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

740.5/2–2352: Telegram

The United States Delegation to the Department of State ¹

secret

Lisbon, February 23, 1952.

Secto 59. 1. Plenary session NAC opened 3:30 with discussion TCC resolution. Chairman pointed out Council requested only to note report and supplemental report, as necessary action is embodied in resolution.²

2. Pella opened discussion with long speech spelling out general spirit in which Ital Govt is approving TCC report. Emphasized econ problems with usual stress on manpower problem. Cited recognition need for 450 thousand annual migration for 5 years and stated report contained recognition govts should review migration policy. Urged all govts join Brussels Committee whose work should be continued. Asked govts undertake without delay study manpower problem for report and consideration next Council mtg. Pella stated Ital making relatively greater effort than other countries which should be taken into account in 53 review. Gave thanks to EB for work, approved resolution, and promised full cooperation to NATO commanders.

3. Portugal also expressed thanks for work of EB, agreed to aims as defined, agreed adopt methods, and stated report and resolution have full approval.

4. Eden reported HMG fully supports resolution which it welcomed as important step in building defense North Atlantic area. Considered sound basis for planning and will do utmost to carry out. However, called attention to fact (recognized in report) that accomplishment depends upon circumstances not under control UK. Most important problems are balance of payments and supply of raw materials. UK defense program already slowed down but this should not affect reaching amended force targets this year. Cited stringent measures already taken to meet balance of payments deficit, but gap not closed. Difficulties so grave and risks so great that unless position improved by midyear UK defense effort would be retarded and even imperiled. Welcomed TCC statement UK program cannot be carried out unless dollars found. Pointed out UK undertook 4.7 billion pound program on assumption there would be equitable burden-sharing, i.e., if UK did more than fair share there would be adjustments. Welcomed reference to burden-sharing in TCC report. Paid tribute to US aid program, characterizing US as making greatest contribution to common effort but expressed disappointment that dollars have not been made available more quickly which would give double value.

5. Eden also commended TCC recommendation of flexibility between end-items and econ aid and in administering each type program. Supported para 52, emphasizing shortage of steel and nonferrous metals, and para 13c. Stated even with US steel would need import more from Eur. In turn UK anxious to give where can, recognizing importance coal to Eur. Pointed out UK since TCC report has raised price of coal in UK and agreed increase exports to Eur. by 2 million tons. Stated would continue try increase availabilities.

6. Eden urged early study in connection with annual review of def burden in later years particularly after build-up. Pointed out problem would be serious after 54 since build-up not complete and will be necessary maintain large forces while continuing build-up. Urged early action on such study pointing out danger that countries otherwise may find themselves over-committed.

7. Greece and Turkey both expressed appreciation of US amendment to TCC resolution and indicated acceptance resolution. Gr del stressed importance burden-sharing and necessity for strengthening economic basis. Both dels expressed appreciation for US aid.

8. Faure in short speech described TCC as “satisfactory” step forward. Underlined relationship between “strategic defense and economic defense” and stressed need for Fr internal equilibrium, gravity of her currency problem, and stated Fr at limit her resources. Faure said military alliance should be completed by an economic alliance and called for strengthening econ ties wherever possible to assist in carrying out TCC plans.

9. Chairman pointed out Council should consider DefMins comments before acting on TCC resolution and requested chairman DefMins report. Claxton reported final action by Committee DefMins on C9–D/15.³ Explained that DefMins had revised para 18a and recommended that Council approve para 18 of MC 39 final as amended.⁴ Such action would automatically include approval of revised terms of ref SACEUR. DefMins had eliminated para 9 of MC 39 and revised para 18a to read as fol:

a. Approve the force targets of the TCC reports as firm goals for 1952, as provisional goals for 1953, and for 1954 as goals for planning purposes for guiding the early actions required to make possible the achievement of those targets, subject to the recognition of the following:

(1) That the Council accepts from the Military Committee Part I of M.C. 26/1, revised as necessary by developments, as the official judgment and recommendations of the military advisers of the Council as to the militarily desirable goals for planning purposes beyond 1954.

(2) That “firm goals” may be subject to minor adjustments for military reasons, as recommended by the Supreme Commanders.

(3) That the Council recognize the existence of the risks involved until the requirements are achieved.

(4) That the Military Committee keep under continuing review the “provisional goals” and “goals for planning purposes”, to the end that the most effective force build-up within economic ceilings and political limitations can be achieved.

(5) That the importance be stressed of each country taking every opportunity to increase and accelerate the build-up and readiness of forces, particularly to enable a more rapid build-up in the battle area after D–Day (Enclosure 3).

10. Claxton also reported that DefMins had been able prepare agreed force table for 52,⁵ and proposed fol resolution for Council action:

The NAC, at its Ninth Session in Lisbon on 23 February 1952, having considered the MC comments on the TCC report (MC 39) and having decided that the proposed measures contained therein are necessary to the implementation of the Council’s decisions on the TCC report:

Approves para 18 of the report, and

Notes the remainder of the report, and

Approves the attached force objectives recommended by the Defense Ministers as the forces which countries have indicated their willingness to raise and support during the year 1952. This plan for 1952 shall be applicable to the objectives of TCC report.⁶

Later, on motion of Lovett, final clause “and shall be substituted for Annex B of TCC supplemental report”⁷ was deleted as duplicate action.

11. Harriman as Chairman TCC expressed gratitude to DefMins and govts who made it possible to clarify 52 force targets thereby establishing definite goal for 52. Stated had consulted EB re desirability revising para 2 of TCC resolution to incorporate reference to new Annex B (which is DefMins force table) and conform to agreed action by Council on MC 39. EB proposed to amend para 2 to read as fol:

“While recognizing that many financial and other problems remain to be solved before the goals can be fully met,

“Resolves that the force targets set out in Annex B to the supplementary report of the TCC be adopted as firm goals for 1952, and that the force targets recommended by the TCC be adopted as provisional goals for 1953, and for 1954 as goals to be used for planning purposes to guide the early actions required to make possible the achievement of these targets;”

12. Without objection by TCC members or by govts, Pearson announced amendment adopted by Council with TCC approval.

13. Council then approved DefMins resolution (para 10), which had effect of endorsing para 18 and noting balance of MC 39 final.

14. Council then adopted amended TCC resolution, including Greek-Turkish amendment and amended para 2.⁸

15. Council then considered UK draft declaration (C9–D/18⁹) which had been distributed previous mtg. Pearson proposed that countries having drafting suggestions submit in writing and constitute drafting committee. Acheson stated had no objection to proposed procedure for handling but stated first reading raised questions of substance re advisability of proceeding at all on resolution. Did not want create impression that agreement on procedure meant had only drafting changes to submit. Chairman broadened terms of reference ad hoc drafting group to consider substantive issues as well.

16. Chairman then introduced agenda item VIII: C9–D/4¹⁰ (report on NATO Organization). Spofford summarized report and outlined remaining issues which appear in bracketed text. Stated deputies regretted inability present fully agreed paper but at chairman’s request were submitting present paper including alternate proposals.

17. Pearson proposed Council consider and act upon agreed paras of report, and refer disputed articles to Committee of FonMins for mtg 10:30 Mon limited to one or at most two advisers. On Schuman objection, Council agreed refer entire report to Committee FonMins.

18. Meeting adjourned.

1. This telegram was repeated for information to all NATO capitals and also to Wiesbaden and Heidelberg. The source text indicates that this message was never received “electrically” in Washington but was brought to the Department by Robert G. Barnes when the U.S. Delegation returned to Washington on Feb. 28.
2. Under consideration at this point was the Dec. 18, 1951 report of the Temporary Council Committee (see summary, p. 203), the supplemental report of the Committee, p. 211, and the proposed resolution set forth in document C9–D/13. For the resolution as adopted by the Council, see document C9–D/20, Feb. 23, p. 220.
3. Before the Council at this point was document C9–D/15 (Revise), Feb. 23, a four-page report presenting the decisions and recommendations arrived at by the NATO Defense Ministers at their meeting on Feb. 21 and their morning meeting of Feb. 23. For brief accounts of those meetings, see telegrams LibDef 11 and 14, Feb. 22 and 23, pp. 119 and 146, respectively.
4. This Military Committee document not available for inclusion in this volume.
5. For a brief summary of the force levels agreed upon by the Defence Ministers at their meeting of Feb. 23, 3 p.m., see telegram LibDef 14, Feb. 23, p. 146.
6. This resolution does not appear to have been circulated as a numbered NATO document; for an earlier version of the draft resolution, see the summary report of the Defense Ministers meeting of Feb. 22, telegram LibDef 12, Feb. 22, p. 135.
7. The quoted portion here appeared as the concluding phrase of the resolution proposed by Defense Minister Claxton and paraphrased above.

8. The amended paragraph 2 of C9–D/13 is quoted above. The “Greek-Turkish amendment” under reference here was an amendment to be added as a separate numbered paragraph to the end of document C9–D/13 and circulated for consideration by the North Atlantic Council at the request of the U.S. Delegation in document CD–D/17, Feb. 21, 1952. The proposed amendment reads as follows:

   • “(a) Recognizes that Greece and Turkey have not been considered in the TCC analysis and report;
   • “(b) Invites the governments of Greece and Turkey to consider in co-operation with the appropriate NATO bodies the applicability of these findings and recommendations to Greece and Turkey; and
   • “(c) Directs the NATO agencies to undertake the necessary actions so that there may be full and equal participation by these new members of NATO in the annual review to be undertaken pursuant to Article 17 (b) (ii) of this Resolution.”

   According to the official NATO summary record of this meeting (C9–R/4), the Council approved the resolution in C9–D/13 also subject to the substitution of tables of force targets, which countries had indicated their willingness to raise and support during the year 1952, in place of Annex B of the Supplementary Report of the TCC.

9. Dated Feb. 22, p. 190.
10. Not printed, but see C9–D/4 (Revise), Feb. 29, p. 198.