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

740.5/1–1951: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Embassy in the United Kingdom ¹

secret
priority
niact

Washington, January 19, 1951—7 p. m.

3463. Spofford eyes only from Perkins. At Interdepartmental mtg this morning it was agreed that Spofford–Katz–Clay² discussions shld start Monday afternoon.³

FYI there is desire here to see clear-cut centralization of responsibility in order avoid any possibility buck-passing as cause of delays. It is considered important to insure that US does not seek defense programs in Eur for which we are not prepared supply machine tools and raw materials which can only be procured in US. It is desired to insure also that European mobilization measures make most effective possible use of imported short supply goods, including for example restrictions on uses to which materials in short supply may be put.

In this context talks will focus on following major issues:

1. How shld NATO be organized to perform its current job most effectively? In particular, shld DPB be expanded to cover all economic mobilization activities rather than just mil production problems, or shld a separate body be established for non-mil field, with Deps serving as Coordinator of the two? How is mil planning effectively related to production and basic economic planning?

2. A pertinent issue to above is extent to which, as far as US concerned, Office of Def Mobilization looks to NATO and to what extent to individual countries for joint planning with respect to material and eqpt rqmts for European def and essential civilian production programs.

3. A further pertinent issue is development of adequate integration of OEEC and NATO activities in economic, financial and production field.

4. In such a new setup what shld be US organization at regional and country level to insure effective direction of US efforts?

In addition to above central issues, there will be discussion in larger or smaller grps as appropriate of relation of NAT and OEEC to international commodity grps and their relation in turn to US agencies. It is also hoped that we can settle US position on whole of Canadian reorganization proposal and on NAT–OEEC question. We also hope we can give you clearer answers as to Wash backstopping arrangements for various NATO activities.

On basic questions at issue we have no fixed positions here. The job will be to explore problems and reach agreement as to best solutions.

[ Perkins ]
Acheson

1. Drafted by Martin (RA) and cleared by John Ohly, Office of International Security Affairs.
2. Gen. Lucius D. Clay, representing the Office of Defense Mobilization.
3. January 22.