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

396.1 LO/5–1650: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Acting Secretary of State

priority

London, May 16, 1950—midnight.

Secto 281. Following is summary NAT Council meeting Tuesday afternoon.¹

1. Request by DFEC to DC for detailed estimate costs. D–4/2.² Council considered US resolution noting request with approval and recording importance Council attached to early completion this work. Debate centered around inclusion word “downward” in second paragraph. Debate brought out that realistic revision would be downward revision as DC had itself made clear. With this understanding it was agreed to delete “downward” and resolution was adopted with this amendment.

2. Report from DC on status defense planning. D–4/3. Council considered US resolution. Debate centered on last five words third paragraph “urges governments NA nations to ensure progressive build-up defense forces and, in development these forces for defense NA area, to concentrate on creation balanced collective forces rather than balanced national forces.” Acheson pointed out this resolution went to heart of problem. It pointed out gap between what we have and what we need for defense, urged that planning continue but recognized need for action, urged progressive build-up of forces and creation balanced collective rather than balanced national forces.

2 a. Lange favored deletion “rather than balanced national forces” on ground that though principle was good, it could be accepted with equanimity, only if there was assurance balancing done wisely, and in particular, so that each country could be confident that such balanced forces would be used to defend it. He, therefore, wanted some form of commitment, in view Norway’s special and exposed position, that surrender certain forces or failure build up certain forces would not leave Norway unprotected.

2 b. Schuman also agreed main aim was balanced collective force. But some countries had commitments outside NAT area and this as well as psychological factor should be taken into account. It was also important to have balanced national forces, and this should be complementary not competing principle. He, therefore, also favored deletion.

2 c. Sforza agreed Lange and Schuman for military and psychological reasons.

2 d. Stikker agreed with principle common defense but pointed out there were particular situations which should be considered. Referred to Dutch Navy and long-term commitments involved in decision build naval strength. While fully supported principle, needs each country should be studied by permanent body to be set up.

2 e. Pearson supported inclusion these words on ground it was quite proper for council recommend to governments best use their available funds.

2 f. Bevin thought aim was to build forces which would meet peculiar requirements individual countries in peace time and would give maximum coordinated strength in war. Thought resolution too brief to convey full idea. Two sets of considerations had to be balanced. Without trying to perfect language, thought something like “concentrate on creation balanced collective forces in order to permit disposition of forces satisfactory to peace time needs individual countries and to ensure maximum coordinated strength in time of war” more nearly expressed thought.

2 g. Van Zeeland thought words could be deleted as repetitious and that paragraph without these words put emphasis on balanced collective forces.

2. h. Acheson thought this issue was (along with agreement on determination to act with vigor on defense problem) most important before Council. Therefore, he did not wish to find words which would cloak real disagreement. This course would doom efforts to frustration from start. There were three things resolution did not mean. First, it did not mean that there might not be situations where balanced national forces might be needed to handle particular or exposed situation. This was matter for military decision. He supposed no wise soldier would say was unnecessary have balanced forces in exposed spot. Second, did not mean any member should not have forces necessary for peace time tasks. Third, did not mean any member should sacrifice forces needed deal with situation in any part world where member had commitments.

2 i. Acheson then said resolution did lay down principle which would enable NAT countries get effective defense for NAT area. This was colossal task. No waste or duplication could be allowed if we to hope for success. Resolution did not establish formula determining precisely what forces country should have, but basic principle that aim must be balanced collective forces because that is only thing within capacity our resources. Secondly, this was only principle which would permit doing what was needed in defense field while accomplishing vital economic task. Would be tragic if, in building defense against Communist aggression, inroads on standard living were made which opened way to Communist subversion. Greatest economy and efficiency necessary to do both things at same time. Thirdly, much of discussion seemed based on belief that pressure would be brought on members to give up something they wanted. Thought on contrary, resolution would help in getting rid of things members really did not need but which were hard to get rid of on national basis.

2 j. As to suggestion that balanced national and balanced collective forces not incompatible, this might be true if each country had infinite human and material resources. But members did not and if NAT defense forces were to amount to anything, it was necessary decide whether NAT should concentrate on balanced national or balanced collective forces. Acheson, therefore, urged Foreign Ministers consider this profoundly. Thought it would be better to know where we stood on this issue than to find form of words to cloak disagreement.

2 k. Bevin thought there was no challenge to principle stated by Acheson. He thought his suggested revision was more precise formulation this principle. Schuman also thought principle was agreed. Acheson thought US language was perfectly clear but that clarity would be lost if last five words deleted. Resolution would favor balanced collective forces without contrast to balanced national forces and no one would know exactly what it meant. Sforza said he had been persuaded by Acheson. Lange thought US draft could be accepted and transmitted to governments with text Acheson’s remarks which perfectly clarified whole matter. Schuman suggested Council defer action until tomorrow. Thought issue was less problem of disagreement on principle than on drafting. Matter carried over.

3. Request by DC to DFEC on examination economic and financial potentialities. D–4/4. Council considered US resolution. Debate centered on last part last sentence “but points out that the making of additional military expenditures must be judged, not only in light of economic and financial conditions, but also in the light of the needs for defense.” Remainder having already been deleted in working group. Bevin said language caused difficulty in view language in ERP Act, MDAP Act, and MAP bilateral. Acheson thought nothing in language was incompatible with any agreements with US. Stikker thought question not clear as to which had priority. Acheson replied not question priority but that neither consideration could be ruled out in making judgment. Bevin suggested amendment reading “but points out that while the making of additional military expenditures must be judged in the light of economic and financial conditions, adequate consideration must be given to the needs of defense”. Resolution adopted with this amendment. During discussion Pearson spoke at length on question whether this resolution would help break vicious circle and thought Council should direct DC to produce even rough estimate as first step. He doubted whether DFEC could make examination called for with any fruitful results unless it had at least rough estimate to take as point of departure. He did not press point but wanted it recorded. Secretary supported by Harriman explained our concept concurrent action in order save time.

4. Report from DFEC. D–4/9. US resolution adopted without discussion.

5. Council then considered US resolution on mutual aid.³ Resolution adopted without discussion after Acheson indicated US, UK and Belgium ready delete reference to them end first paragraph.

6. Council deferred until Wednesday D–4/5 on coordination between agencies of NATO. After approving communiqué, adjourned until 11 Wednesday morning.

Acheson

1. Third meeting, May 16, 3 p. m.
2. In the case of Council Document D–4/2 and the others referred to below (D–4/3, D–4/4, D–4/9, and D–4/5), the brief description that precedes the documents number is a reasonably accurate abbreviation of its title. For the location of some or all of these documents and U.S. resolutions concerning them (only D–4/5 is in the Department of State Sub-Registry), see p. 87, footnote 5. The resolutions as adopted by the Council are presented in Council Document D–4/12 (Final), May 18, 1950, in the Department of State NATO Sub-Registry. Briefs of these documents are in the “Detailed Agenda for Conduct of Council Session,” 396.1 LO/5–1650. Council Documents D–4/2, D–4/3, D–4/4, and D–4/5 are referred to in numbered paragraph 5 of the “Draft Report on Progress …,” April 27, p. 72. Council Resolution Nos. 4/1 to 4/9 inclusive, related to the abovementioned documents and to other means of establishing a more effective machinery under NATO, are in Department of State file 740.5/5–2350 as enclosures to despatch 2527, May 23, 1950, from London.
3. See footnote 2 above for reference to D–4/12 (Final).