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

740.5/10–2351: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the United States Deputy Representative on the North Atlantic Council (Spofford), at London¹

top secret
priority

Washington, November 7, 1951—6: 51 p. m.

Todep 313. Re Depto 495² and Todep 271³ para 3 “relations between NATO countries and other free Eur countries”.

Re desirability and order discussion, Dept feels countries fall into three groups:

(a) Sweden and Finland: Best suited for CD discussion at present, along lines noted below.

(b) Spain: No objection to discussing, but nothing new to be added and UK and Fr sensibilities must be taken into account, as noted para 3 Todep 271.

(c) Ireland, Switz, and Austria: Prefer no discussion at present for reasons noted below.

Detailed instr on 6 countries follow:

(a) Sweden: In US view, Swed friendly country, one of nations free world, and shld be treated as such. US recognizes extremely unlikely Swed will abandon within predictable future policy of aloofness from big power alliances (e.g. NATO) and that any direct pressure on Swed to alter policy unwise. In accepting situation and adapting policy accordingly US attempting wherever possible increase Swed cooperation with West in other forms, with some success in UN, East-West trade. At same time, while Swed’s refusal join NATO places certain limitations on our giving or Swed’s accepting certain types assistance, it is in US interest Swed’s defenses and econ strength be maintained and developed and Swed’s contrib West econ and mil strength be increased, e.g., thr manfctr arms for NATO countries and trade in other manfctrs and materials.

(b) Finland: First obj US pol Fin is maintenance as independent and democratic state. On one hand, we endeavor help Fin in its effort resist encroachments on its sovereignty from without. On other hand, we endeavor avoid endangering these efforts by overt acts which might embroil Fin with Sovs. Other obj is further Fin’s progress toward a higher stand liv, and maintain close info and cult exchange between Fin and West.

(c) Spain: No objection gen discussion Spain in CD, at ur discretion. However, we wld have nothing new to add. US mil Survey Team’s report expected next week and will form basis decisions re future negots for US and Span mil facilities. Once course action determined we are committed advise Brit and Fr before opening negots.

(d) Ireland: As is implicit in NSC 83/1,⁴ US believes any manifestation interest in Irish defense position only serves to strengthen Irish hope US in own interest will extend arms assistance on Ir terms of virtually no reciprocal obligation or concession. Dept counters Ir overtures with suggestion US wld welcome her as NATO member but can see no justification for bilateral US-Ir arrangements which wld give Ir status different from that of other US allies, in area of which Ir integral part. If Ir question introduced by other Deps, Dept suggests US position be expressed as readiness to welcome Ir as NATO member but with initiative resting with Ir in view its rejection charter membership.

(e) Austria: After tripartite agreement reached on Aust Treaty tactics, CD discussion might be useful for purpose explaining Aust position as recipient aid under MSA and relationship West troops in Aust to NATO command. Aust, altho not permitted make direct mil contrib at this time, can furnish considerable indirect aid in form essential material and supplies.

(f) Switz: Dept feels Swiss can be induced take number practical steps looking to closer coop common defense effort, short of entering formal collective security arrangements, because Swiss neutrality policy has practical purpose preservation natl independence and Swiss attitude not neutral re Communism. Proposed measures to bring Swiss situation of mil, econ, democratic strength into relationship with West def effort currently being submitted to NSC. When NSC decision taken, CD discussion Switz might then be desirable because of importance Switz to security W Eur by virtue its geog position.

Webb

1. Drafted by Russell Fessenden of the Office of European Regional Affairs and cleared in draft with Williamson of WE and Bream, Hamilton, and Montgomery of BNA; repeated to Paris for MacArthur.
2. Not printed; it informed the Department of State that Spofford had proposed to the Council of Deputies that they exchange views on relations between NATO and non-NATO countries in Europe (740.5/10–2351).
3. Not printed; it instructed Spofford to proceed carefully on this matter since premature efforts might cause the various Foreign Ministries to shy away from making any substantive agreements that would affect such relations. On the other hand, the Department of State encouraged the discussion on this subject since this was in accordance with its desire that the Council of Deputies utilize their meetings as a forum for the exchange of views on important international questions. (740.5/10–2351)
4. For text, see Foreign Relations, 1950, vol. iii, p. 1477.