840.20/3–1449
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Secretary of State
| Participants: | Mr. Bjarni Benediktsson, Foreign Minister of Iceland |
| Mr. Eysteinn Jonsson, Leader, Progressive Party | |
| Mr. Emil Jonsson, Leader, Social Democratic Party | |
| Mr. Thor Thors, Minister of Iceland | |
| Mr. Hans Anderson, Iceland Foreign Office | |
| The Secretary | |
| Mr. Charles E. Bohlen, Counselor | |
| Mr. John D. Hickerson, Director, EUR | |
| Mr. Benjamin M. Hulley, Chief, NOE |
I welcomed the Foreign Minister and his colleagues and said I was happy that their visit gave us an opportunity to discuss frankly any questions that they wanted to raise in connection with the North Atlantic Pact.
Mr. Benediktsson said he and his colleagues, representing the three parties of the coalition government, had come to find out what would be the best relationship to the Pact for Iceland with its unbroken tradition of peace, its lack of defense forces, and its strong aversion to war and to having foreign troops on Icelandic soil in peacetime.
I said I wanted to make it quite clear at the outset that any decision reached in this matter would be entirely an Icelandic one without any suggestion, of pressure or persuasion from us. I then outlined the general principles of several Articles of the Pact, pointing out that it is a Pact of cooperative association for defense, that its objectives are peaceful, and I explained the meaning of mutual aid and [Page 203] self-defense in Article III and the undertaking in Article V. I pointed out that we were well aware of the special situation in Iceland which has no defense forces and does not desire foreign defense forces on its territory in peacetime. I said we had no desire to change this situation.
The Foreign Minister spoke of the domestic political problem occasioned by the Communist opposition to the Pact. They charged that participation would destroy Icelandic independence only recently gained from Denmark. I said that a reading of the Pact terms should make it clear that there was no impairment of the sovereignty of any member. The action which each nation would take to implement Article V would be its own decision and not that of one or more other members of the group.
Another communist argument which he will need to answer is that neutrality is a better protection than the Pact and that the latter in fact makes Iceland more vulnerable to attack. I suggested that the reply might be found by reviewing the experience of several small nations which in the last war found neutrality offered no protection against an aggressor.
I assured the Foreign Minister that my associates would be glad to discuss fully and frankly any questions he wishes to bring up concerning the Pact, and that I would be at his disposal for a further discussion this week.