Foreign Relations of the United States, 1950, Western Europe, Volume III

740.5/9–1750: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Acting Secretary of State

top secret

New York, September 17, 1950—5 p. m.

Secto 23. For President and Webb. Summary fourth meeting North Atlantic Council fifth session 3 p. m. September 16.

1. Continued discussion agenda item 4.

2. Acheson suggested Council might terminate discussion German issue at this point and attempt agree on communiqué which would emphasize progress made and state Council had requested military production and financial experts come up soon with answers to technical questions involved. Proposed that Council agree to general lines communiqué and request deputies work out for release end of meeting on Monday.

Suggested communiqué take following general line: Council has gone to roots of major problems in vigorous way. Communiqué should emphasize large area agreement. Nations have knowledge where going and are imbued with sense of urgency. Are determined to create in shortest time integrated force defense of Europe and solve related questions. However many technical problems involved working out this force. Council has asked military to state what kinds units should be formed, best methods for allocating and increasing integrated units, kind of command required, question of timing of appointment and authority of supreme commander, and nature international staff required. Production experts asked how machinery can be improved. Financial experts asked for immediate advice on solving financial problems.

Communiqué would state Council has given fullest consideration to problem of relationship to West Germany including Adenauer’s proposal. Council determined to add to strength West Europe but in such way as to minimize problems. Secretary proposed that communiqué imply there would be further meeting in relatively short time but deliberately leave date vague. Stated confident Council could break deadlock in short time and said should shoot for meeting in week or ten days.

3. Schuman agreed to proposal and stated belief ten days about right for next meeting.

4. Sforza pleaded for continued discussion Council and stated belief with good will Council could reach agreement on major issues in continued sessions.

5. Cunha (Portugal) stated decisions must be ref erred Governments which cannot be done within two days.

6. Lange (Norway) suggested communiqué emphasize points of agreement. Said Governments can consider in ten days and hoped would reach final decision by then.

7. Bevin stated only Russia would be made happy by such communiqué. Very pessimistic concerning consequences failure agree on historic proposal this time. Believed people will consider communiqué diplomatic device to cover profound disagreement. Was afraid people might lose faith in this great idea unless problem solved soon. Compared morning discussion to dash of ice water in contrast to Secretary’s statement second meeting which he described as warm bath. Felt might require few more days for government consideration but urged speedy action obtain agreement.

8. Pearson (Canada) stated good deal in Bevin’s statement. Council has discussed in only two meetings. If communiqué only says large area agreement reached but details all points of disagreement would have bad effect.

9. Acheson said he had no intention stating what Bevin and Pearson apparently understood him to say. In light of discussion and because of apparent confusion over proposal, would now withdraw proposal and start over. Happy accept suggestion for Council meeting Monday. However was necessary that work continue over weekend in preparation for such session. Proposed turn problem over to deputies to work on prior to meeting Monday.

10. Schuman agreed. Stated twelve governments cannot be expected solve such major and new questions in two days. However should not lose courage. Have reached maximum agreement and governments should review position.

11. Council agreed meet 11 a. m. Monday. Spofford called meeting deputies 2:30 Sunday September 17.

12. Cunha raised problem Spanish participation under Item 4. In long speech stated should study without prejudice and exclusively from strategic point of view. Made clear was not raising question of membership NAT but merely utilizing Spain for common defense, citing analogy treatment Germany, Spain, Turkey. Emphasized importance Spain defense Portugal and pointed out stood between Portugal and France.

Warned that first line may not be held, WE countries may be overrun, and necessary look at realities. This required preparation defense in depth behind Pyrenees. Realized might not be able to agree today and perhaps must wait until GA acts. Proposed Council give full freedom to US to do what must be done to bring Spain into defense picture.

13. Schuman replied that Spanish question could be solved only by admission to NATO. Could not discuss defense plans generally with non-members. Stated Germany was special case because of occupation. Whatever strategic merits of inclusion Spain, cannot discuss as long as UN resolution in effect. Possibly after GA if it acts favorably, Portugal could raise question again more profitably.

14. Cunha reiterated did not insist now on final answer. Stated all or nothing not only alternatives and saw no reason for waiting until GA acted. Specifically proposed US give help to Spain, not necessarily monetary but in form of arms. There was no comment on this proposal.

15. Item 5.¹ Council accepted PBOS report without comment except UK statement very good report.

16. Item 6.² Sforza stated Italy would bow to majority. However urged reply be made verbally and not publicly. Pointed to delicate situation Turkish Government vis-à-vis opposition. Important minimize negative aspects since Greece and Turkey faithful allies West powers.

17. Bevin pointed out US had stepped in helped these countries at critical time and countries were linked UK–France by treaty. Therefore prospect not so bleak as appeared on paper. Agreed with Sforza re approach.

18. Schman questioned whether desirable to make public decision.

19. Cunha saw no reason not make public positive aspect of reply. Felt required written statement as follow-up to verbal approach.

20. Acheson stated appeared sense of meeting that chairman communicate decision personally to FonMin’s. Proposed deliver written oral statement of favorable aspect of decision. Council would give no publicity to decision. Presumably countries will make own public announcements which we can merely confirm. Pointed out that US would relinquish chair at end of meeting but prepared to undertake task if Van Zeeland agreed.

21. Council approved above course of action.

22. Item 7.³ Stikker explained problems required study. Pointed out NATO discusses division European resources, financial mechanisms for sharing defense burden, arrangements for distribution US aid. On other hand OEEC studies economic expansion, balance of payments, liberalization trade, monetary stabilization, and other matters closely related NATO work. Believed if both bodies deal with these questions no real work for either. NATO not equipped with necessary experts deal with all defense, financial, economic problems while OEEC well established and staffed. Pointed out no initiative now being taken on many problems resulting from impact increased defense efforts and countries are drifting into dangerous situation. Stated held no brief for either organization, merely wanted results.

Pointed out transfer of functions and staff from OEEC would have bad political impact on Europe. Stated ECA must have its European counterpart. While not knowing US intentions for interlocking ECA and military aid, believed ECA might deal with both.

Proposed starting on empirical basis. Suggested Council pass resolution suggesting delegates of NATO countries to OEEC meet in Paris and establish liaison with London NATO bodies. Would utilize OEEC secretariat. If this proposal agreed in principle by Council, deputies could prepare draft resolution. No publicity should be given this decision since formal establishment might have unfavorable influence on Sweden and Switzerland. Stikker stated had talked with delegates those countries and confident were willing cooperate this arrangement. In fact Swiss would prefer participate in such work.

23. Acheson considered Stikker proposal sensible and reasonable. Asked wheher Stikker could draft such proposal for consideration deputies.

24. Bevin said matter one for experts and required study particularly those related to problem of financial organization NATO itself. Suggested be studied by experts and referred back to Council for final action.

25. Lange suggested agreement on principle and asked deputies to work out with OEEC delegates and DFEC suitable arrangements.

26. Schuman stated could not take position on issue today or Monday. Expressed fear might be over-organizing, point out each government has duty coordinate their various delegations these various bodies. Prepared study any document but felt should express fear we may be organizing slowness.

27. Agreed Stikker would prepare draft for submission deputies September 17.

28. Item 8. Discussion Schuman paper C 5–D/4.⁴ Schuman pointed out impact of accelerated defense programs on prices cotton, copper, wool, and rubber. If this allowed to continue, would create danger general inflation, make impossible obtain raw materials, and increase financial burdens of defense. Stated had no solution to offer now and requested only the problem be studied by the deputies possibly with help of OEEC.

29. Stikker agreed problem should be studied.

30. Bevin pointed out problem very complex and involved producing as well as using countries. Doubted NATO proper body deal with such problems and thought required wider study than proposed in Schuman resolution. Proposed deputies consider best means for consulting producers as well as users.

31. Acheson proposed deputies work on problem and attempt prepare resolution for Monday’s session. Pointed out could only suggest method. As result of study they might conclude some other body should undertake.

32. Stikker pointed out problems could only be solved on ad hoc basis for each commodity. Asked that deputies study whether OEEC could give useful advice.

33. Council agreed request deputies formulate resolution for such study to be presented Monday.

34. Council agreed would tell press only that Council continued discussion and recessed until Monday 11 a. m.

Department pass Department Defense, Brussels, Ottawa, Copenhagen, Paris, Rome, The Hague, Oslo, Lisbon, London, Reykjavik, Luxembourg.

Acheson

1. Report of the Planning Board for Ocean Shipping. Report not printed.
2. Action regarding NATO participation of Greece and Turkey. The Council was here presented with the action taken by the Council Deputies in their meeting of September 14 in New York, in which they approved Acheson’s proposal to invite Turkey and Greece to participate as associate members of NATO in the defense planning for the Mediterranean area. The meeting of the Deputies on September 14 is covered by telegram Secto 15, September 15, 740.5/9–1550, not printed. The proposal was presented earlier by Acheson in slightly different farm in the third meeting of the Foreign Ministers, New York, September 13. For minutes of that meeting, see p. 1209.
3. The proposed reorganization of NATO and the OEEC to provide better coordination between them on defense matters.
4. French proposal concerning the control of raw materials and supplies, not printed.