740.5/6–1853: Telegram
The United States Deputy Special Representative in Europe (Anderson) to the Department of State
Polto 2423. Subject: NAC informal session June 18.
[Here follow numbered paragraphs 1–5, which discuss reappointment of the Budget Committee Chairman, staff salaries, appointment of a Chairman for the Infrastructure Committee, procedure for keeping NATO commands informed about the Greek-Turkish-Yugoslav military talks, and Korea.]
6. Chairman inquired whether any further information could be made available re forthcoming Bermuda meeting.1 United Kingdom representative replied date of meeting still uncertain and fixed agenda for meetings purposely avoided. United Kingdom very conscious of interest of other NATO powers in Bermuda talks and permanent representatives could be assured three powers had every intention of safeguarding interests of NATO partners. United Kingdom representative felt sure he would be instructed to pass on to council any definite developments in connection with the meeting as they occur. United States representative added three governments would discuss worldwide problems at Bermuda and he felt sure subjects of interest to NATO partners would be communicated to them. United Kingdom representative invited colleagues comments which might be useful to pass on to his government prior to Bermuda meeting. Ismay thereupon launched into rather gloomy survey of recent developments, voicing disappointment at lack of progress and lowering of enthusiasm in NATO. He felt that Ministers declaration at April meeting,2 at which it was concluded that Soviet peace maneuvers offered [no real hope since?] no Soviet soldiers have been demobilized but there have been signs of relaxation of effort on NATO side. Ismay cited “slashing” of United States Air Force budget, said defense expenditures will “flatten out” at next AR and no increase expected in any area. German defense contribution is in “deep freeze”, Suez Canal situation most unsatisfactory, Italian election results disappointing. In addition, permanent representatives are being replaced in some cases by men of lesser caliber and in case of Netherlands and Belgium, permanent representatives are being called to Rome for extended periods in connection with EPC.3 He completed picture by pointing out Ridgway’s “clarion call” [Page 411] in recent annual report received scant attention in press.4 Therefore, he felt it his duty to place a paper before council pointing out these facts and stressing importance of informing governments of situation. NATO he said needs a shot in arm and he thought it might even be desirable to issue council communiqué on subject.
French representative was very impressed with Ismay’s presentation and agreed thoroughly with his description of situation. He supported suggestion re preparation of paper which he thought should be handed to governments after council has discussed it and felt this paper would have important effect on governments. Netherlands representative protested any suggestion his government losing interest in NATO and declared his chief duty is to represent Netherlands in NAC. Nothing would be permitted to interfere with that duty. He felt there was little connection between NAC procedures and activities and public attitude toward NATO. Netherlands Government heartily welcomes any sign of relaxation of tension. While Netherlands Government has no great confidence in Soviet peace maneuvers, it feels no opportunity should be neglected to explore all possibilities for improvement of relations. This does not mean we should not continue NATO and EDC efforts in absence of any convincing move on part of Soviet. At next AR governments expected to agree it is unwise to plan beyond points considered economically and financially feasible. In addition, AR will involve consideration of maintenance costs and it is improbable that any further great strides can be taken. Nevertheless NATO must continue defense effort and relaxation of tension should not mean relaxation within NATO.
United States representative emphasized NATO cornerstone of United States policy and United States Government had given many recent indications of this. Every Soviet move should be examined carefully but NATO should never let down its guard. United States will not believe any Soviet promises until it has concrete reason for so doing. United States representative stressed importance it attaches to EDC in NATO context as indication of United States continued interest in western unity. As for United States defense expenditures, United States representative felt any cuts are related to estimates of efficiency in use of funds and did not represent relaxation of effort. Norway and Belgium agreed with Netherlands representative, Belgium stating recent and imminent efforts call for closer coordination of views and greater unity within NATO. Soviet overtures felt due to strength of NATO, the continuation of which must be our first preoccupation. He felt it vital that those responsible for the forthcoming negotiations (Bermuda) should keep other members of council fully informed. Netherlands expressed concern as to procedure for informing council re Bermuda meeting, stating he hoped participants would maintain [Page 412] flexible attitude and would make no “pre-conditions” governing possible ultimate discussions with Soviet. He hoped NAC would not be informed of results of Bermuda meeting solely through press communiqué as fait accompli and that any such communiqué would be sober statement of views rather than effort to provide startling developments to press.5
Canadian representative agreed with chairman’s proposal to produce paper and said NATO cannot afford to relax efforts until Soviet substitutes deeds for words. He felt Soviet would attempt take advantage of economic deficiencies in NATO which he termed “chink in our armor”. He called for liberalization of trade restrictions, stating increasing restrictions coupled with mounting defense expenditures could accelerate realization of Soviet aims. He was supported by United Kingdom representative who emphasized non-military aspects of NATO and said Europe attaches as great importance to relaxation of United States trade restrictions as United States does to realization of EDC.
Netherlands representative felt NAC should not emphasize publicly its fear of “relaxation of tension” which would merely brand NATO as aggressive organization. French representative said we must face facts and noted that present “détente” had made it impossible for Parliaments to bring EDC to a vote. We must therefore point out dangers of present situation.
Chairman felt strongly three governments should be reminded of importance of NATO before Bermuda meeting and said he would table paper next week for NAC consideration and for possible communication to governments.
- For documentation on the Bermuda Conference, see pp. 1710 ff.↩
- For the text of the communiqué under reference here, issued Apr. 25 at the conclusion of the Paris Ministerial meeting, see Department of State Bulletin, May 11, 1953, pp. 673–674.↩
- Documentation on the European Political Community (EPC) is presented in volume vi .↩
- Regarding Ridgway’s report to the North Atlantic Council Ministerial meeting at Paris, see Secto 9, Apr. 24, p. 381.↩
- Next to this sentence on the source text was the handwritten notation “(a bit fatuous?)”.↩