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

740.5/12–1653: Telegram

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

secret

Paris, December 16, 1953—1 a.m.

Secto 7. Subject: NATO Ministerial Meeting—item V Discussion item V (report on 53 annual review and plans for 54 AR²) begun in morning meeting and completed at afternoon meeting December 15.³

1. Secretary Wilson read statement on changes in US force goals, need for keeping forces modern, and future direction of NATO military planning (reported separate telegram⁴). Bidault extended thanks on behalf Council for important statement and good example set other countries.

2. Alexander for UK read statement bringing out following points: Referred to need to review military policy against background of “long haul” and maintain “our unity and strength in these new and in some ways more difficult circumstances”. Emphasized need of German force contribution through EDC and need to go on increasing NATO forces and raising their efficiency within politico-economic capabilities. Urged steps to build up reserve forces to permit rapid full mobilization. Re recommendations in UK country chapter, promised study carefully but owing to financial limits and manpower considerations, could not promise how far UK can carry out. In line with new approach set forth in 54 AR draft resolution⁵, said task of military authorities now is “to press on with task of reviewing and reassessing pattern of our defense effort against background of political and economic assumptions which they have been given and taking into account as realistically as possible effect of new weapons”. Pointed out such studies may take long time but military should give “such interim guidance as they can” during 1954 AR. Said that work of military will have so great an effect on activities of Council as whole that will be “advantageous for Council to receive progress reports from military from time to time indicating how matters stand and bringing to Council’s notice any issues of importance which seem likely to effect broad policy of the alliance.”

3. Statement of Greek Defense Minister stressed two points:

a. Influence of new weapons on strategic thinking and

b. Closer linking up of NATO military strength with that elsewhere in the world.

Warned of “smiling Communists” and against relaxation of effort. Long period of tension should not be accepted as justification for “long slope downward” in strength. Said Greece accepts force goals with amendments suggested by IS; will try to carry out recommendations in country chapter.

4. Pleven welcomed Gruenther’s outline of studies going forward in SHAPE based on forces expected to be available in 1957. Emphasized need for coordination of NATO forces and national strategic striking forces. Welcomed emphasis on need for reserve forces; said not only problems of training and mobilization are involved but also problems of equipment; therefore pleased to hear US statements on continuation of aid. Said start should be made soon on long-term problem of establishing stocks of equipment in Europe in peacetime though recognized this could only be dealt with on long-term basis. Said France will continue study seriously recommendations in French country chapter; limitations on available resources will probably make it impossible increase army support units for M/3 army forces as recommended but France “probably can meet” recommendations re air and navy.

5. Taviani for Italy stressed need for increasing attention in NATO AR to political and economic problems. Said alliance based on Articles II and III of treaty as well as remainder. Thanked US and Canada for past aid but road to real unity is long one and will call for more attention to economic measures. Said long-term problems must be thoroughly considered next year in context of economic and social problems. 1954 review should not be limited too strictly to military factors; should consider whether “basic principles of alliance are still being carried out”.

6. Maudling (for UK Treasury) commenting on economic aspects report noted UK acceptance force goals country chapter based on two assumptions:

(a) That local costs UK forces in Germany will continue come from sources outside UK and

(b) That UK will continue receive aid from US, particularly in support RAF.

Stressed UK concern with balance payments position. Noted UK defense costs approximately ⅛ their GNP and indicated this was politically and economically limit to which they could go at this time.

Said margin UK defense expenditures over annual recurring costs small and emphasized importance UK attaches to study maintenance problem, particularly factors obsolescence and modernization. Again alluded to necessity continuation end-item aid and OSP and said Secretary Wilson’s reference to modernization problem most helpful.

7. Portuguese said they accepted recommendations with reservations indicated annex their country chapter. Regretted they could not agree with IS views on economic and financial situation their country. Re US comments on Portuguese air force goals said, they doubted they could face attack (mentioning specifically Azores) with three squadrons. Indicated NATO use Portuguese bases related build up Portuguese air force.

8. Canadian Defense Minister agreed generally with UK and with French re high cost maintaining forces present levels. Said Canadians had just completed six-month study estimating costs maintaining RCAF at present levels through 1960. Noted that in present Canadian fiscal year, aircraft production amounted approximately 25 percent their defense budget. Taking into account maintenance costs for attrition and obsolescence, study showed figure would rise each year through 1960 just to maintain present levels RCAF. Cited this as example that there little latitude for policy changes or increased commitments in any direction. Referring to IS recommendations in Canadian country chapter, noted that cost of three AWX squadrons recommended for deployment in Europe would come roughly 150 to 200 million yearly. Recommendation re additional base for reserve fleet must have very low priority. Recommendations re maritime aircraft will be met partly. Recommendations re escort vessels would mean taking money away from something else in defense program and would leave yards idle after vessels built. Re other IS recommendations said he believed Canada would meet most of them. Regarding Canadian aid, said he expected would be kept at about same level as over last three years. In future, Canadian aid would be mostly in form finished end items although air crew training program previously announced will be carried out. Connection air crew training program, noted that to date Canada had offered training for 2,520 NATO air cadets at cost roughly $50,000 per man. Only 1,864 cadets sent by NATO countries in response this offer. Indicated NATO countries overlooking something of considerable value in permitting loss of approximately 25 percent of total Canadian training offer to date.

9. Netherlands Minister agreed with UK re costs maintaining forces. Noted Netherlands attached particular importance chapter 7 AR report and said hoped ARC would continue studies maintenance problem begun this year. Expressed great satisfaction with US and Canadian statements regarding aid and said on this basis Netherlands confident their build up to five divisions could be accomplished.

10. Greek Minister noted Greece only country where annual recurring costs higher than present defense budget and that because of economic situation in Greece, their problem more acute than those other member countries.

11. Following above statements, Ockrent made brief oral report explaining absence EDC submission this AR. Gave estimated force goals by country and by service based on assumption EDC in operation January 54. No delegation commented on Ockrent’s report.

12. Chairman Bidault said Council would “note” report on AR for 53 and oral statement made by Ockrent.

13. Council then adopted draft resolution on 53 AR C–M (53) 165 (revised)⁶ without comment. Brackets removed from first recognizing paragraph and at US suggestion word “undiminished” deleted.

14. Draft resolution on 54 AR C–M (53) 166 (revised) adopted with following changes:⁷

1. Repeated to the other NATO capitals and to Bonn, Frankfurt, Wiesbaden, and Heidelberg; this telegram was transmitted in two sections.
2. No copy of the report on the Annual Review, C–M (53) 150, has been found in the Department of State files.
3. For a report on the rest of the morning session on Dec. 15, see Secto 5, Dec. 15, p. 469; no other report on the afternoon session has been found in the Department of State files.
4. Secto 8 from Paris, Dec. 16. (740.5/12–1653) This telegram reported that Wilson’s speech would not be transmitted by telegram, but that copies would be sent with the delegation when it returned to Washington. The text of the speech is printed in USRO Review, Dec. 20, 1953, pp. 21–24, a copy of which is in the Conference files, lot 60 D 627, CF 169.
5. A copy of the Draft Resolution on the 1954 Annual Review, C–M(53) 166(revised), dated Dec. 11, is in the Conference files, lot 60 D 627, CF 175.
6. Not printed; a copy of C–M(53)165 (Revised), dated Dec. 11, is in the Conference files, lot 60 D 627, CF 175.
7. For a report on the remainder of the Dec. 15 afternoon session, see Secto 6, Dec. 15, infra.