740.5/11–850: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Embassy in Belgium 1
priority
614. While we fully appreciate Van Zeeland’s desire “to play role of go-between in current impasse between US and Fr” and recognize that, as Chairman NAT Council, he can perhaps at some stage be very helpful, we are concerned by his expressed view that “task of other NAT partners is one of reconciling differences between US and Fr positions.” (Embtel 721 Nov 8, rptd Paris 153 and London 119) This view does not correspond with reality. As Van Zeeland must know, Fr proposal deemed militarily unsound by virtually all qualified mil auths the NAT countries, including Fr mil (who have told us privately they not consulted on Fr plan and believe it unsound from mil viewpoint). Furthermore, at Defense Comite mtg representatives UK, Norway, Denmark, Holland and Italy made clear their respective Govts were utterly opposed to polit proposals set forth in Fr plan. Other words Fr plan believed by virtually all NAT members to be militarily unsound, polit impossible of realization, and therefore does not address itself to most vital and urgent problem which confronts NAT members—namely, rapid bldg up an effective defense system which will be best deterrent to aggression and, in unfortunate event of attack, will prevent West Eur NAT countries being immediately overrun and occupied.
We believe immed task all NAT members is find solution this most urgent problem. Naturally, we and other NAT members will go far as possible formulate plan which can be accepted by Fr; however, there are certain essential criteria must be met any compromise solution, namely: (1) that plan is militarily sound; (2) is acceptable to [Page 440] other NAT members (particularly the Eurs insofar as polit aspects concerned) and to West Gers; (3) is capable immed implementation and does not depend on series conditions which may never be realized or, at best, wld take many months work out.
Foregoing for your background info in discussing this Van Zeeland and other appropriate Belg officials. We believe they shld be made fully aware our views which we know are shared by overwhelming majority other NAT members. We also feel Van Zeeland in error consider this a US–Fr impasse over “rearmament of Ger”. What we talking about is rearmament West Eur so that it can be defended and role which Ger must properly play in this defense if it to be effective. We have made abundantly clear all NAT members, including Fr, our proposal not submitted on a take-it-or-leave-it basis and we wld welcome constructive suggestions or proposals long as they met essential criteria set forth above.
Re possible mtg NAT Council Dec, our position is we do not believe decision on such mtg can be made until we know what Council wld be expected do. Certainly we cannot decide prior to NAT deputies and Mil Comite have concluded their work on problem Ger participation. Another Council mtg which ended in deadlock and simply registered continuing disagreement wld be disastrous from every viewpoint.
- Repeated to London as 2434, (pass to Spofford) Paris 2512, Luxembourg 51, Copenhagen 248, Reykjavik 83, Rome 1978, The Hague 568, Oslo 345, Lisbon 169, and Ottawa 88.↩