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

740.5/3–751: Telegram

The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Gifford) to the Secretary of State ¹

secret
priority

London, March 7, 1951—8 p. m.

4802. Following is text aide-mémoire which Attlee handed me this afternoon (Embtel 4600 February 23 repeated Paris 1566).² Report of my conversation with him follows in separate message (Embtel 4803³ repeated Paris 1684 March 7).

1. “His Majesty’s Government have carefully considered aide-mémoire which US Ambassador handed to Prime Minister on 23 February⁴ on subject of co-ordination in economic and financial fields, with particular reference to future development of economic work of NATO.

2. HMG agree with US Government on need to ensure coordinated action in the economic and financial fields for increasing the defense efforts of NAT countries while at same time maintaining sound basic economic structures. They also agree that continuous leadership and guidance from North Atlantic Council deputies to the other NATO bodies is necessary for smooth functioning of whole organization and for attainment of broad objectives of NAT. They recognize, as do US Government, difficulty of working out any perfect solution to these problems.

3. HMG have carefully examined five alternative courses of action set out in Ambassador’s aide-mémoire. The first point on which they wish to make their position clear is that they could not contemplate moving to Paris the NAT agencies now situated in London, as proposed under solution ‘A’ in aide-mémoire. General grounds on which HMG oppose such a move have been explained to US Government in discussions both in London and Washington and do not need to be rehearsed at length in this reply. Broadly speaking, HMG are convinced that a removal of central agencies of NATO from London to Paris would not be in best interests of the organization and would be detrimental to full and effective cooperation which HMG have been able to offer and intend to continue offering both with US Government and with other members through NATO.

4. HMG appreciate that it is desirable to provide machinery which will enable NATO to deal more effectively than it is at present equipped to do with tasks in economic and financial sphere which fall to the organization. NATO has considerable role to play in this sphere, not only on account of bearing of defense programs on economic life of member countries, but in view of undertakings in regard economic collaboration assumed by member governments under Article 2 of NAT. HMG fully share US Government’s desire that NATO and Council Deputies should be put in better position to fulfill their responsibilities in economic field.

5. At same time, HMG feel it is important to avoid duplication with work already being done by other bodies, such as OEEC and International Materials Conference. They are not convinced, having regard to work being done by these bodies, that setting up of any elaborate machinery under NATO is necessary at present time. In their view principal need in present circumstances is to ensure that deputies are able:

(a) To keep closer contact with group of twelve and to exercise the necessary supervision over its work; and

(b) To maintain liaison with other international organizations operating in economic field.

They believe that these requirements can be met by making full use of the integrated international staff, under a special assistant to the chairman of deputies, which it has recently been decided to set up in London.⁵ This staff, if enlarged by appointment of one or two persons with economic training, should be able to keep deputies and their chairman regularly informed of proceedings, both within and outside NATO, affecting economic problems of defense and enable them to take whatever action they may consider necessary. In addition, individual deputies could arrange closer contact with corresponding national member of group of twelve.

6. Arrangements of this kind should enable deputies to keep themselves informed of developments in general economic situation and to satisfy themselves that purposes of NATO are properly reflected in economic policies of member governments, while at same time making full use (through group of twelve) of experience and cooperative working traditions of OEEC national delegations and secretariat.

7. Above are present views of HMG. They are, however, prepared to consider and discuss with US Government any proposal for improving effective working of NATO consistent with maintenance of its headquarters in London.”

Gifford

1. Repeated to Paris for Bruce and Katz and passed to MacArthur for Eisenhower.
2. Ante, p. 64.
3. Infra.
4. Not found in Department of State files.
5. The proposed creation of a NATO international staff was reviewed by the Council Deputies during January and February, and a resolution (D–D (51) 47(Final), not printed) establishing the principles for setting up such a staff was adopted by the Deputies on February 26.