740.5/10–2251: Telegram
The United States Delegation on the Temporary Council Committee to the Secretary of State 1
priority
Repto 5296. Usdel TCC no. 22. Personal from Harriman for Perkins and Ohly State; Nash Defense; Bissell ECA.
1. This is to comment on certain problems involving the relationship of foreign aid of NATO programs which have arisen during the early stages of TCC activities. I naturally do not intend to take firm positions on these matters without proper consideration of contending factors, but wish to indicate some points which appear to me of great weight.
2. In connection with the decisions on aid, especially economic aid, to the European NATO countries for 1951–52, we have apparently been party to several possibly conflicting understandings.
- (a)
- We took the lead in creating the working group of 12 and the FEB, with their specific responsibilities for recommending an equitable distribution of the defense program for this fiscal year;
- (b)
- We joined at Ottawa in endorsing the FEB recommending to push ahead rapidly with the “burden sharing” work for FY 1952;
- (c)
- We undertook, at least with the French and Italians and possibly other countries, to set up bilateral negotiations in the European capitals late this month and early in November, with a view to determining amounts of aid in relation to their several defense programs, together with any other appropriate specific bilateral understanding;
- (d)
- We joined in sponsoring the TCC.
3. I am, of course, aware that certain elements of the aid program require special bilateral negotiation with each recipient, but to determine the amounts and conditions of aid solely through bilateral negotiation seems to me neither likely to produce the best results nor in keeping with our sponsorship of and repeated statements in support first of the FEB and now of the TCC.
4. In my judgment, to launch bilateral negotiations now designed to firm up aid commitments against specific defense program undertakings by the recipients would, even though limited to this fiscal year, seem to many of the Europeans to be pulling the rug out from under the TCC. While the TCC work is not focused on the short-term [Page 333] period, it must inevitably have a bearing on the character and scale of European defense efforts over the next few months as well as a longer period.
5. It follows that we should devise a means for putting the bilateral and multilateral negotiations in proper relation, using the multilateral forms (TCC and FEB) for the main determinations on size and character of programs and amounts of aid, with bilateral arrangements taking care of supplemental specific points and also filling any necessary requirements. Without specifically endorsing Repto 5257,2 I request your careful attention to its recommendations as one means of so doing.
6. A somewhat similar issue exists in relation to the DPB, which we sponsored and subsequently appeared to have given far less effective support. Def 84551,3 is a welcome step in the right direction, but I believe that we must further review our policy on information to the DPB and guidance from the DPB staff regarding offshore procurement, not merely for the sake of doing favors to the DPB, but to make use of the major contribution which its staff will have to offer if such support is forthcoming.