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

740.5/5–1751: Telegram

The United States Deputy Representative on the North Atlantic Council ( Spofford ) to the Secretary of State ¹

top secret

London , May 17, 1951—7 p. m.

Depto 943. Depto 914.² Mtg on problems of Ger def contribution held May 15 with reps of HICOG, SHAPE, Paris and London Embassies, OSR, EUCOM, CINCAFE, ISAC, State, Defense, ISG, JAMAG, SUSRep, Munitions Board and USDep attending.

Fol comments in summary form set forth areas where discussion indicated action can be taken now to implement US policy towards Ger def participation.

1. In order accelerate Ger action, effort shld be made to present more realistic and specific picture to Gers in current tripartite talks as to what is expected of them as a mil contribution. In this connection, standing group has been asked by HICOM for data which has not been forthcoming altho considerable time has elapsed.

2. US shld urge that HICOM report on the mil discussions with the Gers, which shld shortly be transmitted to the govts, be submitted by them to NATO, probably CD, as promptly as possible.

3. Franco-Ger disagreement on basic unit size and level of integration may at some time have to be referred to SACEUR by NATO. Obviously there is no possibility of a change in Fr position before Fr elections, and US shld therefore avoid having SACEUR brought formally into question until after that time and then only at request interested govts and at carefully chosen time.

4. US shld continue to press for early implementation of system of contractual relations³ and suggest utilization of declaration of intent formula if latter feasible and offers better opportunity for initiating prompt action toward def contribution.

5. Question of Ger’s association with NATO will arise in near future in the first instances in connection with DPB and FEB. An over-all US position including specific steps and timetable contemplated leading towards full NATO membership shld be readied. It is anticipated that matter will reach the deputies for discussion at time contact between the Gers and FEB and DPB is desired. This cld presumably take place in near future and shld initially be through HICOM although different formula may be adopted towards association with the FEB and DPB. After the initial contacts, Stages of auxiliary Ger membership leading to full membership in various NATO bodies cld be evolved when Ger mil contribution has been determined and requisite Pol safeguards established. Question of possible Fr attitude toward foregoing and other specific Steps to associate Ger with NATO shld be discreetly explored.

6. US shld be prepared for further revision of Law 24⁴ upon Ger agreement to a def contribution, especially in view of effect of this law oh NATO mil production problem.

7. Utilization of Ger production capacity when available unused capacity exists in NAT countries is a difficult concept for DPB to sell. However, DPB shld proceed to integrate Ger production picture into scheme of NATO planning and US shld push hard to get NAT countries to place orders in Ger including West Berlin. Fr and UK with EPU surpluses shld be specially encouraged to place orders in Ger. Utilization of a pooled approach through establishment of some type of NATO purchasing commission under DPB shld be explored. SUSRep and HICOG will maintain continuing contact on these problems and seek to develop DPB–HICOM contact in due course.

8. Re def orders priorities plan, HICOG shld submit to SUSRep soonest regulations under revision of Law 24, type of priority order form required, procedures for placing orders in Ger, Ger agency to be dealt with, and a list of Ger availabilities. SUSRep will then table paper in DPB and press to get machinery into operation.

9. Essential element to providing technical assistance to Gers in production matters is prompt establishment of adequate security system by FedRep.

10. Size of gap between cost of mil program as currently outlined in Ger discussions and funds expected to be available to meet that cost accentuates necessity for Ger association with FEB burden-sharing exercise.

Spofford

1. Repeated to Frankfurt, Heidelberg for Handy, Wiesbaden for Norstad, and Paris for MacArthur and Riddleberger.
2. Not printed; it transmitted a “suggested agenda for discussion on Germany May 15.” (740.5/5–1051)
3. For documentation on the negotiation and implementation of a new system of contractual relations with the Federal Republic of Germany, see pp. 1446 ff.
4. For the text of Allied High Commission Law No. 24, “Control of Certain Articles, Products, Installations and Equipment,” of March 30, 1950, see Laws, Regulations, Directives and Decisions, vol. i, pp. 74–153.