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

740.5/12–751

Report by the French Foreign Minister (Schuman) to the North Atlantic Council¹

top secret

[Washington, November 27, 1951.]

The Work of the Conference for the Organization of a European Defense Community

1. The Council will remember that, by their Brussels Resolution of 18 December 1950,² they had taken note of the French Government’s intention to convene a meeting in Paris with a view to creating a European Army. As was agreed, the Council Deputies have been kept informed regularly of the work of the Paris Conference; today I wish, on behalf of my Delegation, to give you an overall report on the progress of the work.

In this report, I shall endeavor to bring out as fully as possible all the points on which agreement has already been reached, as well as the differences still existing on important questions which it has not yet been possible to settle and the solution of which will call for further efforts by all participants.

The Conference, aware of the necessity of creating forthwith a European force sufficiently strong to deter any intended aggression, had throughout their work two main ideas in mind; on the one hand, the creation of a European Defense Community must meet the dictates of effectiveness of the forces contemplated for Europe; on the other, it must, at the same time, provide the Western world with the necessary guarantees against a revival of German militarism; and that in the interest both of Germany and of peace.

Bearing in mind these two principles, I shall give you a report on the results obtained in order to enable the Governments represented here to judge, when the time comes, whether these two main aims have been achieved.

2. I would first of all remind you of the procedure approved in Brussels on 18 December 1950 for studying the question of German contribution to defense. At the same time that they noted the intention of the French Government to put forward a plan for a European Army, the Atlantic Council instructed the three Occupying Powers in Germany to make a joint study with the Federal Republic of conditions for German participation.

Thus it was that two studies were initiated almost simultaneously at Bonn and in Paris at the beginning of this year. The object of the first was to work out conditions for German participation on the basis laid down in Brussels, that is to say, within the strict limits of the unilateral guarantees imposed on Germany by the Atlantic Council. The second was intended to lay down the principles which would govern the building up and the functioning of a European Army within which German forces would not be subjected to any restrictions other than those to which all the participating countries freely agreed.

The work of the so-called Petersberg Conference was continued until 4 June 1951. The results were recorded in a report by the High Commissioners in which note was taken of the comments of the Federal Government.³ It can be seen in this report that the German Delegation at the Petersberg Conference made a certain number of provisos to the formation of a new national army, such as the setting up of a “general command” at an intermediate level between the Supreme Atlantic Command and the Divisional Staffs, the setting up of divisional military zones under military authorities with both territorial powers and the command of troops. These provisions meant in fact the building up again of the pre-war German Army Corps. On the other hand, the Federal Office responsible for dealing with questions of the German contribution should, for this solution, have taken the form of a Federal Ministry with seven departments, for implementing ministerial decisions, and an “inspectorate generale” of the German contingent also sub-divided into seven sections. This inspecter general would have been the supreme Commander of all German troops.

This standpoint adopted by the German negotiating authorities met the requirements both for military effectiveness and for political equality. It was in pursuance of this principle of equality that the German Delegation rejected the idea of an allied control which would not be common to all participants.

The outcome of these Petersberg talks was therefore negative.

While these talks were going on in Germany, invitations were sent out by the French Government, on 26 January 1951, for a Conference on the formation of the European Army, based on the draft submitted by the Head of the French Government in his statement on 24 October 1950. They were sent to all the signatory European countries of the North Atlantic Treaty, and to the German Federal Republic, The two non-European signatory Governments, the U.S.A. and Canada, were requested to send observers.

Four of the countries invited, Germany, Belgium, Italy and Luxembourg decided to unite immediately with France in active participation in the work, whilst the other countries preferred to attend the Conference as observers, some of them reserving their decision as to full participation.

Thus the Conference opened in Paris on 15 February 1951. As you know, a preliminary stage in the work was marked by the submission of an Interim Report by the Delegations to their Governments on 24 July 1951.⁴ The submission of this report did not interrupt the work of the Conference. It simply enabled Delegations to ask their Governments for further instructions while the technical committees continued to prepare the texts required for starting the organization. At the same time, at the unanimous wish of the Conference, the Supreme Atlantic Commander agreed to send an observer, who would be responsible for maintaining close liaison and providing technical assistance whenever required.

On 8 October, the Netherlands Government decided to unite with the participating countries.

3. All the participating Delegations expressed complete agreement on the principles on which the creation of a European Defense Community was based.

Its object is to contribute, in conjunction with the free nations, and in the spirit of the United Nations Charter, to the maintenance of pace against all aggression, in close cooperation with other agencies with the same aim. For this purpose, the Community will have to ensure without discrimination the fullest possible integration, as far as is compatible with military requirements, of human and material elements which will be obtained by the Defense Forces of the member countries within a supra-national European organization. Such integration will cover not only the High Command, but also the creation, the training and the whole organization of the armed forces. It should also result in the most rational and most economic use of the resources of the member countries, in particular thanks to the elaboration of a joint armament program.

4. I will deal first of all with the military aspects of the organization of the European Defense Community.

In the first place, the Conference never lost sight of the fact that the European Defense Forces were intended to form an integral part of the NATO Defense Forces. That is why the Delegations taking part in the Paris Conference made a study of the military questions which were submitted to them in close and constant liaison with SHAPE. They also kept the military observers of member countries not taking part in the Conference informed of the progress of their discussions. The military observers of the United States and the United Kingdom took an active part in the work of the Military Committee set up by the Conference.

Furthermore, the Governments represented at the Paris Conference were aware of the necessity of speedy results so as not to delay unduly the effective contribution of the German Federal Republic to Western Defense. With this in mind, the Military Committee of the Paris Conference endeavored in the first place to settle the military questions which had to be solved before agreement could be reached on a treaty, a military protocol, and an Agreement covering an interim period.

On the other hand, no attempt has been made to develop in detail the technical arrangements involved in setting up the Defense Community. Such technical arrangements will be worked out at a later date, either in the interval between the signature of the basic texts mentioned above and their ratification by the Parliaments of the countries concerned, or even, in certain cases, after the date on which the Treaty comes into force.

A—Methods of integration and basic units

The European Defense Forces will be composed of both conscripted and regular troops contributed by the various Member States. They will probably wear a common uniform.

In the case of the land forces, integration will take place in the Army Corps composed of basic units of different nationalities, except in special cases arising out of tactical or organizational requirements. In the Army Corps the media of command, the supporting units and the logistical support formations will all be of an integrated type.

Only the European Army Corps will be able to carry out independent missions and give combat with its own resources for any length of time. For this purpose, it will comprise, in addition to the basic units, supporting elements belonging to the different arms (artillery, armored units, Engineering Corps, etc.), as well as a complete group of logistical formations for the maintenance of the forces composing it.

Under its orders, the basic unit of “Groupement” will only include a sufficient variety of arms to enable it to go into general action; it cannot continue to exist without the assistance of the Army Corps, which will provide it with the necessary reinforcements and in particular its daily maintenance.

The normal establishment of an Army Corps will be about 80,000 men. The establishment of the Groupement will vary between 12,600 (armored Groupements and mechanized Groupements) and 13,000 (infantry Groupements). The latter figures represent the peace-time establishment under constant training which ensures that the unit is ready for combat: in time of war, these figures will be increased by the addition of approximately 2,000 non-specialized and untrained men (reservists, trainees).

In the case of the Air Forces, it has been agreed that the basic unit will be the “demi-brigade” including 75 machines for the majority of specialized branches; it would correspond to the “Wing” of the American Air Forces.

In peace-time, the average strength of the demi-brigade would be 1,200 men. It would form part of the major Commands, known as Tactical Air Forces, and would be grouped in Tactical Air Commands.

The supporting and maintenance services would be grouped on the level corresponding to the “Tactical Air Forces.”

B—Definition of the European Defense Forces

The European Defense Forces will include all the land and air forces of the member countries, with the following exceptions:

(1) national forces for the defense of the overseas territories of the Member States, and the units required for the maintenance and relief of such forces;

(2) national forces which the Member States will have to recruit and maintain in order to carry out the international missions which they have undertaken (for example, forces stationed in Berlin and Austria, and forces operating in Korea);

(3) the police forces which Member States will maintain to preserve internal order.

The Conference agreed that in the case of a serious emergency affecting an overseas territory of a Member State, the fraction of the contingents contributed by that State to the European Defense Forces required to deal with the emergency would be made available to that State by the European Authority, at the State’s request and with the approval of the Supreme Command (NATO). The military, economic and financial implications of such withdrawal of contingents would be studied and adjusted in each case individually by the Community.

The Member States would be free to carry out individual exchanges of personnel between the contingents which they make available to the European Defense Forces and the forces which are not part of the European Defense Forces, provided that such exchanges were not likely to result in a reduction of the European Defense Forces.

The Conference also agreed that in the event of disturbances or threatened disturbances within the territory of a Member State, the European Defense Forces might be used, in certain circumstances, to provide the assistance required to deal with the situation.

The question of the composition of the European Maritime Forces is still under study.

C—Size of the European Defense Forces and Contribution of the Federal Republic

The Paris Conference agreed, in consultation with SHAPE, on certain working assumptions regarding the size of the land and air forces which the European Defense Community should have at its disposal by 1 July 1954. These assumptions should, of course, be adapted to the results of the discussions also in progress in the military bodies of the Atlantic Treaty and the Temporary Council Committee (TCC).

According to these working assumptions, the land forces on 1 July 1954 should have reached the approximate figure of 43 Groups. Germany’s contribution was estimated at 12 Groups, as follows:

8 infantry Groups and

4 mechanized Groups

Eight of these Groups, comprising the covering troops, would be ready immediately, and the others would be available after a very short interval for mobilization.

In addition, the Federal German Republic would make tactical air forces and Naval Coastal Defense Forces available to the European Defense Committee. The size and type of such forces is at present under study.

D—Time-table for bringing the Forces into being

The Paris Conference is studying the conditions in which the forces of the European Defense Community would in fact be brought into being. In the case of already existing forces, the question at issue is how they will be incorporated into the framework envisaged for the organization of European defense. This problem is at present under study. In the case of the contribution expected from the German Federal Republic, the problem consists in planning the successive operations whereby that contribution will become effective in the shortest possible time. A detailed time-table has been drawn up to meet this point. The time-table is governed by the following principles: in the first place, it is understood that personnel of German origin will be recruited on the basis of compulsory military service. It is also agreed that the proportion of regular personnel should not exceed the proportion which applies to the European Defense Forces as a whole. Once these principles have been laid down, it goes without saying that the time-table of implementing measures will in practice depend on the dates on which the instruments instituting the European Defense Community come into force, and the dates on which the basic texts laying down regulations for the census and call-up of National Service Men have been drawn up by the German legislative authorities. On the assumption that the instruments instituting the European Defense Community would come into force on 1 July 1952, a time-table was drawn up by the Paris Conference for the raising of the German contribution. It emerges from this time-table that the 12 Groups of German origin would be ready for service on 1 April 1954.

E—Subjects now under discussion

Several types of problems have also been the subject of detailed study in the Military Committee of the Paris Conference. I quote them here as a reminder, for I propose to return to them below in connection with the institutional questions with which they are directly connected.

The major issues are the arrangements to be made in the initial period, the territorial organization, the status of forces, the administration of personnel and lastly, the relations to be established between the forces of the European Defense Community and the media of command of the Atlantic Organization. With regard to the last point, I think it important to stress that the aim of the surveys in progress is, of course, the adaptation of future arrangements in the European Defense Community to the command structure already in force within the Atlantic Organization.

In addition, the Conference is studying the problems arising out of setting up and running command training and instruction schools as early as in the initial period.

5. Since the final purpose to be achieved by our work is the fusion of the armed forces of participating countries in order to ensure the permanent defense of Europe, these armed forces must be attached to political institutions of a supra-national character. In trying to define these institutions, the draft submitted by France to Delegations was based on the precedent formed by the Coal and Steel Pool. Of course, account had to be taken of the obvious differences between the two cases. But the Conference considered that, with the appropriate adaptations, similar institutional provisions should be laid down, since the European Defense Community will one day have to become part of the general political framework of an integrated Europe, of which the Coal and Steel Pool will form the first concrete achievement.

A—The European Authority

In general, all Delegations agreed that a European Authority would be created, whose powers with regard to the European Forces would be comparable, to the greatest possible extent, with those of a Minister of Defense in relation to national Armed Forces.

However, the Conference has not yet decided on the form to be given to this Authority. Two formulas, one based on the idea of a Board and the other on that of an Individual Commissioner are at present contemplated.

The question of the powers of the Authority is more difficult, since it touches more deeply on the very problem of the creation of a supranational Authority responsible for the organization of the Defense Forces. In the draft Treaty, which is at present in course of preparation by the Conference though not yet unanimously agreed by the Delegations, the Commissioner would have large powers of execution and control over the European Defense Forces:

• —it will watch over the recruitment carried out, at least in the first period which will follow the entry into force of the Treaty, by the Member States;
• —it will be responsible for training the Forces, following uniform methods;
• —it will direct the Military Colleges;
• —it will inspect and review the troops;
• —it will decide the territorial location of units of the forces on the basis of the recommendations of the Supreme Atlantic Command;
• —it will exercise judicial and disciplinary functions;
• —it will administer staff and equipment;
• —it will have important financial duties which will be described below;
• —it will ensure liaison with States and international organizations;
• —it will deal with questions of foreign aid.

Two other important duties are also contemplated for the European Authority with regard to which no agreed formula has yet been found. The first is the appointment by the Authority to ranks and posts in the armed forces and civil services. Three Delegations expressed the view that the national authorities should alone be authorized to appoint officers. We believe that a compromise solution can be found.

The second question still the subject of controversy concerns the establishment and execution by the Authority of the armament program of the European Defense Community. I will refer later to the problems raised by this very important question.

The solutions that we propose seem to us capable of ensuring the system that best adapted to our goal, that is, the creation of a European, and not a coalition army. I have grounds for believing that all Delegations reject the idea of a simple coalition, and this leads me to hope that if we are agreed on the purpose to be achieved, we shall succeed in agreeing on the methods of achieving it.

B—Council of Ministers

As in the case of the Coal and Steel Pool, the council of Ministers would be composed of representatives of the participating States, each State nominating a member of its government or a deputy.

The Council would harmonize the action of the Commissioner with the policy of the governments of Member States. It could issue general directives in cases provided for in the Treaty: liaison with other international defense bodies and, where necessary, with other states, safeguarding the economic and social equilibrium of Member States and, perhaps, questions relating to foreign aid.

The Council would decide on modifications to the basic texts and the make-up of the European Defense Forces. In certain cases provided for in the Treaty, the Commissioner is obliged, before taking a decision or making a recommendation, to obtain the views or the approval of the Council. These cases cover in particular territorial location of units, the establishment of the armaments, equipment, and supply programs, appointments to ranks and posts, and liaison with Member States.

However, while certain Delegations consider that this advance approval should be given either by a simple majority or by a two-thirds majority, other Delegations insist that in most cases unanimous approval of the Council must be obtained.

I would make it clear that the whole question of the powers of the Council is obviously linked with that of the powers of the Authority, and is the object of the same general reservation as was the case with the powers of the Authority.

C—The Assembly

The Assembly is composed of representatives of the peoples of the States joined together in the Community. Its composition and method of election will be determined at the end of the work of the Conference, but a formula is contemplated which will make it possible to nominate, for the First Assembly, representatives of the Parliaments of the various Member States, with the possibility of transforming it subsequently into an Assembly specially elected on the basis of universal suffrage. It is for this reason that it will be provided that the First Assembly nominated will be charged, in addition to its normal duties which we will examine later, with the task of examining during the transitional period the conditions under which an Assembly elected under universal suffrage can be created, the powers which would devolve on it, and the modifications which might have to be made in consequence in the other institutions of the Community.

Agreement has already been reached on the way in which the Assembly will operate. It is provided that it will hold an ordinary annual Session, and extraordinary Sessions at the request of the Commissioner, the Council, or the majority of the members of the latter.

Apart from the budgetary duties which will be examined later, the powers of the Assembly have also been worked out. It will be its duty, in particular, to pronounce on motions of censure on the administration of the Commissioner. If such a motion is carried, the Commissioner must resign.

D—The Court

In view of the conflicts which may arise between Member States and the Community, a Court of Justice will be organized to ensure respect for law in the interpretation and application of the Treaty.

Delegations agreed on the provisions relating to competence, appeals, cancellation of the decisions and recommendations of the Commissioner, cancellation of the deliberations of the Assembly or the Council, legal effects of appeals, and conditions for interpreting the Treaty.

The Court could be the same as that provided under the Coal and Steel Pool.

6. The financial questions raised by the creation and operation of the European Defense Community will be settled according to principles to be laid down in the future Treaty, its annexes, or its financial regulations.

From the beginning a common budget would cover, in the draft at present being studied by Delegations, all the expenditures necessary for the maintenance and creation of European forces. To meet this volume of expenditure, the European Community would dispose of the contributions of Member States. Further, owing to the great volume of expenditure, the Paris Conference hoped to benefit from foreign aid for the Community.

The preparation of the budget of revenue and expenditure would be the duty of the Commissioner. The draft prepared by him would be submitted to the Council and the Assembly, in conformity with the procedure which I shall indicate later.

Questions relating to the composition, establishment, voting and execution of the budget give rise to serious preoccupations in the minds of several Delegations.

Some Delegations consider that, contrary to what is provided in the draft at present under examination, the common budget should only cover the operational expenditure of the Authority bodies and the headquarters, together with the integrated services. In the opinion of these Delegations, units of the same national origin should remain at the charge of national budgets.

Several Delegations also expressed the view that a distinction should be drawn between an interim period and a final stage. In the interim period, since the supra-national Authority would not be in a position to exercise its full powers, there could in any case be only a limited common budget at the beginning.

The budget establishment procedure is at present envisaged as follows: the draft budget drawn up by chapters by the Commissioner would first be approved by the Council of Ministers, then submitted to the Assembly which could amend it, without however increasing expenditures beyond the initial proposals of the Commissioner. The budget as thus revised would be submitted again to the Council of Ministers for final decision.

The Conference reserved for the end of its discussions the whole of the important question of the contributions to be paid by the Member States in accordance with rules to be defined. This problem is connected to a great extent with the decisions to be reached by the Temporary Council Committee (TCC) presided over by Mr. Harriman.

The Conference has also drawn up draft financial regulations for the guidance of the Commissioner and prepared a report on the question of the monetary problems.

7. The Conference is also studying the question of Armament Programs for the European Forces. The first problem is that of the establishment of Armament Programs. I have said that the Common Defense Budget, in the project under current discussion by the Conference, was established under headings. As a result the different organisms of the Community, each within its respective terms of reference, will discuss simultaneously and under the same conditions Armament Programs and the Budget. In this way, it would not be necessary to introduce into the Treaty particular arrangements for setting up the Programs.

On the other hand, the execution of the Programs poses numerous problems which will have to be taken care of by provisions in the Treaty. From the beginning of its work, the Conference thought that it would be wise to investigate a common system of supply and a common Program of Armaments in order to lighten the burdens which the organization of a common defense would lay upon Member States. The standardization of weapons and the specialization of armament production would make possible a better and more economical use of the resources of the member countries.

Further, the execution of the program has a direct bearing upon the economy and the social life of each of the member countries. It is consequently necessary that, in their execution, the Commissioner acts in close liaison with the Council.

The Armament Board came to a certain number of preliminary conclusions, with the general reservation formulated by one of the Delegations:

(a) The Commissioner will establish a Program of requirements for the whole of the Community. This program will be incorporated in the provisional Annual Statement of Expenditure, and approved as such. For the establishment of this Program, the Commissioner will get in close liaison with governments. The Council will determine by means of directives to the Commissioner the distribution into more or less detailed sections.

(b) The Commissioner will ensure the execution of the Program, taking into account, so far as monetary transfers are concerned, the dispositions of the Treaty. He will get in close liaison with the Council, the Advisory Committee and governments, as much in order to be in a position to appreciate the economic and social consequences of the execution of the Program as to avoid, as far as possible, the difficulties which might delay or hinder execution.

The Commissioner will place orders in such a way that these will be realized in the best conditions both as far as prices, delays, and the rhythm of production are concerned, and so as to ensure the best standardization and the greatest possible specialization of military production within the interior of the Community.

The placing of orders will be made freely, in particular on the basis of tenders to the Commissioner.

The Commissioner will be free to determine in which cases centralization or decentralization of the placing of orders will be necessary. The Purchasing Commissions to be set up for the Commissioner will be consulted by him for the placing of orders exceeding a certain sum, the sum in question to be fixed and reviewed in consultation with the Council. The Commissioner will account to the Council for orders placed in execution of the Program.

(c) If the execution of the Program encounters difficulties because of an insufficiency in the supply of raw materials, of a lack of equipment or of installed capacity, the Commissioner will be empowered to address to governments the appropriate recommendations.

(d) An Advisory Committee will be set up for the Commissioner. It will comprise representatives of producers and of labor and its role will be to assist the Commissioner in the execution of Programs by means of an exchange of information and reciprocal consultations.

The following questions have not yet been discussed by the Committee:

• —Conditions in which the Commissioner obtains the information necessary to him on those firms which manufacture war material.
• —Control by the Commissioner of military production in the Community as well as the import and export of military material.
• —The role of the Commissioner in the matter of scientific and technical research in the military field.
• —The role of the Commissioner in respect of relations with the technical bodies of NATO.
• —The customs and fiscal regulations for products necessary to the Community.

8. the legal status of the forces

Finally, the Conference is studying the legal status of the European Forces. A special committee has been charged with elaborating drafts of texts dealing with juridical, fiscal and customs questions, with public security and the utilization of public services by the Community.

9. conclusions

The Council will have seen that considerable progress has been made by the Conference, particularly during the last few months, when, as I mentioned earlier, it had the benefit of valuable technical assistance from SHAPE experts.

At military level, the Conference has succeeded in laying down the principles for the integration of forces of different nationalities; it has laid down in detail the basic unit of homogeneous nationality and the integrated European Army Corps; it has worked out a definite time-phasing for the building up of German units. In the institutional field, the technical Committees of the Conference have thoroughly investigated the problems of the structure and the powers of the various bodies between which a working equilibrium must be established.

All questions connected with the composition, the preparation, the voting and the implementation of a European Defense Budget have been discussed in detail. In all, a draft Treaty, a draft interim Agreement, draft military and financial protocols and a draft agreement on juridical status have been drawn up. There are still considerable gaps in these drafts owing to differences of opinion between the Delegations on certain major points which I mentioned just now. I would stress that these points are chiefly connected with the budget, the structure and the powers of European Authority, the appointment of officers, and the drawing up and the implementation of armament programs.

There are certain other points which it has not yet been possible for the Conference to consider, owing to lack of time. There are in particular problems presented, when the Community is first established, by the raising of German troops when there is no territorial organization in Germany to make this initial operation possible and when the troops which are to be brought into being must immediately be of a European character.

Another question which has not yet been dealt with concerns international provisions for the use of Defense Forces and the relationship of the European Community with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The draft Treaty already stresses the principle of close cooperation between the two organizations. Further, it stipulates that the Commissioner act in close liaison with NATO, and above all it was specifically decided that, from the outset, the command and use of the European Forces are to be entrusted to the Supreme Atlantic Command. Nevertheless, the fact that the structure of the two organizations is not identical makes it necessary to find a method of ensuring that the decisions of each with regard to going into action are in agreement, and which provide the various member countries with guarantees of mutual aid.

The Conference has not yet laid down in detail the geographical area covered by the Treaty and has left a few political questions, such as the weighting of voices in the votes of the Council of Ministers, until the end.

Some of the difficulties which I have mentioned briefly may be capable of solution by compromise. Others call for modification in the positions adopted by certain Delegations.

At the beginning of this report I stated that the main concern of the Conference was to ensure both military effectiveness and a guarantee against a revival of German militarism.

As regards military effectiveness, all the Delegations consider that the Group chosen as basic unit is a flexible and maneuverable active unit which is the best suited to modern combat, whilst being the smallest possible homogeneous unit in an integrated army. It is released as far as possible from logistic tasks. It has only the essential services and therefore depends, for maintenance, on the higher integrated echelons. We hope that, when the time comes, all the military aspects of the plan will be put before the military bodies of the Council and that the latter will give their view as to its effectiveness.

We also think that, thanks in particular to the existence of a joint armament program and a joint budget, this organization will provide the required guarantee against a revival of German militarism.

It now appears clear that no valid guarantee could be obtained in the event of a national German army being formed.

Even those guarantees to which Germany might agree under a discriminatory system would become illusory; in fact, numerical restrictions alone would only be of a precarious nature. Further, the assignment to the Atlantic Command of operational duties would: not prevent the reappearance of a General Staff since the German Petersberg plan revives a centralized military framework open to autonomous expansion.

On the other hand, the merging within a Community of the interests of peoples who a short time ago were in opposition will be for everyone a guarantee that national considerations and the dangers which these involve will disappear to make way for the will of the Community.

In this way, a sound solution would be found to the problem of relations between Germany and Europe. Neither the revival of a Wehrmacht, nor the neutralization of Germany meet the requirements of the present international situation. Only the integration of Germany in Europe, in the conditions which we envisaged in Washington last September, offers a valid solution.

For this reason, despite the great difficulties with which we are faced in an unfamiliar field, I reaffirm the conviction that with the goodwill of all parties and with the collaboration of our Atlantic partners, we shall be able to draw up a complete draft Treaty within a few weeks.

1. This report was presented by Foreign Minister Schuman at the Fourth Meeting of the Eighth Session of the North Atlantic Council, held in Rome, November 27. This report was there circulated as document C 8–D/5. For the United States record of that meeting, see Secto 93, November 27, p. 735. The source text was transmitted as one of several enclosures to a letter of December 7 from Ambassador Bruce to Assistant Secretary of State Perkins, not printed.
2. Regarding the Brussels Resolution under reference here, see the Briefing Paper prepared by the Department of State, Pleven D–2/1a, January 26, p. 755.
3. See p. 1044.
4. See p. 843.