Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, Western Europe, Volume III

840.20/12–2448

Report of the International Working Group to the Ambassadors’ Committee ¹

top secret

[Washington,] December 24, 1948.

Washington Security Talks

IWG D–5/1a. The Working Group have reached agreement on practically all the articles of a possible Pact. The text of these articles is given as Annex A. Explanatory notes on the individual articles are given as Annex B.

The only articles of the Treaty on which it was not possible to reach agreement were the following:

(a) Article 5 (2)—the area to be covered and in particular whether French North Africa is to be included. (Annex A, Page 7)

(b) Article 8 (bis). Whether, as proposed by the French representatives, an additional article should be included providing for the reference of disputes to the International Court and endowing “the council” with certain powers of conciliation.

(c) Article 10. Ratification and duration. (Annex A, Page 12) The United States representatives preferred to leave the question of the duration of the Treaty open at this stage.

While the Working Group were able to agree on some of the countries which should be invited to participate in the Treaty, they were unable to reach any decision on the question of Italy or to make any firm recommendation on the steps to be taken to give assurances to Greece and Turkey (and perhaps Iran). A statement of the position in respect to Italy and Greece and Turkey etc. is given as Annex C. The Working Group agreed on the procedure to be followed for the subsequent course of negotiations, approaches to other governments, etc. A statement of their views on this point is given as Annex D.

The Working Group recommend that the Ambassadors forward a copy of this report to their governments with the request that the latter furnish as soon as possible their comments on the text of the Treaty and their views on the specific points mentioned above on which the Working Group has been unable to reach agreement.

[Annex A]

December 24—Draft Treaty

Article 1 (Peaceful Settlement)

The Parties undertake, as set forth in Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations, to settle their international disputes in such a manner that peace, security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Article 2 (General Welfare)

The Parties will encourage cooperative efforts between any or all of them to promote the general welfare through collaboration in the cultural, economic and social fields. Such efforts shall, to the greatest possible extent, be undertaken through and assist the work of existing international organizations.

Article 3 (Mutual Aid)

In order better to assure the security of the North Atlantic area, the Parties will use every endeavor, severally and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, to strengthen their individual and collective capacity to resist aggression.

Article 4 (Consultation)

The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them,

(a) the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened; or

(b) there exists any situation which constitutes a threat to or breach of the peace.

Article 5, Paragraph 1 (Mutual Assistance)

(1) The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them occurring within the area defined below shall be considered an attack against them all; and consequently that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the party or parties so attacked by taking forthwith such military or other action, individually and in concert with the other Parties, as may be necessary to restore and assure the security of the North Atlantic area.

Article 5, Paragraph 2 (Definition of Area)

(2) The provisions of the foregoing paragraph shall be applicable in the event of any armed attack directed against the territory, the population or the armed forces of any of the Parties in:

alternative a

(a) Europe or North America; (b) the sea and air space of the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

alternative b

(a) Europe or North America; Africa north of Latitude 30° North and West of Longitude 12° East; (b) the sea and air space of the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer; and (c) the sea and air space of the western Mediterranean, West of Longitude 12° East [or, if Italy comes in, Longitude 20° East].²

Article 6 (United Nations)

1. This Treaty does not prejudice in any way the obligations of the Parties under the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. It shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.

2. Any fact or situation constituting a threat to or breach of the peace and deemed to require consultation under Article 4, or any armed attack requiring action under Article 5, shall be immediately reported to the Security Council.

3. All measures taken as a result of Article 5 shall be immediately reported to the Security Council. They shall be terminated as soon as the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore international peace and security.

Article 7 (Other International Engagements)

The Parties declare, each so far as he is concerned, that none of the international engagements now in force between him and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with or affected by the provisions of this Treaty.

Article 8 (Organization)

The Parties hereby establish a Council, on which each of them shall be represented, to deal with matters concerning the implementation of this Treaty. The Council shall be so organized as to be able to meet promptly at any time. The Council shall set up such subsidiary bodies as may be necessary; in particular it shall establish immediately a defense committee which shall recommend measures for the implementation of Articles 3 and 5.

Article 9 (Accession)

The Parties may, by agreement, invite any other country in the North Atlantic or Western European regions to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of ___________. The Government of ___________ will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.

Article 10 (Ratification and Duration)

This Treaty shall be ratified by the signatory states and the instruments of ratification shall be deposited as soon as possible with the ____________ Government. It shall enter into force between the states which have ratified it as soon as the ratifications of the majority of the signatories have been deposited and shall remain in effect for ______ years from that date. It shall come into effect with respect to the other signatory States on the date of the deposit of their ratifications.

After this Treaty has been in force for ________ years, each of the Parties may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the ___________ Government.

The ____________ Government shall inform the Governments of the other Parties of the deposit of each instrument of ratification and each notice of denunciation.

Annex B

Comments on Proposed Articles

The following are comments on the draft articles included in Annex A. They are presented in the same order and under the same numbers as the articles in Annex A.

1. Peaceful Settlement of Disputes.

A draft of article 1 designed to replace articles 1 and 2 of the outline of September 9th and articles 1 and 2 of the Permanent Committee’s suggestions was agreed in the form given in Annex A.

2. Co-operation in the Cultural, Economic, and Social Fields.

The Brussels powers’ representatives doubted the necessity of including an article calling for economic, cultural, and social co-operation and feared duplication of existing machinery. They agreed, however, that, if such duplication were clearly avoided, they would have no objection to including such an article. (Article 3, September 9th paper.) Canada and the United States strongly favored including one. It was agreed that the text given in Annex A would be generally acceptable as a compromise, since the Canadian representative would have preferred a more strongly worded provision.

3. Pledge of Self-Help and Mutual Aid.

This article was acceptable in the form given in Annex A.

4. Provision for Consultation.

The text of this article as given in Annex A is the text as suggested by the Permanent Commission in London, which was found to be acceptable without change.

It was agreed that this provision for consultation covers all threats to the peace, including attacks against the overseas territories of any of the parties to the Treaty, and that this should be recorded.

5. The Pledge of Mutual Assistance.

The Working Group accepted part 1 of the proposed article 5 in the form given in Annex A.

It is proposed that part 2 should define the area to be covered by the Treaty. Two drafts of this part of article 5 are presented in Annex A, marked (a) and (b). Draft (a) was acceptable to the United States, Canada and. Draft (b) was acceptable to France and the United Kingdom. It will be noted that the essential difference between these two drafts is that draft (a) excludes any part of Africa or the Mediterranean from the area to be covered by the Treaty, whereas draft (b) includes parts of North Africa and of the Mediterranean.

6. Relationship to the United Nations.

The Working Group agreed to the draft of this article as given in Annex A, which is designed to replace articles 8, 9 and 11 of the September 9th document.

7. Conflict with other Treaties.

The United Kingdom representative proposed a separate article declaring that the present Treaty was not in conflict with any previous treaties entered into by the parties, and the draft as given in Annex A was accepted.

The United Kingdom representative proposed an additional paragraph as follows:

“None of the Parties will conclude any alliance or participate in any coalition directed against any other of the Parties or against any members of the United Nations.”

The French representative supported this proposal but it was not accepted.

8. Organization.

The Working Group accepted the draft as given in Annex A.

8. (bis) International Court and Conciliation

The French representatives were concerned lest the pact be interpreted as an instrument of coalition. It should on the contrary appear as a regional pact with the appropriate machinery of such an organization. They suggested, therefore, that an article be added after Article 8 providing that the parties will refer to the International Court of Justice all disputes which come under the provisions of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court. This article would also provide that the Council established by Article 8 should act as an organ of conciliation when other means of conciliation or arbitration have failed. It would be understood that the Council should in no way interfere with the operation of existing treaties and agreements between the parties. Other representatives pointed out that the International Court, although of special importance, was only one among many of the available peaceful means for settling disputes. As regards the proposal that the Council should become an instrument of conciliation, it was considered by other representatives that the Council might thus duplicate and perhaps confuse the operation of existing treaties of conciliation between parties to the pact or of permanent agencies already established. Furthermore, the possibility of disputes between parties to the pact of such a serious nature as to defy solution by these existing agencies or under existing treaties seemed to some members of the Committee so remote as to make it unnecessary to establish a further agency of conciliation as between the parties.

It was also believed that mention of the International Court might mean protracted delay in negotiating the treaty in view of the difficulty of finding language which would adequately safeguard the reservations which various countries have already made or would have to make. For these reasons, the additional article proposed by the French representatives was not accepted.

9. Accession Clause.

This article as given in Annex A was accepted by the Working Group with the understanding that a more accurate definition of the area from which acceding countries might come might be agreed upon at a later date.

10. Duration of the Treaty.

At the request of the U.S. representatives, decision on the duration was deferred, but it was generally agreed that the number of years should be a multiple of four. It was agreed to insert the article on ratification given in Annex A, with the length of time left blank.

11. Various forms of an article which would provide for the expulsion from the treaty of any signatory under certain circumstances were discussed. This proved difficult to express and on balance it was decided to recommend that no such article be included.

Annex C

Italy

No agreement as to whether an invitation should be extended to Italy to join the Pact as an original signatory could be reached. It was thought that a brief review of the arguments for and against the inclusion of Italy might be useful.

(I) Arguments for the inclusion of Italy.

(a) The non-inclusion of Italy might result in a very serious increase in Soviet propaganda and other efforts to detach this country from Western Europe.

(b) Non-inclusion would be a serious blow to the Italian Government. On the other hand, there is evidence of support in Italy for a policy of neutrality. On the basis of the information it had, however, the Group thought that it might be easier for the Government of Italy to justify participation than to explain exclusion to its legislature and to the Italian people.

(c) If an invitation is not extended to Italy to become a full member, she might refuse to associate herself in any way with the Pact. The supporters of a policy of neutrality would then presumably carry the day.

(d) Geographically Italy occupied a position of considerable strategic importance on the right wing of the defence of Western Europe. In case of conflict it would be essential to safeguard the southern flank as well as to guarantee the security of the southern route by which assistance from North America would be in part carried to Europe. The position of Italy is important to the operation of this route and it is otherwise important that Italy not be in enemy hands.

(e) It would be illogical to exclude Italy from this Pact while encouraging efforts to integrate her more fully into the Western European economic organization—such as the projected Franco-Italian Customs Union.

(f) As long as Italy is not a member of the North Atlantic Pact, her participation in the Brussels Pact would perhaps not be acceptable to the signatories. On the other hand, the U.S. Working Group thought that Italy should perhaps not join the North Atlantic Pact unless she had acceded to the Brussels Pact. In the course of the discussion it was suggested that the Italian Government might be invited to accede to both Pacts simultaneously.

(g) If one of the objectives of the Pact is to tighten cultural and political ties between North Atlantic and Western European countries, Italy, by reason of her civilization and her mercantile and maritime traditions, would appear to be an appropriate member.

(h) Italy could logically be asked to join the Pact on grounds of geographical contiguity, whereas the same argument did not apply in the cases of Greece and Turkey, for example.

(II) Arguments against the inclusion of Italy.

(a) Italy is not a North Atlantic Power.

(b) Because of the arms limitation clauses of the Peace Treaty, Italy will not be in a suitable position in the foreseeable future to undertake new military commitments. Indeed, it might he said that from the strictly military point of view the inclusion of Italy would impose a definite burden on the other parties, particularly if, in me event of conflict, Italy were a belligerent.

(c) Some of the countries now conferring have, understandably, certain hesitation about extending too far afield the very considerable obligations which they would assume under the Pact. The inclusion of Italy might, therefore, be open to question if it were to involve the inclusion of territories further afield.

(d) The security of Italy is a problem of the security of the Mediterranean, which might be covered by another pact, thus obviating Italy’s inclusion in a North Atlantic pact.

(e) Since the security of the North Atlantic area (in a strict geographical sense) is a long term consideration, a Pact concerned solely with security in this area could be of longer duration than one concerned with the security of territories outside this area.

(III) Views of the Representatives

The views of the different representatives were as follows:

(a) The French representatives said that their Government strongly favoured the inclusion of Italy for the reasons given in (I) above.

(b) The British representatives said that their Government were opposed to the inclusion of Italy for the reasons given in (II) above, but they felt strongly that, if Italy were not in the pact, she should be given adequate assurances on the question of her security and that recognition of her ties with the West should be made in some way.

(c) The Canadian representatives opposed the inclusion of Italy for the reasons given in (II) above. They qualified this opposition, however, by saying that they appreciated the importance of some of the arguments in (I) and they believed that measures of some kind would have to be taken to assure Italy that, as a part of the Western world, she was not being overlooked.

(d) The Belgian representatives said that their Government was not opposed in principle to the inclusion of Italy if this were favored by the other Governments; they were reluctant, however, to see her included for the reasons given in paragraphs (c) and (d) of (II) above. They agreed that something should be done so that her ties with the West would not be weakened.

(e) The Netherlands representatives, although they recognized the importance of Italy to the Western world, wondered whether its inclusion would not impair the strength of western defense. Appropriate arrangements should be devised to extend some measure of protection to Italy and to give support to those Italians who strive to keep Italy on the side of the Western nations.

(f) The Luxembourg representative considered that something should be done for Italy.

(g) The United States representatives considered that a satisfactory solution to the problem of Italy, which would strengthen rather than weaken Italy’s natural ties with the West, must be found, preferably by simultaneous association in some mutually acceptable form with the Brussels and Atlantic Pacts.

(IV) In the circumstances further instructions from governments are urgently required.

(V) Greece and Turkey

It was agreed that while Greece and Turkey could not participate in the North Atlantic Pact, some further steps would have to be taken to assure the governments of these countries and perhaps Iran that their security had not been lost sight of and was a matter of concern. It would be all the more necessary to give such an assurance to these countries if Italy were to be a signatory of the Pact. If Italy were not to be a signatory she should receive similar assurances to those given to Greece and Turkey.

The United Kingdom representatives suggested that the situation might be met by including in the Pact an additional article somewhat on the following lines:—

“Should any state member of the O.E.E.C. other than a Party to this treaty, be the object of an armed attack, the Parties will immediately consult together with a view to taking such measures as may be desirable or necessary in order to restore the situation.”

The other representatives thought that this problem should be dealt with otherwise than by an article in the Pact.

Annex D

Procedure for Negotiations and Approaches to Other Governments

1. Procedure for Negotiation

(a) It was considered that a formal conference would not be necessary for the next stages in the negotiation of the Treaty. The present arrangement of a Working Group and an Ambassadors’ Committee reporting to governments might well continue. The personnel of the Working Group could, of course, include any representatives which any of the seven governments might see fit to appoint. Other countries than the original seven, after having been invited and accepted participation in the Pact, might also send representatives to the Working Group and Ambassadors’ Committee.

(b) No recommendation was made about whether it would be desirable to hold a brief formal conference for the signing of the Pact at the conclusion of the negotiations. This should be decided at a later date.

2. Approaches to Other Governments

(a) Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Ireland and Portugal should be invited to join the Pact if they are willing.

(b) Invitations should be extended after the wording of the Treaty has become reasonably definite but before it has become final in order to avoid confronting the other countries with a definitive text on a “take it or leave it” basis. The appropriate moment to extend these invitations would be when the seven governments have reached substantial agreement on the text of the Treaty and have finally decided what other governments are to be invited to participate. The countries willing to participate in the Pact should join in the discussions in Washington and take part in the final stages of the drafting of the Treaty.

(c) Between now and the time for issuing invitations, it would be desirable to keep the other governments generally informed of the progress of the Washington talks without, however, going into detail.

(d) The U.S. representatives agreed to the suggestion that the United States should be responsible not only for extending the invitations at the appropriate moment but also for giving the interim explanations referred to in the immediately preceding paragraph, except in the case of Portugal, which in both respects should be approached by the United States and United Kingdom governments together. This would not exclude the possibility of the other governments, in the course of their normal diplomatic relations, discussing the question of the Pact in general terms with these countries. All seven governments should keep each other informed of any conversations that they might have with the prospective signatories.

(e) The following points were made regarding certain individual countries:

(1) It was doubtful whether a direct approach should be made to Sweden at this time. It would nevertheless be appropriate for the Norwegian and Danish governments to be informed that, if Sweden wished to become a party, she would be welcome—the Norwegians and Danes being at liberty to pass this information on to the Swedes.

(2) The United Kingdom representatives indicated that their Government would have comments to make on the timing and method of any approach, whether formal or informal, to Eire.

1. The Ambassadors’ Committee approved this latest draft on the same day for submission to their respective governments. On December 28, Lovett sent a copy to Forrestal, requesting the views of the National Military Establishment concerning it, even though representatives of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had participated in its preparation (840.20/12–2848).
2. Brackets appear in the source text.