740.5/4–351: Telegram
The United States Deputy Representative on the North Atlantic Council (Spofford) to the Secretary of State 1
niact
Depto 711. Attention Ridgway Knight. In mtg yesterday CD made fol changes working group paper on NATO reorganization D–D (51) 86 (Depto 693).2
Deleted para 1(b) and agreed that eventual directive establishing FEB shld refer to replacement DFEC.
Recommended first 2 sentences para 4 (US proposal) be changed to read:
“The members of the North Atlantic Council will represent their respective govts. The Council shall incorporate not only the Council envisaged by Article 9 of the treaty but also the Def Comite referred to in the same article.”
This is purely verbal change to make clear that Council members, and not Council itself, represent govts. Assume we can accept this. US agreed to inclusion words in internal brackets “especially by their minister responsible for fin and econ affairs.” All other dels, except French, agreeable US proposal with above changes. French dep said off record that he expected be in position accept US proposal next day or so.
US dep noted that para 10 did not make explicit CD function of recommending to govts measures for implementation NAT. In order rectify this, he suggested rewording third sentence as fols:
“When Council is not in session, CD shall carry out policies of Council, recommend to govts the measures necessary to this end, formulate issues requiring decisions by the Council or by member govts, and otherwise constitute a body which may register the approval of theirs govts on matters before them for consideration.”
Other deps agreed this proposal. UK suggested last sentence para 10 re advisors be deleted as obvious and unnecessary but did not press point. Do you feel strongly it shld be included?
Para 11(c)—US dep said US Govt considered pol “guidance” synonymous with “direction.” Other deps except Port indicated willingness accept US proposal para 11(c) if this interpretation incorporated in CD minutes. Neth stated wld prefer use “direction” but wld not insist. Point was that “guidance” shld be binding. US said SG wld not be free to reject it. Belg commented Fr translation both words was “directive.” Neth and Canad felt it shld be made clear in some manner interpretation given by US prevailed over para 16 of DC 24/3.3
Port dep continued maintain position that CD shld deal with SG thru either Mil Comite or Mil Rep Com and not direct. All other deps took position that CD shld deal directly with SG when Mil Comite not in session. Port dep said he wld report situation to his govt and ask instructions.
Re last para Todep 339,4 working group wording CD section text Depto 693 is synthesis US proposal (Todep 2935 Norwegian proposal and Council resolution May 19506 establishing CD. Other members working group objected to first sentence original US proposal on grounds it was too weak, pointing out that deps shld not be considered as reps of ministers, but as reps of govts. With this exception, rest of original US draft is included in D–D (51) 86, assuming that we get satisfactory solution on para 11(c).
We are inclined agree with other dels that present wording D–D (51) 86 is stronger than that originally suggested by US. It is in line with what we understood to be original US thinking, i.e. that CD shld not be considered as merely official level group.
You will note above that in para 10 at US suggestion CD agreed addition which wld make explicit CD function of recommending to govts measures for implementation NAT. With this addition, believe CD section satisfactory, expect that CD will have final look at D–D (51) 86 on April 9. Hope that any last minute changes can be cleared up then and that govts can give formal approval shortly thereafter.
Question discussed of whether reorganization paper shld be acted on formally by Council or by CD. Those deps who were instructed envisaged CD taking action. Other deps agreed report this view to their govt and asked instructions. None thought there wld be disagreement with this procedure.
[Page 116]Unless you perceive objection will request secretary incorporate substantially fol statements in minutes yesterday’s mtg.
“US dep stated that his govt considered word ‘guidance’ as used in para 10 synonymous with ‘direction’ and wld be glad have his statement recorded in record of mtg. Neth dep preferred latter word be used, for which he saw a reason in that ‘direction’ was also term used in NY basic document C5–D/11 (final). US dep explained that ‘guidance’ seemed term more usual and appropriate in relationship between bodies of standing of CD and SG and pointed out that document C5–D/11 (final), was principally concerned with SHAPE, while present context was considerably wider. Neths dep replied that, in interest of reaching agreement and in light of US interpretation he cld accept term ‘guidance.’ His govt’s primary concern was that guidance be binding. US dep stated SG wld not be free to reject such guidance. CD accepted interpretation thus agreed upon.”
Foregoing para satisfactory to Neth dep who considers it will close matter as far as he is concerned.
Please instruct by tomorrow morning if possible whether statement may be included in record and in due course as to whether changes made by CD in D–D (51) 86 acceptable.
- Repeated to Paris.↩
- March 30, p. 107.↩
- See footnote 6, p. 70.↩
- The last paragraph of telegram Todep 339 to London, March 31, requested background information on the draft wording of the section on the Council Deputies in D–D (51) 86 as transmitted in telegram Depto 693 (740.5/3–3051).↩
- March 10, p. 95.↩
- See footnote 4, p. 91.↩