DE GAULLE PLAN FOR EUROPE France Accuses U.K. Of Distortions

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 31921, 24 February 1969, Page 13

DE GAULLE PLAN FOR EUROPE France Accuses U.K. Of Distortions

(N.Z.P+A.-Reuter —Copyright)

LONDON, February 23.

Britain has rejected French charges that it distorted the accounts of President de Gaulle’s plans for Europe’s future—but Paris insists the London version was a distortion.

The charges and counter-charges were the latest developments last night in the major storm which has broken between London and Paris over disclosures of what President de Gaulle has in mind for the Europe of the future.

In London, the Foreign Secretary (Mr Michael Stewart) said London had not dramatised, nor exaggerated, nor distorted the accounts of a conversation between General de Gaulle and the British Ambassador in Paris (Mr Christopher Soames) on February 4.

Mr Stewart said there was “not a London version and a Paris version of what was said. There is an agreed version.”

Mr Stewart said General de Gaulle suggested the British, Government should propose to France that the two countries have talks about the future of Europe. General de Gaulle, Mr Stewart said, put forward two ideas:

(1) That N.A.T.O. should in time disappear. (2) That the Common Market should change into a loose free trade area with an inner political directorate of Britain, France, Germany, and Italy.

Mr Stewart said London would welcome talks with the French Government “if these are designed to lead to the strengthening of Europe and our membership of an enlarged European community”

But in Paris, informed sources last night insisted that London’s version of the February 4 talks was incorrect And they said that the British Government circulated the distorted version after France had told Mr Soames that it was wrong. According to these sources, President de Gaulle spoke in general terms. He told Mr Soames that if new members joined the Common Market, this would involve such a change in the organisation as to create a new entity. This! needed study and the French President was willing to meet Mr Wilson for talks.

The President also told Mr Soames that if a larger European organisation was formed| this would be so important as to affect present thinking i about N.A.T.O. Version Of Talks The sources denied there was an agreed version of the talks between President de Gaulle and Mr Soames. They said Mr Soames left an Eng-lish-language resume of his version of the talks at the Elysee Palace but at no point was it approved as a correct version.

Mr Soames called on

.French Foreign Minister (Mr (Debre) for more talks on the ; row last night and is due Ito fly to London to report today. Mr Debre will see the ambassadors of France's five Common Market partners tomorrow. Comment from the other partners—West Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg—has so far been sparse. All appear to be awaiting developments before committing themselves to meaningful comment. Press Assumption French newspapers generally assume that Britain is seeking to scare France’s Common Market partners into rallying around her on the eve of President Nixon’s visit to Europe. The evening newspaper “Le Monde” said: “. . . it is difficult not to see a manoeuvre to persuade Mr Nixon that he would be wrong to trust General de Gaulle and that the best Europeans, the only ones on whom the United States can rely, are in London.

“But in doing this, they obviously prove the Head of State right in reproaching them for always thinking of being the first in the Atlantic class, and not of building a truly independent Europe,” “Le Monde" added.

“France Soir,” in a comment on the crisis, said: .

Nobody can say how Europe will re-establish a minimum of confidence. . . . “Mr Nixon, who finds Europeans plunged in their old ! rivalries again, could not have been presented with a more poisoned arbitration.” 'French Isolation Last night, Mr Stewart said Britain did not want to isolate France but no-one could (allow that a French veto should bar all progress towards European unity. In a speech prepared for delivery at a Labour Party meeting in suburban Horn- ' church, he publicly confirmed the disclosures that President de Gaulle had suggested talks (with Britain on the future of Europe. I “We want to see good relations with France,” he deiclared. “We have no desire I to isolate her, but neither we nor others can accept that a (single French veto should bar (all progress.” [Need To Convince Mr Stewart said: “We have (made it clear that we seek : to enter the Common Market j If General de Gaulle believes that there is another better I way to European unity, he

must convince not only us, but these five other nations that there is indeed a better way.

“Ideas of this kind affect the security and prosperity of these five, who are our partners in N.A.T.O. and the Western European Union.

“We must therefore tell these countries—who are our friends and allies—about what was proposed by the French. This we did. If we had failed to do so we should have been less than straightforward. “At the Luxemburg meeting of the Western European Union (earlier this month) we had pledged ourselves to consult with them about matters of common concern.” ‘Pillars Of World’

Mr Stewart added: “But we have to make two things clear. First, we cannot at all accept the disappearance of N.A.T.O. This alliance, which links Western Europe, the United States and others, is one of the pillars of the world.

“By common consent, this alliance has helped to stabilise the unity of the world, to preserve peace and to relax tension for 20 years. “No responsible person in this country, who desires peace and to protect liberty, (could agree that we should (weaken or destroy N.A.T.O.

1 “Second, as to the Common Market We are not members. But to five of its six members—Germany, Italy, Bel(giurn, Netherlands and Luxemburg—the Common MarIket is of great importance, as it is to us. If there is to be any question of transforming its whole nature, they have the right to be con(suited."