740.5/11–1750: Telegram
The United States Deputy Representative on the North Atlantic Council (Spofford) to the Secretary of State
priority
Depto 193. 1. Council deputies 30th meeting opened with consideration preliminary report by DFEC on financial and economic assumption used by the NAPBOS (D–D/176).1 Some discussion re appropriateness PWS–DFEC as body for PBOS consult on economic matters. General agreement that in absence firm NATO reorganization decisions and until such time as more appropriate body comes into being relationship between PBOS and PWS–DFEC should continue. Council approved recommendation PWS–DFEC and indicated PWS–DFEC appropriate NATO agency to deal with PBOS on this subject.
2. Netherland deputy questioned accuracy summary record 28th meeting as regards proposed joint meeting FonMin’s and DefMin’s consider question German participation (Depto 174). Netherlands deputy felt that record precluded consideration of German question by DefMin’s except in joint consultation with FonMin’s. Deputies agreed this not intent and record would be reworded accordingly.
3. Chairman stated latest info indicated MilCom arriving London about 23 or 24 November and would be prepared meet jointly with deputies week 27 November–1 December. Lancaster House available for joint meeting.
4. Opening discussion on political aspects contribution Germany to defense West Europe chairman reviewed actions and developments on this question to date. Concluded that discussions had resulted in broadening areas of agreement and that remaining task increasingly one of agreeing on methods rather than principles. Must bear in mind in dealing with German problem that since German authorities not participating in discussions, solution may not be acceptable Germans and in long run unworkable. Deputies discussions to date confined to general observations and questions on French plan. Suggested as procedure deputies now attempt breakdown subject matter into different components and focus discussion on specific areas of general problem and on means proposed to solve them rather than on any one plan as a whole. Question seemed to fall into three areas: First, purely military questions; second, organizational and administrative matters other than purely military, i. e., machinery for recruiting, training and supply; third, political questions, mainly concerning [Page 469] French proposals for European political institutions. Suggested deputies reserve military questions until joint meeting with MilCom and proceed analyze and discuss organizational question in second category. Discussions and agreements this field should clarify and perhaps reduce areas of difference with respect to third category. To begin discussions suggested that organization, administration arrangements cover two fields. One, recruitment of manpower; and two, equipment and supplies. Following questions among others applied to each of these fields: (a) what is constitution of federal agency, how appointed by Germans; (b) functions; (c) controls retained by Allies; (d) Allied organizations to which responsible; (e) relationship to SHAPE.
5. UK Deputy remarked was not clear in his mind what would exist in Germany organizationally in ten years under either plan or under French plan who controlled German arms production as well as number of men under arms. Seemed to him that under French plan Germany would lead a double life being under one set of instructions in the European Army and under a totally different set of controls and instructions within the NATO force.
6. Alphand replied German forces in European army be on same footing as forces of any other nation in that army. Occupation statutes now controlling Germany eventually be replaced by statutes of Europe. Commander of European army would have same powers over other European forces as over German forces. High Commissioner for defense would exercise same powers over all forces in European army. As his personal opinion felt that powers of High Commissioner would develop progressively with respect to recommending and coordinating measures for formation of units (RCT’s); studying recruitment methods and seeking to unify them; promoting standardization in fields of equipment, administration, training and command methods; studying and recommending methods of applying common budget. At request of several deputies Alphand agreed to prepare a personal paper covering the above. Alphand stressed German interest in federal agencies as well as interest of occupying powers and suggested NATO might delegate certain authority to occupying powers and German agencies.
7. Chairman turned meeting over to vice chairman (Belgium) and departed for Brussels.
8. In succeeding discussion it was decided to put to governments specific questions on administrative problems for further consideration Monday. Drafting group met after meeting and proposed “following questions to assist deputies in their consideration of principles which should govern setting up machinery to deal with recruitment, training, equipment and administration of German units to be incorporated into [Page 470] integrated force for defense of Europe, (a) within Germany, (b) among occupying powers, and (c) within NATO:
- 1.
- Should these matters be dealt with by a single German federal agency or by separate agencies in appropriate fields?
- 2.
- What controls should be exercised over German Federal Agency or agencies?
- 3.
- By what authorities such controls be exercised?
- 4.
- What should be mutual relationship between SHAPE, the German Federal Agency or agencies and other authorities concerned?” Would appreciate such instruction as you can give by Monday noon.
9. Deputies noted reports submitted to DefCom by MPSB (D–D/172).2
10. Agreed to defer report by DefCom on national military service, mobilization and training until Monday.
Sent Department Depto 193, repeated info Brussels 131 pass Luxembourg, Copenhagen 97, Frankfort 401 pass Heidelberg for Handy 78, Wiesbaden for Cannon 104, The Hague 142, Lisbon 71, Oslo 81, Ottawa 38, Paris 938 for Embassy and OSR, Rome 192.
- Council Deputies’ document on matters concerning the Planning Board for Ocean Shipping, established by the North Atlantic Council in mid-1950 to develop merchant shipping availabilities and civilian requirements for shipping in wartime. It was also responsible for the planning, organization, and functioning of a global shipping control agency to operate in a wartime emergency. Document D–D/176, not printed, is in the Department of State NATO Sub-Registry.↩
- Not printed; a copy is in the Department of State NATO Sub-Registry.↩