840.20/7–2648
Memorandum of the Sixth Meeting of the Working Group Participating in the Washington Exploratory Talks on Security, July 26, 1948
Mr. Stone informed the members of the group that Ambassador Wrong had indicated his belief that the memorandum on Item I should be of a tentative nature until such time as all the items had been discussed, when it could be reviewed in relation to the whole. He also suggested that when the memorandum is dispatched to London a covering note be attached to it describing this provisional character.
Mr. Hoyer Millar reported in summary the information which had been received regarding the discussions of the Brussels countries at The Hague. He said that the subject described in Item 3 of the working group’s agenda1 had been referred to the Permanent Commission for further study, that it had been agreed that the Defense Ministers of the five countries would meet toward the end of August to consider, in general, the strategic concept of Western Europe, and that the question [Page 202] of security—e.g., what steps which could be taken against Communist infiltration—was also referred to the Permanent Commission for examination. On concluding their work, the Powers represented at The Hague had agreed to meet again in three months time.
Suggesting that the group turn its attention to Item 2 of the agenda, Mr. Hickerson urged the members to discuss this subject freely and entirety without committing their governments, considering in turn each European country which might possibly be a logical, natural candidate for inclusion in the pact or arrangement under discussion.
Mr. Hoyer Millar stated that he thought in terms of two pacts, not merely an expansion of the Brussels Pact, for this might be accomplished apart from the concurrent formation of a second and wider pact which would be more in the nature of a North Atlantic community group. All members of the latter, for example, might not necessarily be members of the former. Also, some countries might prove more of a liability than an asset to the projected association. He pointed out that Italy must be considered essentially a Western European country yet is not at the present time a suitable candidate for admission to the Brussels Pact. From the political standpoint, Mr. Hoyer Millar believed that Spain perhaps might prove the only country which it would be difficult to bring into this association.
Mr. Hickerson warned against taking any action, or refraining to take any action, which might be construed as a lack of interest in the fate of the free countries in Europe or, for that matter, in the Middle East, since it might invite Soviet aggression in the area concerned. At the same time, he recognized that the association would have to have some geographic limits, although it would be very difficult to draw such a line. For example, if Italy were included, what should be the attitude toward Greece; if Greece were invited to be a member, should Turkey be included? He urged the members to keep this geographic concept in mind as they pursued their discussion.
Mr. Hoyer Millar pointed out that there were many provisions in the Brussels Pact which were wholly peculiar to the European community, such as references to customs unions, colonial issues, etc., all of which made the Pact unsuitable for United States inclusion. When Mr. Reber suggested that Spain would probably have to be omitted for the time being, Mr. Hoyer Millar said that the British chiefs of staff placed great emphasis on the strategic importance of Spain, pointing out its vital relationship to the sea-lane through the Mediterranean. Recognizing that the country was unpalatable politically, he thought that our attitude should be to include Spain in the new association as soon, and not as late as, possible. In this connection, Mr. Hickerson said that the United States chiefs of staff viewed [Page 203] Spain in pretty much the same light. Mr. Hoyer Millar stated that, on the other hand, the practical consequences of omitting Spain from membership in the next few years would be insignificant, since in the event of an East-West war there was little doubt that any military facilities desired could be readily obtained.
In regard to Portugal, Mr. Reber stated that this country was also important from the strategic standpoint, not only because of its position on the Iberian Peninsula but also due to its possession of the Azores. Agreeing to this statement, Mr. Hoyer Millar suggested that Portugal might be tempted to enter such an arrangement despite its close ties with General Franco, if it could come in, as it were, on the ground floor, and could be assured of U.S. support of the pact. In his estimation, another factor which might influence her would be the attitude Brazil adopted toward the new grouping of countries. Mr. Hickerson pointed out that Portugal might request certain guarantees regarding protection against attack on its colonies if it enters the association.
Mr. Hickerson thought that Norway and Denmark would readily join if Sweden were induced to become a member, but that, in any event, the latter country probably would make no decision until after its elections this fall. He also suggested that by remaining outside the association, while Norway and Denmark came in, Sweden might invite Soviet aggression.
Mr. Hickerson said that the question of inclusion of Germany and Austria would pose some very great problems for a long time to come, since treaties have not been signed with these countries, and since both were under military occupation, but that ultimately, as a long term proposition, it was only natural to expect that they would be included. He agreed with Mr. Hoyer Millar that great care must be exercised in their attitude toward Germany in order not to provide propaganda ammunition to those who would charge that the lessons of the last war were being forgotten.
In regard to Ireland, Mr. Hickerson stated that although it was not a member of the United Nations this fact created no insuperable difficulties since the United States and others have advocated its membership in the Organization. Moreover, there was nothing in the UN charter prejudicial to the admission of non-UN members in security arrangements. Mr. Hoyer Millar pointed out that the country would be important strategically, and could provide manpower and military facilities. Furthermore, he believed that Ireland would probably be willing to join any association of which the United States was a member.
Mr. Hickerson stated he believed that Italy was an integral part [Page 204] of Western European security, although she also would be eligible for any Mediterranean arrangement that might be devised. Despite the fact that the present peace treaties limited its freedom of action and, moreover, limited its military forces, he would like to see Italy a member of the association under discussion. Mr. Reber agreed with this statement, suggesting that Italy would be more of a liability outside of the association than as a member of it. Mr. Reuchlin believed that Italy, like Germany and Austria, probably would not be eligible for sometime and that this problem therefore was not an immediate one. Mr. Hickerson pointed out, however, that the positions of the countries were not comparable, since a peace treaty had been signed and since there was no military occupation of the country. Moreover, exclusion of Italy would have a bad effect on the public not only in that country but in the United States. Mr. Stone added that U.S. public opinion might demand its inclusion.
So far as Greece and Turkey were concerned, Mr. Hoyer Millar and Mr. Stone agreed with Mr. Hickerson that it would be very difficult to include them in any pact that was truly regional. Mr. Hickerson suggested that the problem should be met by including a statement to the effect that these two countries do not satisfy the criteria established in any creation of a North Atlantic association, but that certain steps should be taken to ensure that the security of the countries would not be compromised by their remaining outside the group.
When Mr. Hickerson suggested that Brazil probably should be included, Mr. Hoyer Millar expressed the opinion that any military facilities that might be desired probably could be obtained in any event under provisions of the Rio Treaty.
In conclusion, Mr. Hickerson suggested that it might be helpful to produce a sort of time-table in which all prospective member states could be listed with the approximate time when they might appropriately be included as members of the association.