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

740.5/12–1250: Telegram

The United States Deputy Representative on the North Atlantic Council (Spofford) to the Secretary of State

top secret
priority

London, December 12, 1950—11 a. m.

Depto 312. 41st meeting NAC deputies.

1. Deputies accepted draft terms of reference DPB¹ with little comment. Chair proposed that deputies approve establishment of DPB and terms of reference and ask Defense Committee to note, and, if Defense Committee approves, to notify chairman of deputies who will notify governments and ask for nominations to board. Chair reiterated US position that, if procedure he proposed should result in materially delaying formation board, US prepared reconsider. Deputies adopted chair’s proposed procedure.

2. Canadian deputy introduced paper on North Atlantic reorganization² with statement it contained various elements and should not be considered single package. Essence of Canadian recommendation was Council of Governments rather than Council of Foreign Ministers heading NATO structure. Required no change in treaty. Article IX did not state how government should be represented on Council or who should constitute Defense Committee. Present structure appropriate when NATO primarily engaged in drawing up plans. Now in stage where daily decisions necessary. Council must be main directing body. NATO questions could not be departmentalized and there should not be three ministerial bodies. Governments should send to Council representatives appropriate to matters under discussion. Might consist of one or three Ministers who could split into subcommittees after plenary session. Anticipated that most meetings Council be attended by Foreign and Defense Ministers. At present Defense Committee and Finance Committee handicap to efficiency and provide excuse for delay. Under Canadian proposal members of Military Committee would get guidance from their Defense Ministers who would sit on highest body. Deputies should not have to obtain views of Defense or Finance Ministers but questions should be resolved within governments and deputy representatives express government view. Requested deputies to concentrate discussion on main idea of Council of Governments.

3. French deputy prepared to recommend fundamentals of Canadian proposal to his government. Minor details of paper should be brought up to date to take account of reorganization already agreed to in military, production and finance fields. UK deputy stated he represented UK Government, including several Ministries. Although he did not yet have full ministerial clearance, he believed UK would warmly support amalgamation. Stressed one point of UK difference with Canadian proposal. UK did not think Standing Group should be responsible to deputies. Should be responsible to Council as such. Agreed particularly that existing Secretariat for Council should be strengthened. In view of new committees being formed, there existed urgent need for centralized common Secretariat to serve all. Would like to see reorganization discussed at Brussels.³

4. Netherlands felt it not necessary to change name of Council. Foreign Ministers could be assisted or replaced by others as necessary. Standing Group relationship to directing body could not be effective if Council met only every three months and Standing Group was responsible to no one in the interval. Necessary that civilian body such as deputies be responsible not only for political guidance but for direction in broad sense. Was not speaking of technical military matters but over-all supervision and guidance same as government of a nation gave its military authorities. NATO military authorities must have civilian supervision at all times. Canada at this point expressed agreement with Netherlands and UK deputies. UK pointed out that Netherlands position might raise question of composition of deputies. Stated Standing Group does not act as individuals. Treaty (sic) had entrusted military operations to three countries. This must be accepted. Norway strongly disagreed. Felt that absolutely necessary to provide safeguards of civilian control on day to day basis. Agreed with Netherlands position. Raised question of Standing Group liaison to deputies provided in MC 25/3.⁴ Felt this a very feeble link and some civilian governmental representation necessary in Washington so governments would know what military were doing. Re subordinate “NATO bodies; each should retain national representation so that views of all 12 nations could be expressed at an early stage on all questions. Other deputies expressed general accord with spirit and scope of Canadian proposal but not prepared to give firm governmental views.

5. Chair stated not prepared to express US views on top organization. Apparent that Canadian paper involved consideration basic relationship between civilian and military bodies of NATO. Recommended adjourning discussion until Wednesday and deciding then whether or not to put matter on agenda for forthcoming Council meeting. UK pointed out that Canadian proposal really involved five parts: (1) ministerial level; (2) power of deputies; (3) subsidiary organizations; (4) relationship with the military bodies; and (5) Secretariat. Suggested that redraft for Council consideration eliminate all but main question. Deputies agreed this to be necessary before Council consideration and agreed to consider question again Wednesday.

[Here follow four paragraphs concerning cost estimates of the MTDP, the provisional agenda of the December meeting of the NAT Council, and the agenda of the December 13 meeting of the Council Deputies.]

[Spofford]

1. A copy of the draft under reference here, D–D/205, “Draft Terms of Reference for the Defense Production Board,” dated December 7, not printed, is in the S/ISA Files: Lot 52–26: WG–Def Prod Brd.
2. Presumably a reference to D–D/169, “North Atlantic Reorganization,” dated November 17, p. 461.
3. In telegram Todep 151, December 13, not printed, Spofford was advised that time was probably inadequate to prepare for discussion of such major proposals at the next meetings at Brussels in December, even if there were time for such discussion during the meetings. Spofford was urged to seek agreement that the subject be postponed until it could be discussed thoroughly at early meetings of the Council Deputies after the Council meeting. (740.5/12–1150)
4. Not identified in Department of State files.