Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, Western European Security, Volume V, Part 1

740.5/4–2553: Telegram

The United States Delegation at the North Atlantic Council Meeting to the Department of State ¹

secret

Paris, April 25, 1953—11 a.m.

Secto 10. Cotel. Subject: NAC Discussion Annual Reviews.²

1. NAC discussion on annual reviews April 24 began with consideration 1952 AR report³ which introduced by Ismay and Chairman MC who expressed satisfaction that MC conclusions attached resolution.⁴ He briefed MC comments with emphasis on shortages.

2. Following is essence general comments delegations:

(a) Greek representative after general compliments re report expressed deep concern over shortages of men and arms and called for increased deliveries and long-range plans. He referred Papagos statement re intention Greece not reduce effort or numbers military manpower.⁵ He stated Greece will undertake even unpopular measures to maintain balanced budget without reducing defense portion and will call up reservists as SHAPE requested. This he said may seriously affect Greek economy and sound investment necessary to expand resources. Greece, recognizing burden sharing problem, considers its effort one of largest.

(b) Pleven cited Secretary’s statement yesterday⁶ and asserted that France has always held that NATO objective is be ready fight back at any time and that no peak should be reached that cannot be maintained. He stated level of forces to be reached must be one calculated be effective against enemy but that all agreed this level had not been reached. Pleven went on to call for consideration both active and reserve forces and superiority unconventional weapons. He then expressed worry re preparation 1954 budgets, saying some major countries, including France, must contemplate reductions defense expenditures in face reductions others. Special effort necessary by NATO for more rational use available funds and development confidence among more exposed countries. After citing achievements, such as long term financing infrastructure and joint aircraft production, he stated need for long-term programming and financing for other equipment for which ample capacity exists, adding that progress toward standardization too slow. He also advocated full exchange technical information by those countries expending large sums on research. He concluded that, while EDC will provide step toward coordinated planning, it should be NATO-wide. Above all, he felt that if defense funds not to be increased and probably reduced, better integrated NATO planning essential.

(c) UK representative (Alexander) remarked more realistic annual review report than previously, but called for greater realism. Desired results AR are, he said, means extending buildup, description points of weakness and recommendations for correcting them within available means. Improvements in quality were, he thought, best development from this AR and he asked countries be guided by conclusions MC 39/2.

(d) Secretary Wilson made statement reported in separate Secto cable⁷ covering, among other things, US steps toward economies, reservations re end items for certain force goals considered “soft spots”, basis on which end item deliveries will be made and planned improvements deliveries certain items in 1953.

(e) Pella pointed out goals to which countries committing themselves required great effort, although still not sufficient. He stressed clause in resolution stating achievement goals depends on solution financial or other problems which applicable Italy and drew attention to need for long-term economic program that would solve balance of payments problems. In meantime, he asked for continued economic aid for at least a few countries and end item aid until necessary defensive level reached. He suggested international staff study of two problems:

I. Size of Soviet forces and Soviet ability support them.

II. Possibility building up equipment stocks in Europe for second line reserve units.

(f) UK (Butler) addressed himself economic aspects AR, after complimentary remarks re report. He agreed US view on increasing realism re force goals, but called for equal realism re economic capabilities. He stated UK doing utmost re increase production, especially for export, and explained tax cut as incentive to greater production. He placed great emphasis on point that, in spite tax cut, UK still bearing heaviest tax burden, approximately, any country in world. Without knowing as yet size and nature US fiscal year 1954 aid, he expressed satisfaction at size proposed OSP program. While assuring council UK intention achieve 1953 goals, he made reservation that 1954 goals may have to be reviewed in light future developments. While agreeing Secretary Wilson’s statement on need for economies, he declared that by repeated review practically all water had been squeezed out of UK defense program. Finally, he paid tribute to US aid, including its political and moral influence, and stressed that AR is burden sharing exercise and that the more burden is shared the more intensive will be efforts of countries.

(g) Ismay commented that in light many observations and suggestions, best procedure would be for international staff, permanent representatives and ARC to study statements and pursue proposals as quickly and diligently as possible.

[Here follow a summary of the Council consideration of the specifics of the report on the Annual Review, drafting changes in the resolutions on the Annual Reviews for 1952 and 1953, and a press release on the Annual Review.]

1. Repeated to all NATO capitals and to Frankfurt, Bonn, Heidelberg, and Wiesbaden.
2. The fourth session was held at the Palais de Chaillot at 3:30 p.m. Copies of the verbatim (C–VR(53)23) and summary (C–R(53)23) records of this session are in the Conference files, lot 59 D 95, CFs 148 and 149. According to these records the Ministers approved the text of the resolution on the European Defense Community (see Department of State Bulletin, May 11, 1953, pp. 674–675, for text) and briefly discussed infrastructure before taking up the Annual Review.
3. C–M(53)35 Part III, dated Apr. 15, 1953 (Conference files, lot 59 D 95, CF 146A). This is the second report on the Annual Review; regarding the first report, see the editorial note, p. 348.
4. The comments of the Military Committee (MC 39/2 (Final), dated Apr. 18, 1953) were attached to the text of the resolution on the Annual Review (C–M (53)47) when they were considered by the Council. No copies of either has been found in the Department of State files, but a copy of the revised resolution on the Annual Review (C–M(53)47) Final, dated Apr. 24, is in the Conference files, lot 59 D 95, CF 146.
5. The verbatim record of this session (C–VR(53)23) indicates that the Greek representative was referring to a speech by Prime Minister Field Marshal Papagos to the Greek Parliament during March.
6. See Secto 7, Apr. 24, p. 378.
7. The text of Secretary Wilson’s statement was transmitted to the Department of State in telegram Secto 8 from Paris, Apr. 24; 740.5/4–2453.