740.5/10–1652: Telegram

The United States Deputy Special Representative in Europe (Anderson) to the Department of State 1

secret

Polto 462. Subject: NAC informal mtg Oct 16, discussion French paper.

Van Vredenburch in chair asked if Alphand wished make any general comments before discussion proceeded on Fr paper.

Alphand used this opportunity to attack US on AR submission. He said Fr paper was particularly appropriate at this time since it recalled principles agreed at Lisbon forming basis for AR.2 Incomplete answers by US and Canada to AR questionnaire wld not allow AR to be carried thru as agreed. Prospect now facing NAC was mere addition of individual programs rather than integrated program arrived at multilaterally based on common interest.

Merchant said he had nothing further to say on substance Fr paper but wished to reject Alphand’s sug that nature of US reply to AR questionnaire prejudiced carrying out AR as agreed. He then restated what he had explained at length in hearings, i.e., controlling consideration of US Govt in making decision on AR reply was security. While US had not supplied all info asked for in questionnaire, if questions arose during course of AR requiring info on production and supply position of equip, US wld do best to provide answers.

Heeney then spoke in somewhat heated and blunt fashion. He said that at least US and Canada had already submitted their replies to the questionnaire, a condition which did not apply to many other nations, and he had not expected that US and Canada wld be made objects of rather sweeping and unjustified attack such as Alphand had made as reward for getting submissions in early. He stated Canadian Govt’s decision that it cld not forecast program in financial terms beyond March 31, 1952 had been taken with full realization its implications for NATO deliberations and other NATO countries. Canadian Govt was now giving intense study to its program which wld be put before Parl early next year. He emphasized two aspects in which Canada’s position differed from other countries—Canada considered its whole def program as falling within NATO, and Canada was not a recipient but a giver of aid. He then noted that other govts were having difficulty in determining their def programs. He completely rejected Fr suggestion that nature of Canadian and US submission wld prejudice carrying thru AR as agreed at Lisbon.

[Page 336]

Speaking with considerable feeling, Heeney said NAC was not a sovereign body and was dealing with individual natl programs whether they liked it or not and that problem was to arrive at practical solution taking into account facts of situation.

UK rep then said he had nothing to add to previous views re Fr paper and thought there was little to be gained in discussing problems raised therein apart from AR.

Alphand said reasons why Fr program had not been submitted were publicly known. Fr Govt cld have replied to questionnaire in way Canada did without any appreciable difficulty but thought such submission wld not conform to Lisbon decisions and principles.

In absence further comment, Van Vredenburch observed that underlying motive of Fr Govt’s paper was to strengthen NATO. He knew all wld agree to this goal but question was what is best way to achieve goal. Obviously certain proposals advanced by Fr Govt resulted from its experience with EDC. Perhaps some features adopted by EDC might eventually be found desirable for NATO, but this was matter for govts to decide.

He then suggested that many questions raised by Fr Govt wld find answers during joint mtg with SG. Further, certain problems wld be solved during AR and after completion AR undoubtedly gaps in organ and deficiencies in procedures wld be apparent and require solution later. He observed also that events were taking place in many countries concerned which wld have great affect on NATO’s future and expressed hope that after these events it wld be possible to continue strengthening NATO.

Van Vredenburch’s remarks appear to us to mark demise, for time being, of Fr paper, general discussion with SG shld serve further to clarify strategic policy issues for NAC.

Alphand’s attack did not gain him many friends within NAC. Before mtg, Heeney told Merchant he thought Fr were behaving in pretty disreputable fashion and wondered if we had not had about enough of it. Hence Alphand’s attack coupling Canada with US and alleging that their actions were contrary to Lisbon agreement for AR undoubtedly startled Heeney and prompted his rather stinging comments.

It is difficult to escape conclusion that Alphand’s action today and general line and tone of Clermond-Tourneres’ questioning of US Oct 11 and 15 in AR examination are concerted and indicative, at least within NATO framework, of aggressively critical attitude toward US.3

Anderson
  1. Related to London.
  2. For documentation on the Ninth Session of the North Atlantic Council at Lisbon, Feb. 20–25, see pp. 107 ff.
  3. No records of the examination of the U.S. submission for the Annual Review on Oct. 11 and 15 have been found in the Department of State files.