740.5/12–2051: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Embassy in France 1

secret

3595. For Bruce and MacArthur. Ref Paris 3446 rptd Bonn 1342 you may if you think advisable state to Alphand as Chairman EDC Conference the fol in manner you consider most suitable:

“US Govt has not yet been fully informed of draft treaty proposing a Eur Def Force and in particular technical details by which a common armament and supply program wld be constituted. US has supported creation of Eur Def Force and is fully aware of necessity for reorganizing certain national armament and supply functions under broader concept of the Force. Under present legislation US can legally make deliveries of US end items to directing or executive head of any Eur Def organization shld that be the body authorized to receive outside aid on behalf of organization and is body responsible for efficiency of its use within EDC in manner similar to aid received by national govts at present time. Furthermore, shld EDC become something more than an aggregation of member states (e.g., assume more than role of central executive agency for participants, which might cast doubt on present legal authority to provide aid to EDC commissioner) we anticipate no difficulty in securing appropriate amendments from Congress.

“It is not feasible for US discuss this aspect in detail until such time as proposed EDC has come into being and its details are both understood and agreed to. It wld be our hope that by coordination of national armament and supply programs suitable basis wld be created for more efficient and economical administration of outside aid. Conditions under which US Govt furnishes such aid wld not be changed by such adjustment but channels and administrative details under which such aid is furnished wld be re-examined with view to supporting concept outlined in draft treaty for EDC and in particular its proposal for common armament and supply program. Insofar as creation of EDF does increase effectiveness of mil contribution of member nations administration US end item aid will take account thereof.

“US wishes to make clear it wld retain its present policy of US giving priority on delivery of US equipment where creation of defense is most useful and effective. It must be understood that views of responsible mil commanders are fundamental in determining priority in allocating available resources. Position of SACEUR in this matter is of highest importance. Development of EDF details under which US aid wld be distributed to receiving mil units must take this factor into account.

“On its part US in recognizing effectiveness of a comprehensive EDF wld seek to promote through coordinated policies increased efficiency in armament and supply so as to be mutually beneficial to both US and proposed community.”

FYI we do not consider it appropriate at this time to distinguish between members and non-members of EDC in amount or manner of [Page 977] receiving US aid. It is not considered advisable to suggest that Benelux countries may be penalized for not joining EDF. Believe essential that delivery priorities be maintained on mil basis determined by SHAPE and that any priorities received by units composing EDF be based on their performance only. Believe this consistent with decision reached at Rome and contained in Secto 1093 that we will accept EDF without Benelux and that problem of dealing with Benelux is up to Schuman. Believe it also essential in dealing with NATO countries generally that from political standpoint they may be treated alike.

Tel on economic aid following.

Acheson
  1. This telegram, which was drafted by European Regional Affairs Director Martin, was cleared by telephone with ODMS, ECA, GER, and Defense.
  2. Dated December 10, p. 957.
  3. Of November 29, p. 947.