740.5/10–351: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the Embassy in the United Kingdom 1
1858. London for Spofford, Paris for MacArthur. Re Depto 399, Oct 3, from London.2 Dutch memo Aug 31 states Neth Gov “prepared support idea linking Eur armies together, although on basis different from that proposed during Paris Conf”. Bulk of memo devoted to criticisms important points in interim report Paris Conf and to Dutch counterproposals. Our view however is that note does represent perceptible shift in direction of more favorable Dutch attitude toward EDF.
Dutch apparently came to decision to participate, under certain conditions in EDF with great reluctance. Initial Dutch attitude had been marked by skepticism and, until quite recently, this attitude had been maintained both publicly and privately. Privately Neth Emb officers here explained in detail Hague’s strong preference for bringing Ger into Western defense system through NATO rather than through org of continental states. They expressed Hague’s fear that with presently contemplated composition, org of Eur army wld ultimately be dominated by Gers or by Fr, either one of which undesirable from Dutch viewpoint. With respect possibility Fr domination, they argued Fr commitments Indochina and North Africa plus commie strength metropolitan France wld make for weak mil outfit. They thus initially saw no reason join in development such org when they were already member in good standing of NATO. This connection shld be noted [Page 886] memo Aug 31 emphasizes that NATO “remains best safeguard against aggression and more safety shld therefore be sought in first place by strengthening link between members this org, thereby increasing its power and efficiency”.
Neth objections to Paris Conf proposals center not on integration concept itself, which they specifically favor at above division level and under direction SHAPE, but on impracticability of three organizational aspects of Paris proposals which they describe as “unified administration of Eur Army, common budget and common armament program”. Dutch consider that on these three points Paris proposals go “beyond limits of what is necessary, useful and realisable under present circumstances”. Their objections to Paris proposals these three points are followed by counterproposals which they believe wld simplify EDF structure.
Our view is that shift in Dutch attitude toward EDF primarily due economic considerations. This spelled out in Starkenborgh conversation Spofford reported Depto 246, rptd info Paris 385, The Hague 39, Aug 22.3
You may wish inform Brit colleagues our view is that Neth can be persuaded ultimately support EDF consonant with basic US approach to EDF and question Ger contribution set forth WFM paper T–4/2a, Sept 8. Think this will be slow and tedious process, however.
Copies Aug 31 memo pouched London for Spofford, Paris for MacArthur, Oct 4.
- This telegram was repeated for information to Paris and The Hague. It was drafted by Joseph W. Scott, Officer in Charge of Swiss and Benelux Affairs, and was approved by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Bonbright.↩
- Not printed; in it Spofford asked for Department of State comment on the Netherlands memorandum of August 31 regarding the European Defense Force problem (740.5/10–3151). Regarding the Netherlands memorandum and its delivery to the Department, see the memorandum of August 31 by Deputy Under Secretary Matthews, p. 873.↩
- Not printed, but see footnote 2, p. 874.↩