501. BC/9–1446
The State–War–Navy Coordinating Committee to the Secretary of State
SWN–4744
Subject: Guidance for J.C.S. Representatives on the Military Staff Committee, U.N., on Making all National Forces Available to the Security Council.
Reference: SWNCC 219/8. The following memorandum is forwarded to the Secretary of State at the request of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:
“The United Kingdom representatives on a subcommittee of the Military Staff Committee of the United Nations have proposed inclusion [Page 918] in the Standard Form of Agreement concerning the size and composition of the armed forces to be made available to the Security Council an article as follows:
‘[Member Nation] guarantees to place, if requested by the Security Council, the whole of its national forces at the disposal of the Security Council so far as its other commitments and transport resources permit.’56
“The British members on the subcommittee of the Military Staff Committee presently drafting a Standard Form of Agreement have already agreed to inclusion of Article II as set forth in the draft agreement in SWNCC 219/8. It is, therefore, concluded that the British intend their proposed article to be in addition to Article II instead of a replacement for it. It is noted, however, that in the memorandum proposing the new article to the subcommittee, the British representatives stated, ‘An agreement of this nature would seem to eliminate the need for large predetermined forces under Article II,’ and that a British representative stated in effect in a subcommittee meeting on 22 August that national contributions should be kept as small as possible and that, in order to do this, member nations should agree to reinforce these contributions by the method set forth in the proposed article. These statements indicate a trend of thought which, if adopted by all other member nations, might result in the Security Council having on call armed forces insufficient to cope with even foreseeable situations. The purpose of making contributions under Article 43 of the Charter which is ‘in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security’ may be vitiated by this trend. Aside from the proposed article itself, this trend of thought on the part of the British is objectionable from the military point of view.
“If member nations pledge quotas commensurate with their resources, the forces permanently available under the provisions of Article 43 of the Charter should be ample for any need that can develop, short of major war. The outbreak of war among the major powers will mean that the United Nations has failed to achieve its purpose and will terminate the organization as constituted under the present Charter.
“It is considered that the political importance of the matter is paramount. Its military implications are nebulous because of the indefiniteness of the phrase ‘so far as its other commitments and transport resources permit’ and because possible political and popular interpretations of the proposed article are unknown. The question [Page 919] is primarily whether additional forces, if required, will be made available to the Security Council by negotiation between the Security Council and member nations when or after an emergency arises, or whether the United States will agree beforehand that all forces not required for other commitments will be made available if needed. This and other political implications contained in the British proposal are outside the competence of the Joint Chiefs of Staff but appear to be of major importance to the United States. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, therefore, feel they should have advice from proper governmental authority as to the attitude of the United States Government toward the British proposal before preparing and forwarding to their representatives on the Military Staff Committee a statement of the position to be assumed toward it. It is possible that in the light of the advice received, military objections will become apparent which are not now perceived because of the obscure nature of the implications surrounding the British proposal.
“It is requested that this memorandum be forwarded to the Secretary of State with the request that he furnish the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as a matter of priority, a statement of the United States Government’s attitude toward the British proposal.”
It is requested that the information desired by the Joint Chiefs of Staff be forwarded to the State-War-Navy Coordinating Committee for transmittal to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
for J. H. Hilldring, Chairman
- At the 3rd Meeting of the Sub-Committee for the Consideration of a Standard Form of Agreement Between the Security Council and Member Nations of the United Nations Concerning the Provision of United Nations Forces, the British representative raised the possibility of including such an article. The United Kingdom mentioned the proposal at several subsequent meetings without eliciting support from the other delegations. At the 7th Meeting, August 23, the United Kingdom offered two alternative drafts which simply specified that member nations had an obligation to provide additional forces should those listed in the annexes to the initial agreements prove inadequate. Later in the meeting, the United Kingdom accepted the view of the United States that the purview of the Sub-Committee was limited to agreements with respect to agreements providing for specific forces. It did not abandon the principle upon which its proposal was based. Therefore, while the Sub-Committee took no action on the British proposal, the possibility of subsequent discussion of it by the Military Staff Committee existed. (IO Files)↩