740.5/4–1850: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Douglas) to the Secretary of State
priority
2068. Personal for the Secretary from Douglas. Reference Deptel 1711, April 15 and Embtel 2064, April 18 [17].1 Met with Consultative Council2 in informal session yesterday afternoon. Shinwell only Minister other than Foreign Ministers present. Van Zeeland in chair.
[Page 56]Van Zeeland3 opened discussion stating my visit welcome and that he understood I had message for Council from Secretary of State (not clear how he received latter impression). He said he thought it would be useful if he outlined orally two working papers presently to be acted on by Council (since no papers before Foreign Ministers and none available to me and since I might be misunderstood were I to take notes, must rely on memory. May be faulty in detail but confident accurate in major points.)
First paper was in two parts, first concerned division of infrastructure in three parts, (a) essential multinational military requirements to be undertaken promptly (b) national requirements with economic by-products and (c) less essential national strictly military requirements. On these it was proposed plans be passed to standing group NATO for relation to NAT plans and advice as to essentiality for implementation.
Second part this paper analyzed and endorsed targets form troop strengths. Action proposed passing to NATO for correlation with NAT plans.
Second paper related to financing of infrastructure. Action proposed was that this be done in defense budgets.
Van Zeeland then asked if I would present message from Secretary. I said I had no written message but could express orally your views. Extended thanks for invitation. I then stressed importance US attached to WU and indicated that because of similar objectives WU and NAT and partial identity of members was sure they agreed it was important that decisions taken by WU should not restrict freedom of action by or reduce options available to NAT. I mentioned interrelationship NAT, WU and MDAP and our common interest that we would keep all coordinated to best advantage. We were hopeful they would take all decisions aimed at strengthening WU but where appropriate in relationship with NAT. I asked for instance if they intended finance infrastructure by reducing their AMP commitment mentioning history MDAP’s connection with NAT and not WU and the possible adverse congressional implications of such action. I was assured this would not be done.
I then inquired as to whether there was any intent of the WU Council to set financial ceilings on defense expenditures at this time. After a caution from Shinwell as to constitutional situations under which expenditures authorized by parliaments necessarily became momentarily ceiling on expenditures, and after discussion in which there was complete understanding and I believe agreement on proposition [Page 57] that WU refrain from recommending ceilings on defense expenditure Schuman stated there was no intention on part of Council to set such ceilings. Further on this point Stikker and Van Zeeland said one ceiling on expenditure was effect on achieving economic recovery.
I placed great emphasis on our agreement with this view that no expenditure should be undertaken which would increase strength in defense area at sacrifice of economic recovery.
We then entered a general discussion which indicated a realistic and encouraging disposition on the part of all to recognize the essentiality of keeping appropriate WU actions closely coordinated with NAT. In the course of this I was told that the Council would retain the Luxembourg troop strength targets as goals to be strived for.
Shinwell pointed out that our meeting had underlined the importance of a recognized machinery for insuring the close permanent liaison between WU and NAT. Schuman agreed and said that they would discuss this at May meeting.
Important feature of meeting was that (a) target forces of WU would be coordinated with standing group NATO forces to achieve balance of whole, (b) infrastructure projects would be reviewed by standing group NATO, (c) financing infrastructure expenditures would not be through reduction of AMP programs, (d) there would be no recommendations for ceilings on defense projects, and (e) important arrange in future permanent coordination WU and NAT.
Schuman asked me whether I thought standing group proper medium to effect coordination. I replied: “Certainly, standing group NAT adequate for immediate situation since this resolved present pressing need for orderly collaboration. All might, however, find on further examination that some other device might be preferable for the permanent solution.”
Sent Department 2068, repeated Brussels for Murphy 98.