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

396.1 LO/5–1850: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Acting Secretary of State

secret
priority

London, May 18, 1950—11 a. m.

Secto 298. Fifth meeting of Council afternoon May 17.

1. Revised UK draft resolution on NATO considered paragraph by paragraph and text as given Secto 297 adopted.¹

2. In discussion of amended paragraph 6, omitting last sentence to effect that “they (deputies) shall have same responsibilities and powers as Council” Secretary made clear that even with omission deputies under instructions from their governments would still have same powers as Council itself, could act, refer to governments and carry out decisions.

3. In reply to points raised in discussion of new paragraphs 7 and 8 Secretary gave following interpretations:

(a) Every country would have deputy but not representative on organization established to assist deputies. Deputies would decide what persons needed on basis of their qualifications and member government would be asked to make available.

(b) Permanent chairman of deputies would be chosen by deputies and could also be removed by them if he proved unsatisfactory.

(c) Chairman of deputies would have right to attend meeting of Council and assist chairman of council.

4. Pearson suggested omission of phrase “contributed by member governments” and raised objection that Secretariat so provided would not be international. Proposal countered by Younger² for UK with observation that if words stricken out it should be understood that government would pay for those whose services it contributed. Schuman pointed out possibility that deputies would be hampered in choice if national of small country chosen and government of that country called upon to bear costs but also that if words were stricken out other means would have to be found for covering expenses of Secretariat. Vote taken and words were retained. Pearson and Stikker raised question of financial provisions for deputies and secretarial staff. Secretary pointed out that need for budget was something deputies could work out and if they needed help of Council could ask for it. Younger supported. Remainder of paper adopted with slight amendment penultimate sentence.

5. Question of giving NATO resolution to press as communiqué was raised. Schuman queried wisdom of giving information piecemeal and suggested best to reserve until end. He added it might also be preferable to submit to governments before giving resolution to press. Stikker, Lange, Rasmussen and Pearson supported Schuman and it was agreed not to release text until final meeting.

6. Paragraph 4 of US draft resolution on certain reports of Defense Committee and DFEC on coordination between agencies of NATO (Council D 4/5)³ adopted without objection.

7. Consideration then given to US draft resolution on report from Defense Committee on status of defense planning (Council D 4/3)³ held over from yesterday. Secretary pointed out that paragraph 2 had given rise to discussion of collective balanced forces (Secto 281). Paragraphs 1 and 2 and last paragraph unchanged. New paragraphs 3 and 4 as follows:

“Realizing that the composition of national forces will have to take into consideration national commitments external to NAT, internal security, and ability to carry out effectively missions assigned in the over-all NATO plan which supports the agreed strategic concept including the immediate urgent requirements of national defense in the event of the outbreak of hostilities.

Urges the governments of the North Atlantic nations to ensure the progressive build-up of defense forces and, in the development of these forces for the defense of the North Atlantic area, to concentrate on the creation of balanced collective forces rather than balanced national forces taking into account the considerations laid down in the preceding paragraph.”

With almost no comment new draft adopted without amendment.⁴

8. Revised French draft of NA Council resolution of general instructions (D 4/14 revision 1, Secto 258)⁵ circulated and Schuman made explanatory statement indicating he believed useful and desirable to have such paper because it was Council’s task to outline objectives, not only for Council but as guides for deputies. Schuman also spoke later in course of long discussion which followed.

9. He stressed that only Council, for example, could say that by common effort forces for initial fighting must be maintained, et cetera. (Sforza and Bevin among others returned to importance of political directive concerning maintenance by common effort of forces to meet initial attack.) Secretary directed attention to use of phrase “this objective can be best attained” (which had been substituted for “this objective can only be attained”)⁶ and suggested that language indicating that Council had discussed rather than that Council had reached decision might be preferable. Lange, Pearson and Van Zeeland also expressed doubts as to paper in present form and indicated difficult to accept as instruction. Lange indicated on military aspects he would have to consult Defense Minister. Bech⁷ and Sforza agreed in substance with Schuman latter pointing out that Council must take into consideration matters which Ministers of Defense and Chiefs of Staff could not weigh such as political implications involved in psychological factors connected with initial phase of fighting. Bevin spoke feelingly of importance of initial stage and building up “initial force to give good account of itself and hold the fort” while long term plan put into operation. Stressed importance of initial phase (a) because of necessity giving people some assurance, and (b) possibility that it would make enemy hesitate to start a war. Urged application of same collective principle to initial force as to long term plan. However, Bevin questioned whether precise and clear-cut directive to Chiefs of Staff might not serve purpose better than general resolution.

10. In view of comments Schuman indicated it had not been French intention to impose rigid text especially on technical questions but Atlantic Pact had been signed for over a year and he did not want to leave matters in hands of experts who were inclined to plan for some past war. He concluded with suggestion that further discussion be put off until tomorrow and that language of above mentioned clause might be changed to indicate that “among the most effective methods the Council recommends the following”. Postponement agreed to and draft resolution first on agenda for May 18 meeting.

11. Proposed draft declaration (Council D 4/18).⁸ In view of lateness of hour Secretary suggested consideration draft declaration be left until May 18 so as to afford opportunity for reflection. Suggestion agreed to.

12. IWG report (Council D 4/10)⁹ on standing group budget approved. Secretary pointed out approval of report would not preclude consideration of establishment of budget before next Council meeting as action could be taken through deputies. Report approved.

13. Without discussion IWG report on establishment of planning board for ocean shipping in NATO¹⁰ approved. Younger made one observation to effect that he understood there was general agreement that first meeting should take place in London, and indicated UK would be glad receive delegates and make arrangements through usual channels.

14. Arrangements for public session to be broadcast from 5:30 to 6:30 May 18 described and communiqué covering day’s sessions approved.

Acheson

1. For text, see “North Atlantic Council Resolution on Central Machinery,” Department of State Bulletin, May 29, 1950, p. 831. Telegram Secto 297, not printed (396.1 LO/5–1850).
2. Kenneth G. Younger, British Minister of State.
3. See Secto 281, May 16, p. 108.
3. See Secto 281, May 16, p. 108.
4. The new draft resolution was circulated in the Council on May 17 as Council Document D–4/17 of that date. A copy is in the Department of State NATO Sub-Registry.
5. May 14, 1950, p. 98.
6. Compare the wording in the drafts printed in telegrams Secto 258, May 14, p. 98, and Secto 284, May 17, p. 112.
7. Joseph Bech, Luxembourg Minister of Foreign Affairs.
8. “Draft Declaration by the Foreign Ministers of the Twelve Nations of the North Atlantic Treaty,” May 17, 1950, Department of State NATO Sub-Registry. See final communiqué issued to the press May 19, printed in Department of State Bulletin, May 29, 1950, p. 830.
9. “International Working Group Report on the Standing Group Budget,” May 15, 1950. The report itself is dated May 10. D–4/10 is in the Department of State NATO Sub-Registry.
10. D–4/11, “International Working Group Report on Establishment of a Planning Board for Ocean Shipping in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization,” May 15, 1950, Department of State NATO Sub-Registry.