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

396.1 LO/4–2550

Paper Prepared in the Bureau of European Affairs as Background for the May Foreign Ministers Meetings¹

secret

[Washington,] April 25, 1950.

Central Organization Under NAT

This paper, prepared in EUR, has been discussed in Mr. Jessup’s² Clearing Group. It recommends that an effort be made at the London meetings to secure agreement on the establishment of new central machinery for NAT.

More detailed discussion of the work to be done by the new set-up is contained in other documents supporting NAT agenda items, namely

a. FM D B–2/1—Review of Progress in Implementing North Atlantic Treaty³

b. FM D B–27—Coordination of Public Information Activities under NAT⁴

c. FM D B–30—Coordination of Foreign Policies under NAT⁴

d. FM D B–31—Coordination of Economic Policies under NAT⁵

It is believed that this paper should be approved regardless of the decision reached with respect to the possible establishment of a new North Atlantic Council or similar body outside NAT. At the London meetings it is not expected that we could do more than agree in principle to the need for a new organization and to frame terms of reference for a study group to work to that end. Meanwhile the NAT should get ahead with the work proposed for the central organization.

If a Council outside NAT is subsequently set up, certain of the topics proposed now for NAT consideration would presumably be transferred to the new Council where coordination with countries which cannot now become NAT members could be accomplished. This is particularly important with respect to Germany, whose participation can contribute greatly to the success of many of the political and economic projects listed for NAT action.

problem

What additional NAT organizational arrangements, if any, are required to permit NAT objectives to be achieved more promptly and effectively?

background

It has been proposed to governments by the NAT International Working Group that consideration should be given at the forthcoming NAT Council Meeting in London to the establishment of a central organization reporting directly to the Council.

discussion

Six functions are suggested for such a central organization, acting in each case on behalf of the Council and subject to its direction. In each case the first task of the Permanent Commission would be to draw up a work program and a set of priorities in each of these fields, based on actions taken by the Council at its forthcoming meeting and on the substantive discussion of various issuer which is expected to take place during its meeting.

1. Promotion of the prompt accomplishment of the Pact objective of creating an adequate integrated defense force without jeopardizing economic recovery and stability. Emphasis should he on following the work of the appropriate NAT bodies and assisting in the coordination of financial, economic and military aspects of the development and implementation of an adequate plan.

2. Coordination of foreign policies of Pact members in fields related to Pact objectives, taking into account as required political, economic and military considerations. For the present the emphasis should be on specific problems related to the strength and unity in action of the North Atlantic powers in support of Pact objectives and programs, rather than on endeavoring to act as a general clearing house for the conduct of the cold war.

3. Related to the above and in implementation of Article 2, is a role as a general clearing house for the exchange of information on measures for promoting public understanding of Pact purposes, for developing data on Pact activities for use by member governments, and for concerting the information policies of the member governments in this connection.

4. Coordination in planning the development and execution of economic policies of Pact members in accord with Article 2, concentrating on carrying out purposes of Pact to minimize overlap with existing international bodies. At present emphasis should be on study of what can usefully be done under Pact to promote Pact objectives, especially in fields closely related to defense, and with particular reference to the period after 1952.

5. Making such organizational arrangements as may be required: to carry out Pact responsibilities in above fields.

6. Preparation of projects, proposals and recommendations for Council action, and housekeeping and miscellaneous assignments fertile Council.

The nature and location of any central organization under the Pact should be determined in the light of the functions envisaged for it. In a developing organization like NATO it is difficult to anticipate accurately for any extended period in the future what the relative importance of these various activities may turn out to be. Even forecasts for the immediate future must be tentative. In these circumstances; the projected organization must be a flexible and adaptable one.

However, certain general conclusions are possible. The organization should so perform these functions as to assist in developing real unity of purpose and action, through the development of common policies, and concerted implementation of them. The organization required to carry out these functions must have vigorous and imaginative leadership, capable of acting on behalf of the Council. It must be capable of doing the thinking ahead for NATO on the complicated tasks of developing twelve-nation political, economic, and military programs to build up their strength. It must have the facts available on which to base coordinated planning. It must have the full confidence of the governments that it is working in the interests of all of them. It must be “of governments” rather than denationalized.

The question of location is difficult. In terms of keeping a U.S. representative of the stature proposed fully cognizant of U.S. policies and acting in accord with them, a Washington headquarters is greatly to be preferred. Representatives of several Pact countries have mentioned in the past their preference for Washington as the location of any Permanent Organization which might be set up to serve the Council. It is an appropriate reflection of U.S. leadership. Washington is also the location of the principal military planning body, the Standing Group. There are not many European locations which at the same time have the facilities required, are good spots from a security standpoint, and in which the operation is unlikely to become a target of major CP demonstrations.

On the other hand most of the difficult problems with which the proposed central organization will be faced will require contact with European governments and there will be great advantages in having them close at hand. Meetings of the Permanent Commission (proposed below) with the top representatives of the Foreign Offices sitting are to be preferred to meetings of Ambassadors. They can only be held with any frequency in Europe, though even there they will be a difficult group to assemble. One of the major tasks will be to improve the working relations of the Defense Financial and Economic Committee and the Military Production and Supply Board, both of which are located in London.

conclusions

1. The need for a body which can perform the functions listed above requires that a permanent central organization be established under the Pact.

2. The United States should be prepared to negotiate with other Pact governments the form which that central organization should take, but should propose an arrangement along the following lines:

a. There should be a Permanent Commission composed of a representative from each country with the rank of Ambassador and title of Deputy to the Foreign Minister. As the title suggests it should run NATO between Council meetings and in particular give policy guidance for the central organization to the conduct of the functions listed above. The Commission should meet regularly once a month and oftener if the work to be done requires it. If the headquarters of the central organization is in Europe most of the members would be expected to be top Foreign Office officials. If it is in the U.S. they would probably be the Washington Ambassadors.

b. Each Deputy should have a small staff and be in a position to call in experts for special projects.

c. There should be a Secretary of the Council with a small contributed staff to perform secretarial and administrative duties for the Council and Permanent Commission.

d. A key figure in the central organization should be given primary responsibility on behalf of the Council and the Permanent Commission for the vigorous and efficient execution of tasks assigned the central organization. He should be responsible for giving direction to the work of the NAT Permanent Commission and for making necessary arrangements for it to perform the work required of it. The Secretary should report to him. He should be a citizen of essentially cabinet stature, devoting full-time to this job. (Preferably U.S. but this should not be a U.S. proposal.) He should have a staff from his own government adequate to permit him to spend a large share of his time travelling from capital to capital to keep in touch with situations affecting Pact operation and to influence governmental decisions in favor of active support of Pact objectives. His official position might be that of Permanent Chairman of the Permanent Commission.

3. The United States should agree with the majority wishes with respect to the location of the central organization.

4. The United States should take the position that the proposed machinery would not be used to replace existing organizations and that its purpose is to carry out the stated objectives of the Pact.

recommendations

1. That the conclusions be approved.

2. That, if preliminary discussion with the British, French and Canadian representatives on the International Working Group reveals that some such arrangement as that proposed above might be acceptable, it be submitted informally to the International Working Group for consideration by governments in advance of the Council meeting and possibly, if time permits, discussion in the International Working Group.⁶

1. This paper, approved by the Secretary of State was identified as Foreign Ministers Document FM D B–1a. It is a revision of FM D B–1, April 14, not printed.
2. Ambassador at Large Philip C. Jessup led the advance party of U.S. negotiators at the London preparatory talks and was an alternate U.S. member at the Foreign Ministers meetings that followed.
3. See the revision of this paper, FM D B–2/1b, April 27, 1950, p. 72.
4. Not printed; Department of State file 396.1 LO/.
4. Not printed; Department of State file 396.1 LO/.
5. Infra.
6. On May 6, in his letter to the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense Johnson referred to the April 30 revision of this paper, FM D B–1b (not printed) and said that he concurred in the general proposal for some form of permanent NATO commission. He added, however: “In view of the military implications involved in the establishment of any council outside the North Atlantic Treaty, the Joint Chiefs of Staff desire opportunity to comment on the detailed plan for such a body before any proposal of this nature is submitted to or considered by the North Atlantic Council. In addition, they suggest that consideration be given to referring such a proposal to the National Security Council.” (740.5/5–1050)