740.5/5–2451: Telegram
The United States Deputy Representative on the North Atlantic Council (Spofford) to the Secretary of State
Depto 990. Re Todep 437,1 believe it is neither desirable nor advisable attempt define formally relationship between UN and collective self-def orgs. Understand this question was subj of considerable study during negot, signature and ratification NAT and that US Govt position then was that NAT was fully within framework UN charter and cld be employed by UN in exercise its primary responsibility for maintenance internatl peace and security. This seems to us to be simple expression which makes clear that there is no conflict between NAT and UN charter, but does not establish formal relationship between the two. We can see no reason for any modification this policy and on other hand can see many possible difficulties in attempting further to define formal relationship.
[Page 164]We, therefore, recommend that US Govt not seek internatl acceptance of “principles concerning the relationship between the UN and collective def and regional orgs” embodied in reftel.
- This telegram to London of May 18, not printed, requested comment on an enclosed text entitled “Principles Governing the Relationship between the United Nations and Collective Self-Defense and Regional Organizations” (396.1 ISG/5–1851).↩