Foreign Relations of the United States, 1951, European Security and the German Question, Volume III, Part 1

740.5 MAP/6–2651

Memorandum Prepared in the Office of International Security Affairs and the Office of European Regional Affairs¹

secret

[Washington,] June 26, 1951.

Subject: Policy on U.S. Participation in Financing of NATO Infrastructure.

Recommendation:

That you authorize approval on behalf of the State Department of the attached policy on infrastructure (Tab A).²

Discussion:

The Department of Defense has proposed a policy on financing of NATO infrastructure (static capital items required for NATO forces). This policy provides:

A. Infrastructure constitutes one of the several areas of military expenditures which must be covered by the NATO nations if an adequate defense of Europe is to be obtained. Because of its fundamentally local nature, it is one of the most appropriate fields in which the NATO countries, other than the U.S., can and should find an opportunity to contribute. The concept of the U.S. “paying for the trenches” is, of course, domestically unacceptable. For this reason and notwithstanding the fact that fundamentally there is as much justification for sharing infrastructure as any other part of the military burden, costs of infrastructure should in every case be met in the first instance by NATO nations from their budgets and the U.S. should not contribute to the financing thereof except on specific instruction from Washington, based on the following considerations:

1. There must be immediate military urgency in any such exception.

2. Assuming such military urgency, U.S. participation should ordinarily be limited to a maximum based on the equivalent of the proportionate use of the facilities by the United States armed forces.

3. Any additional emergency participation by the U.S. should only be employed when the interests of the U.S. national security so require.

B. All contributions would be given consideration with respect to sharing the defense burden.

In each particular case application of these considerations will produce differing results, depending upon the location of the facility, the contemplated national use of the facility, and the budgetary capability of the nation concerned.

The foregoing is only a brief excerpt summary of the essence of this paper. It is apparent therefrom that the result will be that the U.S. will attempt to have the other NATO nations assume financial responsibility for infrastructure from their own budgets to the extent possible; that further financing will come in the first instance from Department of Defense funds, not to exceed the equivalent of use by U.S. armed forces; that further financing will come from MSP funds; and that a further financial responsibility will also have to be assumed by EGA and/or MSP to cover other items in national budgets which may be displaced by infrastructure costs, referred to herein, assumed by those nations.

This proposal appears to keep U.S. contributions in the range justifiable for the defense of the U.S., and yet to have such flexibility, if applied, to provide for assisting our NATO partners in the performance of their designated roles, all within the outside limit of military necessity. Its approval, therefore, is recommended.

1. Prepared by Pittman and Knight; addressed to Cabot, Matthews, and Perkins. A handwritten notation on the source text indicates that the memorandum was sent to Cabot but not to Matthews or Perkins.
2. Not printed but discussed in this document. This was a Department of Defense policy paper, agreed upon by the ISAC member agencies at staff level, entitled “United States Participation in Financing of North Atlantic Treaty Organization Infrastructure.” A verbatim text was sent to Spoftord in telegram 6045 to London, June 21, repeated to Paris as telegram 6989 for MacArthur and Katz, and to Heidelberg and Wiesbaden, not printed. (740.5/6–2151)