Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957, Western European Security and Integration, Volume IV

78. Telegram From the United States Delegation at the NATO Heads of Government Meeting to the Department of State¹

Paris, December 18, 1957—11 a.m.

Polto 1796. NATO Heads of Government in restricted session from 4 to 7:15 p.m. December 17.² Discussion, which centered on draft sections of communiqué prepared following Foreign Ministers meeting this morning,³ touched on following topics: 1) Germany and Berlin, 2) disarmament, 3) Middle East, 4) Africa, 5) relations with other security organizations, 6) Indonesia, and 7) political consultation. Discussion of Middle East and Africa reported in separate message.⁴

Heads of Government agreed on following procedural arrangements:

1) International staff will by tomorrow morning prepare draft section of communiqué dealing with non-military subjects based on various drafts considered today.

2) This draft will be reviewed tomorrow by committee consisting Foreign Ministers Belgium, Canada, France, and U.K. in time for possible consideration by Heads of Government tomorrow afternoon session.

3) Foreign and Defense Ministers will meet in restricted session 9:30 a.m. tomorrow to consider military topics plus scientific cooperation and economic cooperation if time permits.

4) Heads of Government will meet at 4 p.m. tomorrow to review results morning meeting Foreign and Defense Ministers and possibly draft communiqué on non-military subjects.

5) Further meeting Heads of Government Thursday morning will almost certainly be necessary.

Report of discussion follows:

Germany and Berlin. Draft prepared by Germany⁵ was modified slightly and referred to drafting group.

Disarmament. Discussion again focused on question of proposing to USSR special meeting on Heads of Government or Foreign Minister level, if USSR unwilling work through Disarmament Commission.

Canada (Smith) made strong plea for such meeting, arguing that public wished to know that all possibilities for disarmament had been exhausted. NATO should call on USSR to work with Disarmament Commission. However, if Soviets not willing, NATO should say heads of state prepared meet with them, provided they agree in advance on necessity for inspection system. Such proposal would have tremendous effect and give West initial time.

Greece (Averoff) stated present meeting in sense was NATO reply to Sputnik propaganda. If NATO response was to plead with USSR to discuss disarmament, might give impression weakness and fear.

Turkey (Zorlu) agreed with Greek point. Turkey also opposed to taking disarmament out of U.N. forum.

Norway (Lange) favored meeting on Foreign Minister or Head of Government level.

France (Pineau) acknowledged Greek and Turkish point had validity. However, felt that if public opinion was to accept greater defense effort, it was necessary to make new effort towards peace. Thought it quite feasible hold top level meeting to break deadlock and agree on principles, after which details could be left to Disarmament Commission.

U.K. (Macmillan) agreed with Pineau. Referred to public concern in U.K. about U.S. and U.K. planes carrying atomic bombs. This concern likely to be greater with advent ballistic missiles. However, “people will take it if they know we are doing something”. People being asked to accept big obligations and risks and Macmillan felt strongly top level meeting was desirable.

Italy (Pella) noted differences of view as to whether or not proposed high level meeting would indicate weakness, suggested best to defer decision until Heads of Government could see what decisions they could take in military field. If latter substantial, might be more willingness to accept new approach on disarmament.

It was agreed accept Pella suggestion.

Relations with other security organizations. U.S. proposal, to effect that Council request Secretary General explore possibility developing relations with other organizations to facilitate exchange of information and opinion, met mixed reception.⁶

France (Pineau) indicated prepared to agree on proposal but dubious about putting in communiqué.

Norway (Lange) agreed on not putting in communiqué and was opposed to direct links between organizations. Thought liaison should be handled through common members of various organizations. Canada and Denmark agreed with Norway.

Secretary thought device of using common members as link would suggest NATO trying to run other organizations. What was needed was feeling on part of other organizations that they are recognized. Was hard to see why NATO should close its eyes to information which it might obtain through links with other organizations. Also not desirable rebuff desires of others.

Germany (Adenauer) supported U.S. proposal firmly, as did Netherlands and Italy.

U.K. (Macmillan) said main thing was to establish relationships. This was basic to concept that we engaged in conflict of world-wide scope. Whether announcement should be made was secondary question but, on balance, U.K. also favored that. Thought it would encourage free world.

Spaak said problem was rather delicate one, and there was danger in announcing approach before knowing reactions other organizations. Suggested Council authorize him to take soundings with other organizations in confidence and report back either to Permanent Council or to next Ministerial meeting.

Spaak suggestion was accepted but Secretary pointed out was questionable whether matter could be kept quiet view fact U.S. proposal was known.

. . . . . . .

Political consultation. France (Pineau) was dissatisfied with draft prepared by international staff, which French considered did not spell out with sufficient precision conditions under which consultation should take place. View lateness of hour discussion was not pursued.

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 396.1–PA/12–1857. Secret. Authorized by Reinhardt. Transmitted in two sections and repeated to the other NATO capitals and Moscow.
2. The summary, C–R(57)84, and verbatim, C–VR(57)84, records of this session, both dated December 17, are ibid., Conference Files: Lot 63 D 123, CF 951.
3. Transmitted in Polto 1791, December 17. (Ibid., Central Files, 396.1–PA/12–1757)
4. Polto 1797, December 18. (Ibid., 396.1–P A/12–1857)
5. Not found in Department of State files.
6. This proposal was made by Dulles at the first plenary session of the Heads of Government meeting on December 16. For text, see Department of State Bulletin, January 6, 1957, pp. 8–12.