600.0012/10–3151: Telegram
The Ambassador in France (Bruce) to the Secretary of State
2571. Dept distribution on authority Secretary’s Office only. Embtel 2542, October 30 rptd London 638. Bonsai and Meyers saw Chauvel this afternoon and handed him as background material both minutes of yesterday’s meeting1 and excised copy NSC 112, Tab A, previously given UK with elimination specific percentage and number limits on population and ceiling and national product criteria.
Chauvel emphasized doubt Fr wld wish make public mention possible use of percentage population-production and ceiling criteria, since wld need serious study and wld be great difficulty in selling to Fr mil. He believed Fr wld want not mention these criteria in tripartite statement [Page 569] and in GA speeches wld only wish at most to say these criteria might be used and needed further study.
We emphasized criteria only possibilities and not intended be binding on the three govts; that, while ref might not necessarily be made in tripartite statement, we believed vital propaganda benefits wld accrue through public mention criteria in GA in way set forth in paper.
Chauvel suggested tripartite statement shld be elaboration of facts: (a) for first time in UN the three govts making proposals for regulation, limitation, and balanced reduction of armed forces and armaments, including atomic; (b) for first time including atomic energy in proposed disclosure and verification system on continuing basis.
We suggested statement shld at least also reaffirm our decision strengthen free world forces and express link between solution current problems and eventual disarmament.
Chauvel pressed for US ideas on content of tripartite declaration, at least in form of working paper which wld clearly be understood as such and not as cleared US document. Schuman had not yet examined US proposals, and he cld obtain Schuman’s reaction much more quickly if had draft tripartite statement, even though only working paper.
We promised that, subject to understanding it was not cleared paper, we wld submit this draft as soon as possible. We will do so using as basis Deptel 2532, October 30, rptd London 2249,2 but in highly condensed form in view Fr emphasis on brevity. We most strongly urged speedy consideration and agreement by Fr Govt and said US considered these proposals primary element GA program.
In addition above points, Chauvel inquired re para 4–b, outline of program,3 wondering if ref to safeguards causing on minimum necessary degree of interference in the internal life of each country “In present context indicated shift in US policy from insistence on international control atomic energy and extensive inspection.” He hoped not. We emphasized US held firmly to existing UN plan unless and until a better and more effective plan can be devised.
Chauvel called later in evening. He had spoken to Schuman who confirmed Chauvel’s views and emphasized desirability brief tripartite statement. Simplicity needed because of necessity clearing idea other ministries in short time, particularly when Def Min Bidault away.
Sent Dept priority 2571, rptd info London 645 (eyes only Gifford, Holmes and Ferguson).
- For an account of the meeting of October 30, see the reference telegram, supra.↩
- Telegram 2532 to Paris, October 30, which contained a preliminary, uncleared, draft three-power declaration, is not printed (600.0012/10–3051).↩
- For the outline of program, see telegram 2418 to Paris, October 24, p. 559.↩