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

396.1 LO/5–1450: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the Embassy in the United Kingdom

secret
niact

Washington, May 17, 1950—7 p. m.

2367. For Perkins. (Re our telephone conversation¹) Fol sets forth Def views: The Dept of Def has closely scrutinized Secto 258 and Secto 284 with the advice furnished by Admiral Conolly² in his 170114Z and 171324Z. (Def strongly maintains views in Tosec 213³ and 214.⁴) In its opinion French resolution contains military implications of highest importance. For this reason the Dept of Def feels it most unwise to enter hastily into specific details as to what new central machinery shall accomplish. It agrees that need for work of this body is urgent but shld proceed on basis of coordinated arrangements with NATO financial, production and military bodies. Dept of Def therefore urgently recommends that French proposal not be accepted in any form.

It wld seem that what French have in mind is to try to spell out details of tasks for new permanent machinery as set forth in tasks A and B in Secto 267. Def feels French resolution unduly restrictive and does not properly approach overall aspect of problem.

If it wld be helpful however, Def wld willingly agree to further Council resolution emphasizing importance of tasks A and B along following lines:

“The Council further directs that new central organization proceed as a matter of first priority to consult with appropriate and applicable NATO bodies and determine from an overall viewpoint the specific steps and actions that must be accomplished by NATO in the furtherance of the principles outlined in tasks A and B, (above). It shall formulate the specific tasks which are to be accomplished and initiate these forthwith upon the general concurrence of the Council members.”

Webb

1. Record of conversation not found in Department of State files.
2. Admiral Richard L. Conolly, Commander in Chief, U.S. Naval Forces, Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean; U.S. Representative on the NAT Southern Europe, Western Mediterranean Regional Planning Group (NAT–SEWM); U.S. Navy member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Representatives, Europe (JCSRE).
3. See footnote 2, p. 103.
4. In telegram Tosec 214, May 16, to London, a State–Defense message signed by Acting Secretary Webb, the following views were expressed: “We do not like proposed Pr resolution (Secto 258 May 4). Not only do we disagree with some of the thoughts as expressed therein (i.e. Statement of ‘essential’ NAT objective in para 1) but we also think language is in some instances unduly complicated. Def Dept, which has given it preliminary examination, is concerned that Fr may have in mind prematurely opening up a number of important military questions (such as unified command etc.) prior to adequate consideration by JCS.” (396.1 LO/5–450)