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

740.5/6–1853: Telegram

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

secret

Paris, June 18, 1953—1 p.m.

Polto 2413. Noforn. Limit distribution. For Merchant and Martin. Reference: Final paragraph Polto 2389, June 15.¹

1. We checked with friend in IS and learned that there has been under discussion in IS a paper entitled “Need For review of NATO Defense Policy.”² Paper was prepared by Sergent addressed to Ismay.

2. Concern is expressed in paper that NAC “continues build its policy on a strategic plan for which it is unwilling provide resources NATO military authorities say are necessary.”

(a) Action recommended in military field is that NAC request Military Committee consider shortfall, below stated requirements, in military resources which are being made available. Committee’s review should be particularly addressed to question whether a redistribution of defense effort might result in more effective combination of forces and material, or a more effective concentration of them in certain areas. In addition, committee might be asked whether undue emphasis on “quality” may not lead to development of larger “tail” than NATO forces as whole can afford. Finally, committee might be asked whether allocation of effort between three services is such as to yield most effective overall strength.

(b) In political field action recommended is that, if it has to be accepted that military requirements can not be met, it desirable that responsible statesmen of member countries express themselves firmly in support NATO effort and that there be no implication any diminution of interest on part any members. Further, if NATO is found have inadequate resources, will be increasingly necessary that utilization these resources be guided by common and consistent policy. Finally, foregoing would imply greater willingness on part NATO members to confer on important policy decisions before these are taken in national capitals.

3. Paper was discussed with Ismay by a few members IS June 12. Upshot of discussion then was that paper should be redrafted before further consideration.

4. Some top level members IS oppose matters being raised by Ismay with Council at this time. Ismay himself apparently has not yet made up his mind whether to raise it.

5. In our view, it clearly desirable that Ismay not raise matter with Council either in present or revised form. On other hand, any direct effort on US part to dissuade him would involve admission we aware internal discussion this matter in IS. It entirely possible issue may die natural death within IS. Thus, consider it best we avoid any overt action to kill it at this stage. In any case, should Ismay decide in near future place matter before Council in present or revised form, we would be advised of this in advance.

6. For obvious reasons request above information be held very closely.

Anderson

1. Not printed; it reported the Italian views on the scope of the Annual Review general report and noted that they believed the Annual Review was becoming a strictly military process which no longer balanced military and nonmilitary considerations. Finally, the telegram reported that the Italians understood that Ismay would soon urge the Council to consider the gap between NATO requirements and availabilities. (740.5/6–1553)
2. No copy of this paper has been found in the Department of State files.