740.5/10–1850: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Embassy in France 1

top secret
niact

2019. For Bonsal. Initial mtg reps of NAT Defmins (to prepare for Def Comite Mtg Oct 28) held Pentagon this afternoon with Mr. Lovett presiding. Purpose this initial mtg was to block out work for subsequent mtgs by going over tentative Def Mins agenda. There was no difficulty until agenda item dealing with “Contribution of Ger to Def of WE” was reached.

Re this item (which on agenda as result NAT Council Res asking for recommendations from Def Comite) Mr. Lovett said US wld table paper tomorrow setting forth US views. He envisaged this paper wld be cabled back to govts by reps and subsequently beginning Oct 23 there cld be discussion of it. He made it clear that while he wld be glad endeavor to clarify paper if there were questions tomorrow, he did not expect there wld be much discussion until govts had considered it. He also made clear that such discussions as might occur wld be in no sense binding on Defmins or in any way commit them. Object was to exchange preliminary views, suggestions, and comments so that the Mins discussion cld be more profitable. He recognized such comment or discussions as occurred wld depend on instr of the reps.

Bonnet (Fr rep who accompanied by Genl Vernoux2 and Christian de Margerie) took very strong position that while Fr were willing to receive US paper, any discussion of it by reps was improper since ques of principle of Ger participation had not been agreed and therefore discussion of details must await agreement to prin.

Mr. Lovett said he fully understood Fr rep might not be authorized discuss ques but that if other reps had comments or suggestions this wld make for greater understanding in Defmins discussion Oct 28.

Bonnet replied he felt discussion by reps wld complicate and make more difficult subsequent discussion by Mins. Said that perhaps US and Fr interpretation as to what Council Res called for differed. For example the Res might not be interpreted as referring to Ger manpower contribution but to industrial and econ contribution. Bonnet said he thought there had been misunderstanding between Fr and US on how reps wld handle this ques.

Mr. Lovett replied that while he cld not say this was not so, he knew of no misunderstanding and wished to point out that Genl Marshall’s invitation had clearly indicated it was to discuss Defmins agenda and the Ger ques was on the agenda at time of invitation. Mr. Lovett said [Page 389] as there were still number of further items to consider at mtg today he suggested further postponement discussion this ques until mtg tomorrow afternoon.

We sending foregoing to you since Fr may raise ques with you. If they do you shld make clear again our position that:

1.
Purpose mtg is to make more fruitful discussions of Mins themselves.
2.
Any discussions on Ger or other agenda items do not commit any of the Def mins, in any sense whatsoever.
3.
We fully realize reps may not be authorized by their instructions to discuss certain questions and there is no obligation for them to do so.
4.
We welcome comments or questions from reps, personal or under instr, and believe such exchanges of views while in no sense binding on any of Mins, may further clarify this issue and thus assist in reaching most satisfactory and constructive solution to problem.

We also believe even if Fr rep not authorized discuss ques, comments of other reps might be of interest or useful to Fr Govt in formulation its views.

Acheson
  1. Repeated for information to Brussels 508, Ottawa 74, Copenhagen 207, Rome 1659, The Hague 464, Oslo 285, Lisbon 142, London for Spofford 2006, Reykjavik 77, and Luxembourg 47.
  2. Maj. Gen. Vernoux, Chief of Staff, Combined Staff, French Ministry of Defense.