396.1 LO/5–1150: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Acting Secretary of State
Secto 222. Re resolutions which we intend put forward as US proposal for council action resulting from consideration of Defense Committee and DFEC reports it now contemplated these will not be substantively discussed at ministerial level in present tripartite talks. However, these talks may touch on certain specific issues dealt with in US-proposed resolutions. Substantive consideration of resolutions will come during council session.
We had opportunity today to talk to UK and French at working level re substance of resolutions, it being understood that we would circulate any amendments to proposed resolutions prior to council meeting. UK comments were as follows: re resolution on Council D–4/3,1 replace third paragraph by following:
“Urge the governments of the North Atlantic nations to take action to ensure the progressive build up of defense forces and, in the development [Page 95] of these forces, to concentrate on the creation of balanced collective forces rather than balanced national forces for the defense of the North Atlantic area.”
Re resolution on Council D–4/5, substitute new resolution as follows: “The Council agrees that there is need for closer cooperation and liaison between the various agencies of NATO and for suitable machinery to be set up to ensure the necessary action and coordination. For this among other purposes it is recommended that new central machinery be established. In addition the Council directs all NAT bodies to take appropriate steps to ensure more concurrent planning and closer coordination between them, and agrees that there should be direct interchange of information between the various principal committees and their permanent working staffs of NATO.” Delete last paragraph of subheading b under “further steps not called for by the reports from the defense committee and from the DFEC.”
French comments were: re resolution on Council D–4/2, in last paragraph delete word “downward”; re resolution on Council D–4/3, in second paragraph delete word “additional”; and in third paragraph delete words “rather than balanced national forces.” Re resolution on Council D–4/4, in second paragraph delete that part beginning “but points out” and ending “could be sustained.” Re resolution on “further steps, etc.,” under sub-heading a in first paragraph delete words “United Kingdom, Belgium” and in third paragraph change to read “in all practicable forms.”
We are discussing these suggestions with DefRep here. Would appreciate your comments.
UK not disposed press D–4/5 and final amendment. D–4/3 amendment for technical reasons no such segregated appropriations. UK insists no difference in purpose. Believe acceptable. Have questioned French amendments except last two which seem reasonable. Hoyer Millar has agreed to last one. Have suggested Schuman raise in tripartite meeting issue of principle involved in deletion re D–4/4. FYI French and UK negotiating for French payment for Vampires.2
- See the paper on “Building up the Defensive Strength of the West,” FM D A–2/1, section iv, p. 86, in reference to comments on D–4/3 and discussion of D–4/5, D–4/2, and D–4/4 below.↩
- In a memorandum for the Acting Secretary of State dated May 12, 1950, the Director of the Office of Foreign Military Affairs in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, N. E. Halaby, commented on Secto 222 as follows: “Reference Secto 222 from London, May 11, 1950, insofar as military comments on proposed changes are concerned, the Secretary of Defense adheres to the views previously expressed on the subject paper and would prefer non-concurrence with the deletion of the word ‘downward’ proposed by the French in the resolution by the Council, Number D–4/2. In addition, the Secretary of Defense wishes to express non–concurrence in the British proposed substitute resolution by the Council, D–4/5. The proposal infers that the need of the military for closer cooperation and liaison requires creation of new central machinery.” (396.1 LO/5–1250)↩