740.5/2–2651: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the United States Deputy Representative on the North Atlantic Council (Spofford), at London1
priority
Todep 272. Following letter2 from Lovett to Secretary just received. State has Def proposal under urgent consideration and anxious give you final instrs earliest possible date. Want your views before making any final decision.
“Dept Def has given careful consideration to suggestion by Can Govt for reorg NATO and Dept State view thereon as given to us by Mr. Cabot. I last furnished you with my views on this matter by letter of 5 Dec 1950,3 in which I indicated opinion it was advisable to postpone any major adjustment Treaty Org until we had moved into an ‘operational’ phase of the Treaty. I am still of this opinion. The ‘operational’ phase has only just begun through appt Gen Eisenhower and Messrs Batt and Herod. If any real results are to be accomplished to increase def capabilities in Eur it will rest largely on results of SHAPE and DPB. Effectiveness their working patterns and organizational relations are therefore essence of any rqmts to reorganize NATO.
“I am well aware US has placed itself in difficult position on Can proposal as such by turn of events in Council Deps. If you therefore feel that US must present a positive proposal in Council Deps, I have two alternative solutions. These are based on opinions of Joint Secretaries and JCS.
“Solution A: US shld propose that consideration of any reorg NATO shld await full installation and operating experience SHAPE, operational commands under SHAPE, and DPB. When these organizations have proven their effectiveness, a study of NATO org shld be undertaken with view to determining if additional support can be rendered to mil def preparations by any adjustment of Treaty mechanism. Meanwhile presently constituted organization shld improve its effectiveness through closer liaison and more effective governmental representations. Dept Def will undertake to improve its part in this matter.
“Solution B: If above solution not acceptable, I recommend that the US propose a method of reorganization approaching that suggested by Can Govt but differing in several major aspects. One of the most important differences is that for practical political reasons I consider it is in the best interest of the US to reject notion that the Council shld be re-titled or considered as a Council of Govts. Equally important is the point that mil leadership of US shld not be unsettled by any reorganization of NATO mil structure at this time. US position wld therefore be:
- “a. Reorganize Council by incorporation therein of Def Comite, and by titular change from ‘Council’ to ‘Council of Ministers’. The [Page 66] US reps wld thereby be the Secretaries of State and Def. The terms reference of Council shld be modified to comply with provisions of Article 9 of Treaty.
- “b. Expand role of Council Deps so that they represent governmental views of Foreign and Def Ministers. When Council of Ministers is not in session, Council Deps shld carry out policies of Council of Ministers, formulate issues requiring decisions by Council of Ministers or by member govts, and otherwise constitute a body which may register approval of their govts as obtained on matters before them for consideration. On US side, US Council Dep wld be assisted by a rep of Dept Def acceptable to Gen Eisenhower, JCS, and SecDef.
- “c. Eliminate DFEC, including its assigned role and functions and substitute therefor Finance and Economic Board as set forth in principle in Memorandum of Understanding between Depts State and Def and ECA, dated 15 Feb 1951.4
- “d. Reject any proposals by Can Govt, or other govts for reorganizing Mil Comite, and insist that at this time no changes be made in present terms of reference, functions, and org of Mil Comite, SG, and Mil Reps Comite.
- “e. Support Can proposal regarding DPB.
“The inclusion of the Def Ministers in the highest policy making body of NATO, in order to represent their govts in del problems for which they are directly responsible, is especially desirable inasmuch as this shld insure that mil matters are accorded their place in relationship to other matters considered by the Council.”