740.5/2–2252: Telegram

The United States Delegation to the Department of State 1

Secto 49. A. Second business mtg of NAC2 opened this afternoon with agreement to postpone action on “coordinated analysis of NATO [Page 137] def plans”3 pending completion of report from DefMins.

B. Chairman reported on meeting of FonMins yesterday.4 Agreed to ask Deps to prepare doc to be considered at later Council mtg setting forth methods for NATO countries to combat jointly Sov propaganda.

Also agreed on desirability of coordinated action by NATO countries with respect to freedom of movement of Sov officials. FonMins agree Deps shld consider other issues of this gen type on broader basis than just movement of officials.

Chairman announced in absence of objections this report of FonMins will be noted by Council (believe Deps intended to take action on recommendations as if report approved).

C. Ger participation in Western def. Four reports were presented to Council.

Eden gave report on behalf of occupation power dealing with contractual arrangements (copies of report had been previously circulated5). He stated there was hope for satis conclusion in near future of two major remaining preoccupations, namely Ger fin contrib and fulfillment of Brussels decisions on security safeguards.
Schuman presented report on Paris EDC Conf.6 Pointing out lack of precedents, he said wé cld congratulate selves that project so near completion. Decisions reported were unanimous. Great difficulty arose because one country concerned was not NATO member but solution has been found. Decisions taken have made Eur unification “definitive and irrevocable”.
Gen Foulkes gave report of Mil Comite endorsing EDC plan as militarily effective. He stressed full advice given by Eisenhower, who believes plan is best and most rapid means of obtaining Ger contribution.
Spofford presented Council Deputies report which represented joint approval of Mil Comite and Deputies and included resolution and protocol which Council asked to approve.7

Stikker (Neth) said atmosphere now seemed to indicate both contract arrangements and EDC treaty will work. However, Parliaments [Page 138] will discuss and to be able to satis questions in his Parliament, he must ask three questions.

What is priority for Ger contribution?
Can we expect same number of NATO forces to remain in Ger or does ref to economies to be made by Three Powers mean their troops will be replaced by Ger troops?
Are amts of Ger contribution for next three years sufficient to realize mil goals set for Ger?

De Gasperi (Italy) noted truly Eur spirit present in EDC countries and other NATO countries especially US. He also noted Fr Parliament has indicated France is willing to contribute to Eur cooperation. Unless defense community is to be mere assoc of forces, mil integration will only be achieved by more complete political cooperation.

Eden (UK) answered Stikker’s questions as fols.

There is no priority for first year because we calculate there will be enough funds if TCC basis accepted to cover what Gers can do and all other forces’ requirements.
Economies referred to have already largely been made and there is no intention reducing forces now in Ger.
Cannot yet make estimates of amts for future years. Parenthetically, we consider McNarney figures provisional and overestimated. Three Powers suggest future consultation between EDC and Ger on one hand and US, UK on other to decide how figure is to “be divided. We also agreed that future assessments of Ger contribution shld be made by same method as applied to determine this year’s figure.

Secy supported what Eden had said. EDC interests were fully protected and Schuman had represented them in London with utmost vigor. We prepared to consult fully with EDC in future.

He expressed hope acceptance of reports and resolution wld be voted with enthusiasm. Step being taken is of greatest significance to whole world. We have even greater responsibility than our responsibility for defense. We must meet not only immed problem but must also build for future. This step is one of most imaginative, powerful and forward-looking. Contra-concept is French and France in midst of all her problems has had imagination to conceive this idea. Paid tribute also to all others who had joined in this historical step including Ger FedRep. US Cong has indicated its hope steps of this nature wld be taken. EDC and NATO are completely interconnected. Neither complete without other. US wishes to join in enthusiasm of this vote, in congratulations to all who have made it possible and in determination to give full support to EDC.

Schuman (France) thanked Secy. In effect, France had made great sacrifice of renouncing Natl Army. Fr Parliament did not wish to disavow his govt’s initiative. Fr Govt asked Parliament’s advice and [Page 139] authority to conclude negots. Parliament’s vote was advisory but importance shld not be underestimated. Reflected state of mind which must be taken into acct. Parliamentary preoccupations were following:

Desire to have other countries participate in enterprise. (Note: This was apparently ref by Schuman to UK.)
Community must have cohesion. Parliament wishes outside guarantees against rupture of community and sets great store on presence in center of EDC territory of forces of other Atlantic nations. He spoke of “internal” guarantee which planners had sought to achieve in EDC structure, citing common budget and common procurement.
Equilibrium of forces. There shld be no superiority of number of anyone’s part over France and these clauses must be respected.
He wished to speak quite frankly of another preoccupation. Parliament has said Ger cannot be included in NATO membership. Ger is cut in two, not by our will but because of disagreements by the former allies. For same reason there is no peace treaty. Ger has territorial claims and French ask “without passion and without prejudice” whether our Atlantic organization wld not be harmed by including such party. Acknowledged that Adenauer has declared he expects to achieve Germany’s claims by peaceful means. Nevertheless situation itself contains risks. Why tlien has France been willing to enter EDC with FedRep? Has assumed this risk in interests of Eur unity and peace and because Ger shld not be left to proceed on own initiative. EDC alone will not have resources.

Even to attempt to achieve Ger claims. Schuman concluded that with confidence in sane evolution of EDC, with goodwill and sense of reality we can achieve result which will be point of departure for new Europe.

Van Zeeland (Belg) paid tribute to EDC report which represents point of equilibrium among diverse forces. Belg desires to enlarge Eur community while maintaining it as integral part of Atlantic community. While sharing Stikker’s preoccupations, he saluted spirit of Eden and Secy and reposed confidence in their future efforts to find solutions. Belg ready to make additional sacrifice for common aims. She wants to accent Eur’s capacity for defense but also to accelerate reintegration of Ger and unification of Eur.

Cunha (Portugal) expressed satis with which Portugal views creation of EDC to aid in defense of Western civilization. Though most logical solution of Ger integration wld be admitting Ger to NATO, Portugal recognizes difficulties of other countries, especially France.

Council thereupon adopted all reports before it.

Schuman requested slight modification of para 9(a) of resolution8 in order to make quite clear it was not Council’s intention to recruit Ger soldiers in advance of EDC treaty ratification. (For text of resolution see Lisbon’s 384 to Dept Feb 19, rptd London 85, Paris 57, Bonn 1 [Page 140] and also Lisbon Secto 23 Feb 20 rptd London 80, Paris 60, Bonn 4.9) He accepted wordings suggested by Secy so that para 9 (a) would read: “To consider and initiate any measures which might henceforth be taken prior to or in anticipation of ratification in order to bring about immed after ratification the raising of Ger contribution to EDF.” With this change the resolution, including protocol extending NATO guarantees to EDC members, was adopted.

Pearson (Canada) concluded discussion this item by saying Council had completed one stage, but vital stage, in historical development. EDC is part of greater development of Atlantic community. The two communities are one and indivisible and must not be allowed to grow apart. He paid special tribute to Schuman and his work on EDC and to US and UK. Those countries know that Eur defense is defense of all, is defense of freedom and decency in world.

D. Clifton [ Claxton ] reported for Def Mins on documents C9–D/15,10 sections III, IV, V, VI. There was no discussion of this item.

Was agreed to note section III on military progress of NATO–(MC5/4 final11).

Section IV on command arrangements re Greece and Turkey was approved as amended and SG directed to proceed at earliest possible date. (MC38/2 final.12) Amendment postponed for subsequent decision by treaty military authorities arrangements for handling Greek and Turkish air forces, as well as ground forces, “under the over-all command of SACEUR through Commander-in-Chief Southern Europe”.

Section V covers report by CD on implementation of military status agreement (C9–D/513). Was agreed that Council urge each member country to expedite passage national legislation where necessary and give immediate effect in advance ratification to fullest extent possible.

Re section VI on standardization, particularly regards small arms and small arms ammunition, agreed council request all NATO agencies and member govts take all possible actions expedite this work.

Section I on TCC report not completed. Section II on military effectiveness of EDC covered under preceding agenda item.

E. Report by committee on North Atlantic community presented by chairman with standard speech this subject plus full summary of report (C9–D/814).

Amendment distributed by US deleted para 36, which included reference [Page 141] to information policy committee working with Parliamentarians, and substituted new para referring only to “voluntary bodies”. New para added after para 37 suggesting council may wish to consider development parliamentary interest in North Atlantic community along constructive lines.

Report approved as amended without significant discussion except for brief Pella statement on manpower and except for introduction by Eden of long resolution on broad purposes of NATO which had not been distributed in advance and on which action was put over. Will cable text when available.15 In concluding discussion chairman suggested that most specific recommendation was final one to abolish committee of five. Justified this proposal on ground necessary participation all 14 countries to develop useful and vigorous action this field. This also agreed.

F. Agreed ministerial committee on infrastructure meet right after council meeting and Defense Mins meet 11:30 Sat chairman announced expect hold another plenary at 3:00 Sat afternoon to discuss, if possible, TCC, NATO reorganization and infrastructure.

G. Not possible predict yet when meeting may adjourn. Depends progress infrastructure and French problem as relates preparation force table to “be included in TCC action. Both being worked on actively but important problems still to be solved.

  1. This telegram was repeated for information to all other NATO capitals.
  2. The second Council meeting was regarded as the first business meeting; see Secto 28, Feb. 21, from Lisbon, p. 114.
  3. Under consideration at this point was Item 5 of the Council agenda covering the Report of the Temporary Council Committee (for a summary, see p. 203), the Supplementary Report of the Committee (dated Feb. 8, p. 211), and a draft resolution (for the final text, see p. 220). The Defense Ministers discussed this item at their meetings on Feb. 21 and 22; for the records of those meetings, see telegrams LibDef 11, Feb. 21, and LibDef 12, Feb. 22, pp. 119 and 135.
  4. For the summary record of the meeting of the Foreign Ministers, see telegram Secto 34, Feb. 21, p. 120.
  5. The seven-page report was circulated as document C9–D/16, Feb. 21; it reviewed the status of the negotiations for German contractual arrangements since the Rome 1951 session of the North Atlantic Council and the course of the trilateral and quadrilateral discussions in London regarding these arrangements. (Conference files, lot 59 D 95, CF 105)
  6. For the text of the report, document C9–D/12, Feb. 19, see p. 230.
  7. Ambassador Spofford at this point was presenting document D–D (52) 35 Final, Feb. 20, the report by the Council Deputies on the relationship between NATO and EDC (see p. 247); document C9–D/7, Feb. 21, the joint report of the Council Deputies and the Military Committee on German Participation in Western Defense; and a resolution for adoption by the North Atlantic Council. For the text of C9–D/7 (Revise), see p. 251; the resolution on German Participation in Western Defense (C9–D/19) is on p. 252.
  8. The reference here is to the resolution on German Participation in Western Defense originally presented to the Council in document C9–D/7 (see footnote 7, above) and subsequently circulated as approved by the Council as document C9–D/19, Feb. 22, p. 252.
  9. Neither printed.
  10. Not printed; this three-page report of Feb. 22 presented the decisions and recommendations arrived at by the NATO Defense Ministers at their meeting of Feb. 21; for a report on that meeting, see telegram LibDef 11, Feb. 21, p. 119.
  11. Not printed.
  12. Not printed, but for a summary of the substance of the paper, see telegram 710, Feb. 13, to Ankara, p. 269.
  13. Not printed, but see footnote 6, p. 115.
  14. For the text of the report, see p. 180. Lester Pearson presented the report at this meeting in his capacity as Chairman of the Committee on the North Atlantic Community.
  15. The original text of the proposed resolution referred to here was circulated as document C9–D/18, Feb. 22, p. 190.