740.5/12–1151: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the United States Deputy Representative on the North Atlantic Council (Spofford)1
Todep 413. Fol are preliminary State views on Depto 697 Dec 11, rptd Paris 1235, Bonn 107.2
1. See no objection to some such, procedure set forth para 1 for contact with Paris Conf but doubt value joint mtg EDC delegates and CD. Real work of conf has gone to Min level and outcome still not known, also wonder if joint mtg might not militate for certain parity between EDC and NATO whereas we wish relationship where NATO alone gives polit direction to EDF.
2. Agree also importance point made by Sir Ernest Wood re linking production work EDC and DPB.
3. Declarations envisaged by Burin wld probably require us to obtain Senate approval because to agree that attack on territory of Ger (as a member of EDC) wld be attack on NATO wld be an extension of area of NATO territory. (Art VI as it is to be revised by the Gr-Turk protocol includes only forces in Ger, not territory.) While need for Senate action wld complicate and delay extension of US commitment, it of course does not confront us with an insuperable difficulty to this course of action. However, we shld not overlook that reciprocal declarations wld give Ger benefit of Art V guarantee without obtaining from Ger commitments in other arts of NAT. We are sending separate tel giving our current thinking on question Burin raised re how to decide upon use of EDF.
Further statements Burin re status Ger, provocation to Russia, etc., seem directed towards freezing Ger’s return to Eur community of nations at halfway point and are unrealistic. Furthermore, they are irrelevant as no one is pressing Fr now on Ger membership in NATO.
Although not unsympathetic to Burin’s views on EDC representation in NATO bodies, we believe until EDC organization and powers of Commissioner clarified, it wld be premature attempt to deal with how this shld be handled. May wish to comment further when text Fr statement arrives.