740.5/12–551: Telegram
The United States Delegation on the Temporary Council Committee to the Acting Secretary of State 1
priority
Repna circular 10. 1. All members TCC except Ital present. Malogodi represented Pella. Deputies standing grp (Wright, etc) presents Short account of EB-SG mtg 29 Nov presented.
2. Discussion of working outline of report opened with gen comments by Belg. Port commented favorably on dominant idea that must not concentrate only on mid ’54 but must also be flexible and adaptable [Page 364] to requirements of def throughout; mentioned favorable emphasis in econ portion on B/P and entire Eur payments but reminded committee that at first mtg, the TCC accepted that there are internal economic difficulties which must be considered. Ital spoke in support point and chair indicated report certainly intended to take into account any limitation due to maintaining econ stability.
3. Norway and, later, Neths stressed desire have working papers of TCC staffs in order to make preliminary studies prior to gen discussion on draft report. All members acutely conscious each individual country’s program wld be dealt with in annexes to report. Chair pointed out that EB recd costing estimate divided by countries, years, and categories only today and that wld be several days before final analysis on capabilities wld be available to EB.
4. Canada and Italy thought outline excellent. Abbott considered wld be differences of opinion when draft report is completed and therefore EB shld be allowed proceed with maximum speed to complete draft. He continually stressed this during entire mtg. There was mild suggestion from Belg supported by Portugal that three countries in addition to EB participate in drafting report. Chair stated that drafting by three wld be difficult enough and drafting by six wld mean no report. Dutch and Ital moved that EB shld prepare draft report. This was accepted by TCC.
5. Ital wanted emphasis on internal problems such as level of employment, investment, and surplus manpower. Chair agreed, mentioning that progress in investment shld aim to attain sound social basis as well as to develop raw materials and production needed for def power. Chair made point that problem divided into (a) NATO approach and (b) problems related to each country. Important that TCC members not become diverted into thinking only of own natl problems. They shld recognize that all these will not be resolved by TCC report and that it may be necessary to make some natl reservations thereon. Objective is to give a draft report within weeks so that members can have overall picture and then look at their natl problems in light of that picture. He recognized it is easier deal with broad NATO problems on basis of personal point of view than to deal with country problems which are matters on which members wld reasonably have to consult govts.
6. Monnet questioned achievement possible in report concerning matters after ’52 and stressed that TCC shld answer questions concerning ’52 and perhaps only sketch future. This has been Monnet line from beginning, from which he has deviated at times but to which he seems always to return. UK expressed optimism on timing of completion of report and on achievements therein. Ital stressed necessity for report to serve as firm basis for both natl and internatl planning for ’52 and necessity for specifics thus tending to support [Page 365] Monnet with emphasis on ’52. Also pointed out need for more info, using example that countries cannot agree to SCS proposed standards without having them to study. This latter statement was revealing since Ital and other mil rep to SCS have been kept continually informed for this very reason.
7. Monnet stressed that if all available forces were gathered together in ’52, combat power will be very effective indeed. Chair agreed with direction this thought of Monnet but did not wish to indicate ’52 will provide in any way satis situation. It will lay foundation for building further strength.
8. Questions on material to be made available to TCC members and timing thereof were settled by
- (a)
- Chairman stated that on 10 Dec, countries wld be provided with (1) the outlook both on econ and mil side with considerable precision for 52 and decreasing precision for 53 and 54, (2) partial rough draft of report, (3) annexes for their country
- (b)
- SCS DirGen stated SCS report wld be completed Sat and wld be provided in full to each member if TCC so indicated. He stressed that sections of report are interlaced and report shld be read as a whole. While TCC took no formal action, it appears certain that report will be provided each country.
9. Ital stated certain natl responsibilities which cannot be subordinated to NATO command even as, internally, there are certain responsibilities which a govt can not subordinate to its mil commanders. Ital concern is over trend in report outline toward priorities policy and increased auth for NATO commands. In private conversation, Malogodi indicated Itals fear priorities policy will react to their disadvantage because:
- (a)
- Gen Marras believes SG underrates threat to southern flank and
- (b)
- Ital troops are unlikely to attain a standard of training of some other nations, thereby perhaps not meriting recommendation from NATO commanders for allocations of equip. Ital pointed out that their low standard of training might have to be accepted because of realities of length of service and training.
10. Canada expressed satis over approach of determining what we are going to do in 52 and rather more flexible approach in 53 and 54. Also stressed Canada’s $700 mil balance of payment deficit and stated that Canada does not propose to provide econ aid since such wld mean additional dollar borrowing. (Note that Abbott has been away from Canada for over 10 days.) Port supported Canadian proposal that draft outline of report and expanded outline of introduction be accepted with understanding there wld be TCC discussion of final draft. Sense of mtg indicated agreement.
11. SCS presented report, mentioning that some force proposals are different from country statements due to application of SCS standards of readiness, estimate of training capability, etc. SCS estimated that [Page 366] major equip difficulties need not necessarily arise, assuming adequate priority system, until 53 and into 54. Raising German forces will then cause added equip problem. Stressed that SCS does not believe their force goal too high. Recognized that finan and econ difficulties might prevent reaching SCS goal by 54 and urged that, in such case, buildups shld be continued beyond 54. Stated SCS view that effective covering force is possible in 52 which shld practically rule out surprise attack. This force wld however, not be adequate. Stressed that to achieve 52 goal and buildup beyond, there must be strict allocation of equip which shld be responsibility of NATO commanders for recommendation. SCS recommended yearly review to continue after buildup.
12. Dutch stressed clarity of SCS documents and definitions in comparison to SHAPE and particularly SG documents. Raised question as to possible differences among standards. SCS noted that SCS standards are materially higher than some smaller country standards but SHAPE standards are D-day standards for units in place for battle and might be called “maximum desirable” whereas SCS are “minimum acceptable”. Any differences have to be resolved on basis of econ and polit capability of countries concerned.
13. Chair mentioned TCC might not desire to endorse technical matters such as definitions of readiness but might rather wish to furnish to SG and SHAPE as SCS recommendations. Ital expressed concern over accepting high state of readiness until more is known about finance and equip, raised priority point again. Chair expressed personal view that unless system of priorities adopted NATO will not get much defense.
14. Chair opened organization discussion by mentioning new situation in which NAT organizations have to become more operational. SCS presented mil problem of organization, stressing lack of any priorities system to deal with shortages and stating that SCS wld recommend a system and a change in directive of SACEUR giving additional responsibility and auth. Pointed out that SACEUR now has only operations and training in war, whereas no commander can assure preparations his forces or conduct operations without some degree of influence over deployment, equip, and his logistics. No real progress on logistics plans and arrangement have been made. Prospective changes in terms of reference will provide a basis on which SHAPE can state to each country what wld be prepared in infrastructure. In summary, changes will be concerned with
- (a)
- Increased auth for NATO commanders on organization, training, equip and priorities for assigned forces.
- (b)
- Logistical organization at both theater and overall levels to determine specific equip and infrastructure needs, and
- (c)
- Allocation of material available to NATO in accordance with a basic NATO priorities system.
15. Chair noted that NAT needed an organization which cld define equip requirements and make recommendations on production to countries. Also needed a staff section on financial and econ problems which dealt closely with other staff sections. Furthermore, records must be available and it might be well to have records center which kept up with all aspects of NATO such as coordination of air craft deliveries, air training, and availability of air fields. Chair noted suggestion that there shld be central staff of NATO at a central place headed by a suitable person which could study NATO problems and monitor carrying out of NATO decisions. Mentioned problem of machinery to get prompt reconciliation of views and decisions in govts. Chair suggested that TCC had to determine what they wanted to do and that they might wish to make gen suggestions to council with objective of strengthening NAT organization to get more effective def.
16. Ital asked that oral statements of SCS and chair on organization be distributed at once. Dutch mentioned that we shld have in mind increasing the power of deputies and cited unique opportunity of TCC to solve important matters rather than passing pressing organizational problems to council which wld then have to sit with the difficulties. Port doubted TCC had time for discussion detailed organizational matters and feared delay due to lengthy consultations. Suggested gen agreement if possible and if not that TCC send any EB and SCS recommendation to council. Ital suggested decision be deferred on procedure and that these things too important us forward without comment. Individual members TCC were asked to furnish specific suggestions on organization.
17. Monnet stressed that there is defense for all but no def on a natl basis. TCC has task of reconciliation and also duty of making recommendations to council on organization to assure that TCC proposals can be carried out. If nations are to spend money and give services of their people, they must be sure it will be worthwhile and that the NATO machine can function in case of need. The organization problem can not be disassociated from other problems. Discussion of TCC terms of reference developed point that they covered organization since TCC is charged with the analysis of the issues involved and organization is certainly an issue.
18. Suggestion by Ital that EB might wish to discuss specific country problems with country reps during next few days was accepted. Members TCC insisted on necessity for time to translate draft papers and discuss with their govts before meeting which is hoped to be final. Agreed that presumable final mtg will begin 10:00, Dec 14 to continue until finalization of report.2
[Page 368]19. In delegation opinion, chair achieved our interim objectives of (1) obtaining willing agreement of countries that EB draft the report, (2) informing ministers of major problems in order that they may have preliminary discussions with govts (3) creating feeling of confidence that useful report can be achieved and (4) indicating a pattern of NATO security planning which shld give essential continuing guidance to natl planning agencies.