740.5/8–1652: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the Embassy in the United Kingdom 1

secret

1129. Recent news reports emanating from London and Paris on NATO force plans very disturbing. Both BBC and Fr radio broadcasts, plus press stories allegedly quoting high govt sources, give evidence of deliberate campaign to throw blame on US for failure UK and Fr to meet Lisbon force goals. This publicity has other unfortunate overtones, including suggestion that: (1) NATO force plan has already been revised unilaterally; (2) Sov tension has diminished; (3) entire NATO defense program is facing collapse.

This kind publicity having bad impact public opinion both abroad and in US where evidences of alleged NATO failures tend undermine basis for US reliance upon NATO as contributing to security of US. Pls undertake soonest informal approach to FonOffs at high level to express US concern. In this connection fol points may be useful:

1.
US aware current Eur economic problems and also aware lag in US end-item deliveries. Will continue offer all practicable coop find [Page 314] solutions. Meanwhile, however, believe govts must give serious attn to manner in which these difficulties, incl possible shortfall in Lisbon goals, are presented to public. It is misleading to suggest that as result difficulties goals have been scaled down. This requires NATO action and cannot be done unilaterally.
2.
US uncertain degree to which current Eur publicity actually comes from govt sources. In any event, this publicity creating extremely unfav reaction US and in end likely be self-defeating. A continuance of such publicity may well endanger next year’s mutual security program. Specifically:
a.
Exaggerated reports of current difficulties are widely interpreted in US as foreshadowing imminent collapse of entire NATO program, thereby dampening public support for foreign aid and whole collective security policy.
b.
Eur suggestions that Sov tension is easing irritate US public still acutely aware of sacrifices of Korea. US Govt has no info to indicate Sov threat is diminishing. NAC reached no such conclusion when matter last discussed.
c.
References to “reduction” in US aid misleading. US will meet all aid commitments. Suggestions that US is chiefly to blame for prospective shortfalls not only present false picture to Eur public, but infuriate Amers and cause them recall with indignation vast US contributions to Eur recovery and defense. Tends to reinforce arguments of NATO critics who assert Eur is “bottomless pit” and will “do nothing for itself”. Goes without saying US Govt does not share this attitude. But cannot ignore fact that feeling exists and is growing.
3.
To date domestic and fon info programs of US Govt have deliberately emphasized important contributions Eur allies are making to mutual defense effort, primarily to counteract false criticism that US carrying whole burden. Still believe this sound policy. However, if current Eur publicity continues, US may be compelled stress facts re own contribution such as: US defense expenditures four times total all other NATO countries combined; US with smaller population has more men under arms than all other NATO countries combined; percentage of GNP spent by US is above all others and twice NATO average, US per capita defense expenditures are six times NATO average. Obviously US wld prefer not to take any action which leads away from cooperative press policies but cannot allow damaging and inaccurate impression of US effort become accepted in public mind.
4.
US hopes UK and Fr govt officials will find opportunities to clarify defense situation to public, especially fol points:
a.
There has been no revision NATO targets adopted at Lisbon; cannot be revised unilaterally. What we face is possible shortfall in mtg targets.
b.
US is fulfilling aid commitments and has not reduced them.
c.
There is no evidence easing of Sov threat, and NATO defenses remain inadequate.
d.
Prospective shortfall, while increasing and prolonging security risks, shld not be interpreted as NATO “breakdown”. Defense buildup will continue forward as rapidly as possible.
e.
Annual Review will provide authoritative basis for such NATO action as may be necessary because of present difficulties.

[Page 315]

Pls note also Polto 169 Aug 15 rptd to you today as Deptel to London 1130–Paris 916.2 Dept endorses proposed Draper statement NAC Aug 20 and hopes you can take action on this tel by that date.

Bruce
  1. This telegram, which was drafted by William T. Nunley of RA and cleared inter alia by Knight, Perkins, and Parsons, was also sent to the Embassy at Paris and for information to Draper.
  2. Not printed; in it Draper stated that he would make a statement at the Council meeting on Aug. 20 about the unfortunate publicity which was being given to meeting the goals established at Lisbon. The Permanent Representative indicated that he would stress the many difficulties that had been overcome in the preceding 6 months and attempt to clear away the confusion in the minds of some Council members as to what the Lisbon commitments were. (740.5/8–1552) The text of the statement Draper made to the Council on Aug. 20 along these lines was transmitted in Polto 182 from Paris, Aug. 20. (740.5/8–2052)