June 5th last. The European Recovery Program will involve the undertaking by the United States of vast economic burdens to help the free countries of Europe get on their feet economically and achieve political stability. It is an economic program with no new military commitments on the part of the United States. Mr. Bevin’s proposals, as set forth in the Ambassador’s two last letters to Mr. Lovett, envisage the assumption by the United States of new military and political commitments at a crucial stage in the discussions in Congress of the European Recovery Program. If it became known in Congress that in addition to the economic commitments involved in the European Recovery Program the United States is asked to assume new and extensive military and political commitments it might well adversely affect the prospects for the approval by Congress of the European Recovery Program.
Moreover, Mr. Lovett stated, the United States Government does not have any very clear picture of exactly what Mr. Bevin’s proposals for a Western Union really are. The only information which we have is the brief summary of Mr. Bevin’s views in very general terms transmitted to the Secretary one week before Mr. Bevin’s speech of January 22nd. “You are in effect asking us to pour concrete before we see the blueprints”, said Mr. Lovett.
Mr. Lovett went on to say that on page two of the Ambassador’s letter of February 6th it is stated that the British and French Governments have proposed Dunkirk Treaties to the Netherlands and Belgian Governments “with Mr. Marshall’s approval”. He pointed out that this statement is not correct. He said that Secretary Marshall’s letter to the Ambassador prior to Mr. Bevin’s January 22nd speech was a warm endorsement of the general idea of a Western Union but did not go into the matter of the specific measures suggested by Mr. Bevin for bringing this about. Indeed, he added, in a conversation with the Ambassador the day following the delivery of the Secretary’s letter to him, Mr. Hickerson had, with Mr. Lovett’s approval, a long talk with the Ambassador in which he expressed considerable doubt about the adequacy and suitability of treaties along the lines of the Dunkirk Treaty as a first step toward achieving a Western Union.
Mr. Lovett said that in all these circumstances he had written the Ambassador on February 2nd expressing the view that it would not [Page 23] be possible for the United States to undertake the conversations in Washington suggested by Mr. Bevin prior to the conversations with the French concerning Germany which are to start in London February 19th. He said that the Secretary had endorsed the general idea of a Western Union as set forth in Mr. Bevin’s speech of January 22nd and is anxious, as we have already informed the British, to do everything we appropriately can to assist in bringing this about. The Secretary feels, however, that it is very important that the initiative in this matter remain in Europe, as in the case of the initiative in connection with the European Recovery Program. The Secretary wants the United States to be of such assistance as it can in furthering the development of a Union of the Free States of Western Europe but the plain fact is that the United States Government does not now have enough information to enable it to determine how it can best be helpful in this matter.
Lord Inverchapel expressed his appreciation of Mr. Lovett’s frank comments. He said that he would regard this conversation as an answer to his letter of February 6, 1948, and that for the present he would not expect any written reply. Lord Inverchapel stated that while we can not comment definitely until we receive further informal ion, he was proceeding on the assumption that the United States Government would probably be disposed to look with favor on a regional treaty under Article 52 of the Charter along the general lines of the Treaty of Rio de Janeiro.