740.5/3–2251: Telegram
The United States Deputy Representative on the North Atlantic Council (Spofford) to the Secretary of State 1
Depto 662. Dept pass Ottawa. Deputies 23rd meeting March 21.
[Here follow brief references to a summary by Alphand of the latest German position on the composition of a European army, and to the discussion of a report on the financing of the SHAPE budget.]
3. US proposal con [concerning?] FEB. This item deferred for consideration at next meeting in view inability US and UK to agree on terms of agreed minute regarding convening organizing comite to consider terms of ref for central NATO agency in econ and fin field. US Dep presented new draft for such an agreed minute which [Page 102] was as conciliatory as possible without abandoning idea that basic purpose of org comite was to prepare recommendations for central NATO fin and econ body, leaving all other genl principles expressed in US paper to subsequent discussion by Deps prior to and during session of organizing comite. However, UK insisted on alternative language which wld have directed ad hoc comite merely to study ways of improving NATO organization in econ and fin field including “if necessary, creation of a central agency for this purpose.” US Dep took position that this basic decision shld be made by CD before it was worthwhile summoning org comite. Believe all Deps other than UK wld have accepted our proposal. Will utilize period during Deps recess to try to persuade Brit to our view.
4. Canada and Belgium announced concurrence in US amendments to Can proposal on NATO reorg. Former stated Ottawa gratified at US acceptance of its basic thesis on council and agreed no action shld be taken now with respect mil com. In regard to constitution of NAT Council, French still instructed to adhere to original Can proposal. UK proposed insertion in US draft after words “competent ministers” of phrase “especially Ministers for Econ Affairs” on grounds they had as much interest in NAT affairs as Fon Mins or Min Def. Was supported by Italy and, subj to instructions, by Neths. All others able to accept either US or UK draft on this point.
Re mil commission [committee], UK announced change of view and agreed it shld not be abolished. Port agreed. Italy and Belg agreed but believed mil agencies shld study whether or not mil reorganization necessary. Neths still thought mil commission shld go.
UK believed final paper shld make clear Deps wld not deal with mil matters. Neth again stressed final decisions shld be by civil rather than mil authorities. In conclusive discussion raised question of what matters shld be considered “military” and therefore avoided since mil agencies themselves had asked Deps to take up political aspects of such mil matters as Ger participation and mobilization and training procedures. Deps agreed WG should now begin drafting revision of D–1/1,2 bracketing alternate texts where necessary.
Port requested consideration at next mtg of Port-Belg proposals for changes in SG. Chair reminded council he had advised SG these would not be considered by Deps until SG consideration completed but agreed as to SG re present status.
5. On shipping priorities in wartime US reiterated two problems involved: (1) How is problem of wartime shipping needs to be studied? and (2) What agency will allot shipping space in war? US considered FEB appropriate agency to consider this question. Genl [Page 103] agreement with PBOS view that latter problem not in competence of PBOS. Further consideration deferred.
[Here follow three paragraphs referring to a memorandum from the Standing Group on estimating civil requirements for shipping, deferred action on a matter concerning merchant shipping, and discussion of a draft agenda for a NATO information meeting.]
- Repeated to Paris for the Embassy and OSR, to the other NATO capitals, and to Frankfurt, to Heidelberg for Handy, and to Wiesbaden for Norstad.↩
- See Foreign Relations, 1949, vol. iv, pp. 330–337.↩