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

740.5/4–854: Telegram

The United States Permanent Representative on the North Atlantic Council (Hughes) to the Department of State ¹

secret

Paris, April 8, 1954—5 p.m.

Polto 1627. Subject: Discussion Soviet note NAC restricted session, April 7.²

1. US representative speaking behalf tripartite representatives said Soviet note of great importance and concerns all NATO countries. Tripartite working group set up in Paris to draft reply had first meeting yesterday.³ Three governments most anxious have views and suggestions other NATO governments for use drafting reply.

2. Greek representative thought he recalled that on previous occasion permanent representatives had been shown copy draft prepared by experts. He thought it would be better to see draft reply and then make comments. After further discussion it was agreed desirable make views available at this stage and that tripartite representatives would inform their governments of view that note should be made available council as far in advance as feasible before date delivery to Soviets. At suggestion Netherlands representative it was also agreed would be desirable mention in note that it was prepared on basis consultation other NATO governments. (We urge US concurrence.)

3. All representatives, except Icelandic and Luxembourg, participated in discussion which was most effective and fruitful example of consultation we have seen in NAC. Views showed marked similarity on basic issues and several useful suggestions were introduced.

4. General consensus was (1) note designed for propaganda purpose with view jeopardizing EDC ratification and undermining western unity; (2) onus for division Europe talk [falls?] squarely on Soviets and should be carefully brought out in western reply in way public will easily understand; (3) reply must show NATO developed because of Soviet aggressive attitude and their failure respect UN charter; (4) NATO more than defensive pact and is community nations having common culture and ties and same general outlook on freedom and democratic principles; (5) Soviet bid NATO membership must be firmly rejected but we should indicate very carefully why we have taken this position and refrain from creating impression bid rejected without careful consideration; (6) Soviet security pact proposal is formula words already covered in UN charter.

5. Danish representative said if Soviets are really ready associate selves with NATO’s defensive concept, agree to western proposal for unification of Germany and introduce democratic principles into Soviet orbit, we could then treat note in realistic manner. UN was conceived as instrument of security against aggression but effectiveness of organization is paralyzed by use Soviet veto.

6. Italian representative suggested following points be taken into consideration:

(I) Western countries have continuously followed peaceful policy designed to promote world security.

(II) Have advanced proposals for disarmament and control atomic weapons.

(III) Western defense policy developed on basis freedom and respect for democratic institutions.

(IV) NAC rule of unanimity would permit Soviets to paralyze work of NATO.

(V) If Moscow really wants relax tension by specific deeds it will have such opportunity at Geneva.

7. Portuguese representative recalled that Soviet note tries to show that Soviets had taken initiative in UN in seeking disarmament and control of atomic weapons. Such allegations have been made before and we should make it clear why these Soviet proposals were unacceptable and place squarely on Soviets responsibility for failure make progress on these problems. He emphasized public forgets very easily what happened in past and we should bring these points to light again.

8. Netherlands representative said world tension due Soviet intransigence over Germany and Austria, Communist aggression Indochina and Korea, and Soviet military-political control over satellites. While Western powers cannot give up principles, we must be prepared make every effort relieve tension and exploit any steps that may lead to peaceful coexistence. He referred to paragraph Canadian Foreign Minister recent Parliament speech re devotion to law, justice and freedom and suggested these expressions which so accurately typify NATO may be mentioned in Western reply. Concluded by saying Germany indispensable future partner in Atlantic community and must not be neutralized state.

9. Belgian representative stated while recent Western replies Soviet notes had followed with reason pattern of brevity, he believes this reply should be sufficiently long to refute Soviet allegations and justify our position. We should be receptive and reasonable Soviet proposals but should stress that Soviet membership NATO not consistent security NA community.

10. Canadian representative said his government not as interested as others in Soviet European security proposal since it was not invited to join and had no observer at Berlin conference. Soviet bid join NATO is thus aspect Soviet note which primarily concerns Canada. He said world tension continues because of Soviet policy of “no deeds as opposed to words.” He pointed out NATO is essential for defense of free world. It is based on high degree confidence of its members and provides forum for exchange information in military, political and economic field. We must challenge Soviet NATO bid, firmly reject it, and explain our position very frankly. UN has failed carry out its mandate because of Soviets but we cannot permit them to upset NATO.

11. Turkish representative said his government had carefully studied Soviet note especially in light General Gruenther’s recent briefing of permanent representatives. His government feels Soviets are in inferior atomic and thermonuclear position. As they need time catch up in this field, their propaganda line on H-bomb may be designed spread fear and influence Western public opinion urge curtailment further thermonuclear development and tests. He feels we should point to differences between conditions in East and West Germany and highlight military buildup in East Germany and rest of Soviet bloc. He also feels it important show Soviets responsible for failure efforts arrive at atomic control agreement.

12. Norwegian representative said while he had not received his instructions, he felt his government shared views expressed by his colleagues. He suggested would be useful have analysis Soviet note and that Soviet trends WG might wish to include such in its report. He inquired as to thinking on timing Western reply. US representative said US favored answering note before Geneva conference. French representative said Soviet note sent six weeks after Berlin conference and perhaps we should be in no hurry answer it. He said some feel quick answer is desirable in order not let public opinion go astray. On other hand, he feels might be well wait until after Geneva so that Soviets will not bring up issue having no relation Asiatic problem. At UK suggestion it was agreed think over timing question and discuss it later.

International Staff preparing detailed record of comments which will be sent drafting group and Washington soonest.

Hughes

1. Repeated to Moscow.
2. A preliminary exchange of views concerning the Soviet proposal to join NATO had been taken at a restricted NAC meeting on Apr. 1. As reported in telegram Polto 1588 from Paris, Apr. 1, the general consensus was that the Soviet note constituted a “clever propaganda move addressed to peoples rather than governments and should be answered carefully with same audience in view” (740.5/4–154).
3. See telegram 3758 from Paris, Apr. 7, p. 491.