740.5/4–1251: Telegram
The United States Deputy Representative on the North Atlantic Council (Spofford) to the Secretary of State 1
Depto 762. 1. Ad hoc organizing comite [for FEB] convened April 10. Riddleberger and Knapp US reps. Skaug (Nor) elected chairman.
2. After 2 days of gen discussion, ad hoc organizing comite for FEB has sifted out main issues and made considerable progress in obtaining gen acceptance US views. Three proposals for terms of ref FEB now before comite submitted by US, UK, and Den. Den proposal similar to UK and US. Proposal fols, of course, gen line of US paper submitted to CD. UK proposal wld tie FEB more tightly to CD than we consider desirable, and exclude direct ref issues from FEB to govts.
3. Discussion of issues and possible compromises set forth below:
- a.
- Generally agreed that FEB shld be established immediately responsible to and reporting to [CD?]. Membership wld be at “senior official level” from each signatory country. Brit have taken adamant position against any specific ref to OEEC “official level” council and have made it clear that their FEB rep wld be Roll. Phrase “senior official level” does not of course, exclude heads of OEEC delegations and we will seek to obtain language in report indicating with as few qualifications as possible gen objective of achievement this level. Believe that many smaller countries will probably appoint heads of dels under this formula. Dutch are strongly in favor of level corresponding to OEEC “official council” level.
- b.
- Most difficult issue to date has been relationship of FEB to CD and question of FEB direct contact with govts. Brit position wld mean in effect that all recommendations and reports of FEB wld have to be channelled through CD before ref to govts and no high degree of initiative wld rest with FEB. Our attitude has been that FEB shld prepare reports and recommendations re mobilization of fin and econ resources in member countries in support of def effort with right to submit results to govts unless instructed otherwise by CD. Possible compromise now emerging will assume fol form: CD cld assign tasks to FEB stipulating whether recommendations shld return to it or be submitted direct to govts. Additional safeguard to meet objections to high degree of FEB autonomy wld be provision that in case of disagreement in FEB on submission direct to govts, the question wld automatically be referred first to CD. Not entirely certain yet that UK will accept this proposed compromise but some indication that it may. Apart from US and Nor, no del was prepared to give full support US original proposal that FEB recommendations wld be transmitted directly to govts unless CD or FEB considered subj of sufficient importance to warrant discussion by CD. Fr rep has followed UK line very closely.
- c.
- Gen agreement reached on location in Paris but with proviso that board can also meet in London or elsewhere if appropriate.
- d.
- Gen agreement reached that board shall assume functions and responsibilities of PWS/DFEC, advisory group on raw materials problems, and WG of 12, the functions and responsibilities being transferred in such manner and in such time as the board shall determine. When transferred, the existing groups will be dissolved and board will be free to set up such subordinate bodies as may be required.
- e.
- On question relationship FEB to other organizations under CD particularly DPB, consensus is that close liaison is indispensable and FEB wld provide other bodies under CD with guidance on fin and econ arrangements to meet requirements of def prog. Dutch rep, however, wants DPB directly subordinate to FEB with consequent recasting DPB terms of ref to make this relationship plain. No support from other dels on this proposal but he may raise it in CD arguing that whole point of establishing FEB at proposed level shld be to coordinate and direct all econ activities through FEB.
- f.
- Now appears likely that comite report on relationship of FEB to OEEC will be formulated in generalized terms.
- g.
- UK rep raised vigorously, with support from some other members (notable Nor) question revising para 4 of additional terms of ref for WG of 12 (NATO document D–D 199 annex 1 page 112). Recall that this para while instructing WG to report on equitable distribution of def burden, does not permit it to propose amt or nature of compensatory action in specific cases. UK argues that under US concept of FEB status and functions, this restriction shld be removed, and that otherwise seems no justification for setting up new body at level proposed by US. Canad and US reps with concurrence Fr rep, pointed out that this was very controversial matter, that CD had attached great importance to restriction referred to when considering WG of 12 terms of ref, and that while WG of 12 had wide latitude to offer econ and fin advice to CD, actual recommendations to govts on specific amts of burden-sharing transfers involved political and mil judgements for which only CD competent. We have urged that this matter be treated separately from problem of gen organization and hope to compromise on inclusion in comite report of recommendation that CF [CD?] give renewed consideration to WG of 12 terms of ref in light establishment of FEB.
4. Drafting comite scheduled meet this afternoon in attempt reduce various proposals to common draft.