journal of european integration history revue d'histoire de l ...

72
Melissa Pine
Full disclosure
Just as progress in WEU began to seem precarious, evidence of leaks about the
‘Soames affair’ surfaced in Paris, as the French presented their own interpretation of
de Gaulle’s remarks. 64 On 17 February the editor of Les Echoes approached the British
embassy in Paris for comment on the story, and the next day, an editorial suggested
that de Gaulle was considering a new tack but did not mention any proposals
to the British. 65 Questions followed from L’Express and from the Paris correspondent
of the Washington Post. 66 Finally on 21 February in an episode barely mentioned by
Vaïsse, it seemed clear that the French government was responsible for the leaks: an
article in Le Figaro reported a conversation between Soames and de Gaulle, accusing
Britain of giving a ‘sensational version misrepresenting Mr Soames’ audience’ to the
Five. 67 An official statement that evening confirmed that the two had met, but denied
that the president had expressed different opinions from those that had been ‘publicly
and steadfastly laid down by him in recent years’. It repeated that enlargement would
change the nature of the European Communities, and that Europe could only take
shape on the political level when it was independent. 68
The British at first responded unofficially, as telegrams poured in with requests
for information, comments on the different versions, and replies to the FCO’s
enquiry as to where would be best for a ‘corrective leak’ should the French leak ‘in
a slanted manner’. 69 Finally, the FCO arranged a leak through the Italian
newspaper Il Messagero, underlining that their record of the talk had been agreed
with de Gaulle’s office. 70 In view of ‘further leaks from Paris’, however, the FCO
decided to give the press in London, unattributably, Soames’ original record. 71
Tension was increased by British press treatment of the story. The Times initially
stuck closely to the official record, using the phrase ‘inner council’, for example, to
describe de Gaulle’s suggestions of a four power political association within a
looser free trade area, and reporting the French position alongside the British.
64. Telegrams, Paris to FCO, 17 February 1969, No.167, and reply, 17 February 1969, No.88; Paris to
FCO, 18 February 1969, Nos.169-170; Brussels to FCO, 18 February 1969, No.52, all UKNA/
FCO/30/414; ‘Record of Conversation between the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and the
Belgian Ambassador at 12 Noon on 19 February’, UKNA/FCO/73/32.
65. Telegrams, Paris to FCO, 17 February 1969, No.167 and 18 February 1969, Nos.169-170, UKNA/
FCO/30/414.
66. Telegrams, Paris to FCO, 20 February 1969, Nos.179 and 182, UKNA/FCO/30/415.
67. Telegrams, Paris to FCO, 21 February 1969, Nos.184 and 187; Brussels to FCO, No.69, UKNA/
FCO/30/415; M. VAÏSSE, op.cit., pp.610-611.
68. Telegrams, Paris to FCO, 21 February 1969, Nos.188-189; see also telegram, Luxembourg to FCO,
22 February 1969, No.69, all UKNA/PREM/13/2628.
69. Telegrams, Ottawa to FCO, No 178; UKDel Brussels to FCO, No.26; Paris to FCO, Nos.179 and
182; Rome to FCO, No.179; Luxembourg to FCO, No.60; Bonn to FCO, No.206; Hague to FCO,
No.96; Brussels to FCO, Nos.62 and 64; FCO to Brussels etc, No.45, all 20 February 1969, all
UKNA/FCO/30/414.
70. Telegrams, FCO to Rome, No.111; reply, No.183, both 21 February 1969, UKNA/FCO/30/415.
71. Telegram, FCO to Oslo etc, 21 February 1969, No.36, UKNA/FCO/30/415; Robin Haydon’s
unattributable briefing, 21 February 1969, UKNA/PREM/13/2628.