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

396.1 LO/5–1150: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the Secretary of State, at London

top secret

Washington, May 12, 1950—7 p. m.

Tosec 190. Repeat to CINCNELM. Info to JCS, SecDef. This is a joint State–Defense message in answer to Secto 222 and CINCNELM’s 111926Z.

Ref suggested Brit changes US proposed Resolution for Council action resulting from consideration Def Comite and DFEC reports our comments follow:

1. Re Resolution on Council D–4/3: We always realized no mil appropriations were segregated for def North Atlantic area. We continue to believe, however, that adoption this fin principle useful and constructive specially as otherwise creation of balanced collective forces remains purely mil exercise within previously adopted budgets. Shld prin segregation budgets into NATO and non-NATO chapters be adopted this cld be important step forward. On balance we favor retention original wording without however considering it essential.

2. Ref UK proposal to substitute new Resolution for Council D–4/5 basic request from Mil Comite upon which this Resolution is based did not request that any central machinery be established for their requirements. We feel that the establishment of a central machinery is completely at the direction of the Council and should not be exclusively linked with the need of closer cooperation and liaison between existing comites. Therefore we do not concur in Brit proposal. Word “necessary” shld be reinstated in sentence to read “… direct interchange of necessary info between …”, as Def concerned with protection strictly mil data.

Ref Fr proposed changes:

A. Resolution on Council B–4/2. We agree may be difficult retain “downward” from legalistic and logical viewpoint as obviously Council not in position prejudge result current review plans. SecDef adheres views previously expressed by JCS and wld prefer non-concurrence with deletion of word “downward”. We feel retention is important.

B. Resolution on Council D–4/3. Agree word “additional” can be eliminated. Re deletion “rather than balanced natl forces” we wld definitely prefer retention as clarifying intent.

C. Resolution on Council D–4/4. Believe it most important Fr proposal be defeated. Deletion in second para that part beginning “but points out” and ending “cld be sustained” wld emasculate entire Resolution (refer our reasoning last para Tosec 135 May 8¹). Fr proposal wld again result in placing sole emphasis on econ recovery, etc., and wld defeat our basic intention to induce our NAT partners to reexamine with open minds and in good faith their present fin and econ ability to make addl mil expenditures.

D. Resolution under VI a. We favor retention “UK, Belgium” as indicating US not only nation engaging in mutual aid. This helpful MDAP presentation. Insertion word “practicable” weakens resolution. Wld cede latter point to gain first.

Webb

1. In Tosec 135 to London, not printed, the following reasoning appeared: “We are concerned lest Fr suggestion ‘taking into account necessity maintaining econ fin and social stability’ might imply position that Europeans can produce considerably more mil equipment on condition financed by US. We believe such a clause in present context might tend seriously limit re-examination by our NAT partners of their fin and econ potentialities for addl mil exp and that to be acceptable it shld have balancing clause to effect that from now on ‘addl econ recovery efforts and addl, def measures must complement each other to achieve both stability and security’ or some such thought.” (740.5/5–850)