Conference files, lot 59 D 95, CF 98

Memorandum by the Officer in Charge of Political-Military Affairs in the Office of European Regional Affairs ( Vass ) to the Coordinator of the United States Delegation at the Eighth Session of the North Atlantic Council ( Knight ), at Rome 1

Subject: Meeting of Defense Ministers, November 26, 1951.2

1. Revised MTDP Force Requirements (M.C. 26/1).3 After general discussion of the necessity to avoid conflict with the TCC exercise, the DefMins approved the U.S. resolution without change. The British proposed to add a clause calling upon governments to avoid taking any measures in the short-term which would prejudice the attainment of the objectives of the plan. After some discussion the UK withdrew [Page 722] their amendment, having made their point in the course of the discussion.

2. Report of Military Committee (M.C. 5/3) The report was approved without discussion.

3. Report on Middle East Command (M.C. 38) At the suggestion of the chairman discussion of this paper was postponed so that the interested member governments could explore the possibility of taking a further step on this problem during the course of the present session.

Upon further consideration of the Middle East Command Report the DefMins agreed to a resolution requesting the Council to note the report but indicating that it was not considered that detailed Council discussion at this time was desirable. The resolution also urges the Standing Group to press on with this problem as a matter of urgency.

4. Terms of Reference of SACLANT (M.C. 22/10). The Norwegian Defense Minister made a strong and persuasive statement in favor of immediate action on this long standing issue. He pointedly asked when the Council may expect to see SACLANT operation as a practical reality. Mr. Lovett stated that the U.S. shares this sense of urgency and hoped that we could at least act upon the Terms of Reference. He indicated that the U.S. was prepared to appoint SACLANT as soon as the issues were resolved.

The U.K. recognized the importance of the problem but stated that they were not in agreement on some aspects of the papers. They formally reserved on the Terms of Reference of SACLANT as well as blocking his appointment. After being pressed, particularly by Norway, as to when and where further discussions would take place, the U.K. indicated that they would hope to have the matter ready for action in the next Council meeting in January. Finally, the U.K. agreed to a suggestion by the chair that the papers would go forward to Council as approved by the other 11 Defense Ministers and could go into effect immediately upon notice that the U.K. had withdrawn its objection, which would appear as a part of present Council action. However, the U.K. indicated they saw no hope of resolving the issue prior to the next Council meeting.

5. Channel Command (M.C. 34) Approved without discussion.

6. Relation Between Allied and National Commands During Wartime (M.C. 36) The Defense Ministers approved a resolution to be forwarded to Council requesting that the paper be referred to the Deputies for consideration of the legislative and political aspects, and report to the next session of the Council, or action by Deputies on behalf of governments if agreement can be reached prior to the Council meeting.

7. Standardization of Small Arms (M.C. 35) Mr. Claxton made a strong statement urging action to resolve this issue, stating that it [Page 723] was “euphemistic” to describe the paper as a “Progress Report”, since it simply reported that the disagreement had not been resolved. Mr. Pace reviewed some of the problems involved and pointed out that our experience with this issue would have beneficial results in creating machinery for the solution of other problems in this general field. He pointedly remarked that this example might show governments the desirability of considering the overall effect when announcing actions on behalf of their own country.

The Defense Ministers agreed to a resolution to the Council stressing the importance of the standardization of small arms, urging the Standing Group to press on with this study and requested the DPB to continue its study of the production aspects and also examine the advantages in procurement and supply of a single weapon, and requested that this report be acted upon by the Military Committee and the Deputies, who would be charged to make recommendations to Council.

8. Other Business. Mr. Claxton suggested the desirability of a report on the status of legislation implementing the Armed Forces Status Agreement. He suggested that it would be appropriate for the Deputies to make this report. Mr. Bidault stated that France is prepared to take the necessary steps but gave no indication of timing.

The Norwegian Defense Minister raised the question of NATO issuing guidance as to the information which could be made available to Parliaments. He specifically cited the desirability of making available some of the information contained in the report on Relative Strength of NATO and the Soviet Bloc.

  1. Both Vass and Knight were members of the U.S. Delegation at the Eighth Session of the North Atlantic Council.
  2. The meeting was held at 10:00 a. m. on Monday, November 26.
  3. Military Committee documents referred to in this document are not found in the files of the Department of State.