840.20/3–2149: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Embassy in Portugal
79. Pls convey fol personal message Dr. Salazar from me (Embtel 99 Mar 19) adding suitable salutation and close:
Amb Pereira and Amb MacVeagh have both conveyed to me Your Excellency’s preoccupation with the twenty-year term for the proposed North Atlantic Treaty and the reasons therefor arising from Port’s historic policy of avoiding involvement in continental conflicts in Eur.
I well understand your preoccupation. My own govt has, since the early days of its independence, always endeavored similarly to avoid involvement in Eur conflicts. US participation in the proposed North Atlantic Treaty represents such an important change in our historic policy that we too have given most careful thought to the question of the duration of the treaty. Brit, Fr, Belg, Neth, and Lux govts strongly preferred a duration of fifty years but my govt was reluctant, as is yours, to accept such a long-term commitment. After the most careful consideration, however, my govt reached the conclusion that twenty years with provision for review after ten years represented the best term. This provision for review provides an opportunity to make such changes as may be necessary to adapt the Treaty to the international circumstances prevailing at that time. We believe that a shorter duration would not be adequate to provide in Eur the necessary long-term stability and confidence of security.
In view of the consistently expressed desire of the other govts for a long duration I can see no possibility of their agreeing to reduce the Treaty to a ten-year term. While the possibility of a Port reservation could only be decided by all the participating govts, my govt would be unhappy to see Port participate on less than an equal footing with the other participants and would be seriously concerned lest any reservation by any govt be taken as a precedent by other govts or parliaments for the imposition of other reservations which might seriously weaken the whole Treaty. The question of later accession to the Treaty, and the terms of accession by any govt, could be decided only by unanimous agreement of the Parties after the Treaty had come into effect.
Port is both in a geographic and historic sense an Atlantic and a European nation. This fact is an important element in the close ties and similarity of outlook which bind Port and the US together. Your Excellency’s govt has given many indications of its Atlantic outlook and its interest in contributing to the security of the North Atlantic area. The arrangements so happily concluded concerning facilities in [Page 243] the Azores are concrete testimony of Port’s interest in, and contribution to, the security of the area. The proposed Treaty provides an unprecedented opportunity for our two countries to join in a mutually beneficial security arrangement. In these circumstances I strongly hope that Port will decide to join with the United States and other Atlantic nations as a full and original partner in this great cooperative step to promote peace through discouraging aggression and contributing toward the stability and security of the North Atlantic area.