740.5/7–952: Telegram

The United States Permanent Representative on the North Atlantic Council ( Draper ) to the Department of State 1

secret

Polto 40. Subj: Informing NAC of reply to Sov note.2

At todays NAC mtg small country reps were obviously primed and waiting for three Powers on Sov note reply. After text note circulated and before Alphand cld make statement on behalf Three Powers, Starkenborgh took floor and scorched Three Powers for procedure under which smaller countries informed of proposed reply only after it thoroughly thrashed out among three and only 24 hours before delivery to USSR. He recalled that ever since formation CD it had been intended that discussion and consultation on polit probs of common interest wld become well developed in NATO form. CD had failed to carry this activity to desired point, only completing various desultory and academic studies conditions in certain Iron Curtain countries and noting statements on other polit matters of little consequence. However, smaller powers and his govt in particular continued to hope that consultation cld be developed much more fully. He stressed that opposition to NATO in Neth, at least, was not primarily Communist, but from those who believed their country compelled to support policies in whose formulation its voice not heard. Present tactics did not assist govt in mtg this sort of attack.

Turning to present sitn, he stated Ger prob was obviously of primary and direct concern to all NAT countries. Certain Eur nations had actually entered into arrangements pooling their armed forces with those of Ger, and, as consequence, future of Ger very intimately affected future other free Eur nations. Secondly, the Sov problem was one which also was of primary interest not only to Three Powers but to all NATO powers. Starkenborgh deplored present procedure and took position that reply to Sov note shld have been drafted only after views all NATO countries were obtained. He ended by observing that NAC cld only feel frustrated that matter had been handled in this summary fashion.

Starkenborgh’s statement quickly and forcefully endorsed by Itals, Belgs, Nors, Grks, Danes, Turks and Ports, who also added own comments re fait accompli nature present procedure and fact that matters concerning Ger had NATO-wide direct interest. Can endorsed these views and quoted from Comite of 5 report endorsed by NAC [Page 310] at Lisbon re desirability full consultation at early stage.3 He suggested that on matters such as present issue views other NATO countries shld be ascertained before drafting actual reply, i.e., smaller countries shld be brought in at early stages. It was recognized that drafting not feasible in 14 member Comite, but considered imperative that views be heard and heeded.

Ismay said it appeared to him that ques Ger was perhaps principal problem with which NATO immediately concerned. He had been somewhat unhappy that matters with which NAC had been dealing in past few months seemed to be of lesser significance when compared with Ger prob. It seemed to him that the reply to Russian note was matter with which NAC shld have been concerned. He ended by saying that perhaps he shld have instigated NAC discussion, but felt that perhaps one of reps now objecting shld have requested NAC consultation earlier.

Starkenborgh in replying to latter point said that reluctance occupying powers to discuss reply had been made known and he and colleague did not therefore feel they shld raise matter. He also said it had seemed to him and certain colleagues that initiative for such consultation shld have been on part of those powers preparing reply. Further he pointed out that this was not only case where consideration matters of direct concern to all NATO countries had been carried out in forums other than NATO. He cited as an example appointment SACLANT where action had been withheld in NATO circles while discussions carried on between Three Powers. When he raised this matter on several occasions in CD there had never been satisfactory response, but merely embarrassed silence. He pointed out that there were still other problems with which NAC shld be concerned and on which consultation was being carried on elsewhere, e.g., CMND in Medit and Near East.

Alphand, in replying to statements previously made, brought out juridical aspects Three Powers relations with USSR in Ger attempted suggest these precluded Three Powers adopting procedure other than that followed. US rep then said he had listened with considerable sympathy to statements made and felt that certainly as far as US Govt concerned there was no desire exclude other powers from consideration and discussion probs of common concern. He observed, however, that previous exchanges with USSR were common knowledge and that all reps present have been in position to formulate ideas and that such views cld have been expressed at any time in NAC or to [Page 311] Three Powers. He emphasized he was not using this as an excuse, but said it seemed important distinguish between consultation in gen terms and in actual drafting note, latter process being one which he felt different from NAC type activity and one which he felt NAC not technically best arranged to handle. UK rep supported Alphand’s and Draper’s statements. US, UK and Fr stressed that they continued to support wholeheartedly principle of consultation and wld gladly join in any effort to strengthen NAC in this direction.

Discussion then turned to consideration whether NAC shld actually discuss proposed reply in view fact it was agreed language and no possibility modification. It was agreed that after “unofficial” Sov reaction had been observed, probably some two weeks hence, NAC shld discuss matter in larger context “Ger prob.”

Draper
  1. Repeated to the other NATO capitals and to Bonn, Heidelberg, and Wiesbaden.
  2. Further documentation on the Soviet note of May 13 and the tripartite reply of July 10, concerning German unification and all-German elections, is presented in volume vii .
  3. For the text of C9–D/8, Feb. 19, 1952, “Report by the Committee on the North Atlantic Community,” see p. 180.