France To Try To Calm Five’s Anxieties

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 31922, 25 February 1969, Page 17

France To Try To Calm Five’s Anxieties

(N.Z.P.A.-Reuter—Copyright) PARIS, February 24. The Foreign Minister (Mr Michel Debre) will try today to calm anxieties caused among France’s five Common Market partners by the British-French row over how General de Gaulle sees the future shape of Europe.

Mr Debre arranged a meeting for this evening with the Ambassadors of the five States—ltaly, West Germany, Belgium, Luxemburg and the Netherlands —at the week-end as the controversy over what the General told Britain raged on.

Great importance was attached to the meeting, for the row is embittering West Euro, pean relations and comes at a time when President Nixon is visiting European capitals.

Informed sources said Mr Debre had called all five ambassadors in together so that France could not be accused of giving different versions of the crisis to different countries.

France—like Britain—is still standing firmly by her position in the controversy, which is that London distorted what the General told the British Ambassador, Mr Christopher Soames, in a tete-a-tete conversation at the Elysee Palace on February 4. Mr Soames returned to Paris late last night from London after urgent consultations with the Prime Minister (Mr Harold Wilson) and the Foreign Secretary (Mr Michael Stewart). As Mr Soames flew back, a former Gaullist minister said the storm over General de Gaulle’s reported remarks were caused by British “morbid Francophobia." Mr Michel Habib-Deloncle, former Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, said in the

Gaullist newspaper, “La Nation," that the February 4 Elysee discussions were only an exchange of views, and Mr Soames had wrongly interpreted them as a negotiation by the French leader.

The New York Times News Service said the two governments in effect accused each other of lying over the facts involved. The British version of the February 4 talks is that General de Gaulle offered to discuss with London the creation of a larger European economic group which could include Britain and eventually replace the Common Market, N.Z.P.A.-Reuter said. The French leader said a four-nation inner council could be created and that N.A.T.O. would not be needed if Europe were an independent entity, according to the London report. French sources, on the other hand, insist that what the President said was that new members entering the Common Market would bring about such changes to create a new entity. This needed study, and the General was ready to meet Mr Wilson for talks.

Most British newspapers today had leading articles combining comment on the British-French diplomatic row and President Nixon’s visit And most agreed that it was especially unfortunate that the row should have broken out at this time. “The Times” said on the row: “On the evidence so far, the General was not misunderstood in any substantial way. He may have let the flow of his thoughts carry him further than he intended, but that—though not unknown—is rare with him.”

“The Times” continued: “The upshot is both sad and bad. The prospect for AngloFrench talks are now left bleaker than before. The French are left offended, the British mystified if not outright suspicious.” Of Mr Nixon’s visit it said: “The President is coming to Europe when it is having one of those disputes that have always excited American impatience and criticism.” The “Daily Express” said the President should recognise that the diplomatic row was a secondary issue and realise that what mattered was the future of the Atlantic Alliance and British relations with the United States. It added: “For N.A.T.O. is the indispensable shield for the whole Western way of life. Britain must remain part of it.” The “Guardian” said: “Mr Nixon comes this week to a Europe confused by Britain's

publie row with President de Gaulle. Far from clearing the air the Anglo-French dispute has clouded it.”

The “Daily Telegraph” said Europe would never be safe until it became a military super-power in accordance with its population and economic strength. It added: “The problem is to retain American nuclear protection in the meantime, and to ensure the continuation of the American alliance, as equals.”