Office of the Historian

740.5/4–2651: Telegram

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

secret
London, April 26, 1951—noon.

Depto 836. Dept pass Ottawa. Deputies 32nd meeting April 25.

1. General agreement on report and resolution on FEB (D–D (51) 982) but final adoption deferred due Neth insistence FEB guidance [Page 150] shld bind DPB. All other deps considered FEB and DPB of equal importance, concerned with different aspects of same problem and both subordinate to overall governmental policy expressed through CD. However, US Dep recognized that, in light of CD interpretation of word “guidance” in context CD–SG relationships, Neth justified in interpreting “guidance” in para 3 and 4 (iii) of draft resolution as meaning binding instructions. Hence proposed substituting “advise” for “provide with guidance” in second sentence para 3 and in para 4 (iii) and adding at end of second sentence para 3 fol words: “and may recommend to CD such directions to these other bodies as may seem necessary from econ and fin view point”. With this amendment, draft resolution apparently acceptable to all deps except Neth, who said must consult his govt.3

2. Other points of interest in FEB discussion:

a.
Several deps expressed hesitation about degree of authority given FEB to make recommendations direct to govts but drew consolation from fact that unanimous decision by FEB necessary for forwarding recommendation direct to govts rather than to CD.
b.
Belg and Neth deps envisaged FEB operating at level OEEC official level council but when pressed by Fr and Brit deps agreed that this shld be thought of as a gen principle but not as a rule to be laid down by CD. US dep, who spoke last on this issue, emphasized US interest in top level FEB but in view Brit and Fr sensitiveness to “dictation” as to their FEB representation, did not reopen ques of language in resolution.
c.
Discussion of amendment para 4 of WG of 12 terms of ref4 was deferred at request US rep.

3. In discussion Czech deps views generally in agreement with Dept’s A–1767.5 As in discussion Pol (Depto 8226) nearly all deps took active part but exchange barely touched policy.

4. Next mtg Apr 30.

Spofford
  1. Repeated to Paris for OSR, to the capitals of the other NATO countries except Canada, and to Frankfurt, Heidelberg, and Wiesbaden.↩
  2. This Council Deputies document dated April 16 is presumably the ad hoc committee’s draft resolution as transmitted to Washington in telegram Depto 780, April 14, p. 142.↩
  3. In its 33d meeting of April 30, the Council Deputies adopted the FEB report and resolution with the amendment contained above and with a substitution in the resolution’s preamble of the words “including the purposes outlined in article 2” for the phrase “and in particular of article 2.” The Netherlands Deputy withdrew his reservation but said that he would raise the matter again if experience indicated desirable. This information was reported in telegram Depto 862 from London, April 30, not printed (740.5/4–3051).↩
  4. See previous reference to action on this document in telegram Todep 384, April 24, p. 148 (or Depto 780, April 14, p. 142).↩
  5. Airgram to London, March 30, not printed, concerning the situation in Czechoslovakia (749.00/3–3051).↩
  6. Telegram from London, April 24, not printed, reporting on the 31st meeting of the Council Deputies (740.5/4–2451).↩