396.1 LO/9–2954

Telegraphic Summary by the United States Delegation 1

At meeting afternoon of September 28 Eden opened by discussing agenda items dealing with German defense contribution to NATO and associated arrangements. He suggested there was no controversy about level of German contribution. It should follow formula agreed in EDC secret annex. Any subsequent necessary changes should be worked out in accordance with agreed NATO precedures. On deployment he suggested agreement to generalize principle included in US and UK assurances of last spring, namely to deploy forces in accordance with agreed NATO strategy and in response to SACEUR’s command. On integration and logistics he proposed asking SACEUR for recommendations, and on inspection he suggested agreement to make annual review procedure more effective. Procedurally he proposed agreement on papers setting forth principles at this meeting. These papers would then be submitted to appropriate NATO bodies for preparation of more detailed documents and results of this work approved by NAC in October.

Only major substantive comment on Eden’s statement was made by Mendes-France. He suggested need for exception to EDC principles to cover overseas forces. French have in mind something along lines French protocol to article 13 of Paris Treaty. On integration he suggested adoption of principle of mixed units below corps level along lines EDC except where declared unfeasible by SACEUR and Brussels Treaty organization for military reasons. He reaffirmed need for limit on size of forces to be worked out under Brussels. He suggested establishment of office of “Inspector General” under Brussels, function of which would be to see that agreed limits were enforced. He emphasized that such office should be separate from SHAPE in view of entirely different function of limiting forces while philosophy of NATO was to increase forces.

[Page 1304]

Spaak and several others suggested need for more careful study of both Eden’s and Mendes-France’s statements, and it was agreed to consider this subject at next meeting when verbatim transcripts available.

Turning to agenda item on control of production, Spaak said he had several questions to ask Mendes-France on French proposal on this subject.2 He said problem of establishing zones for limitation of arms production was easy but pool aspect much more difficult. He wanted to know if pool arrangement applied to all forces of member country. He also wondered what position of French del was on many safeguards included in EDC Treaty but not mentioned in French plan, such as economic clauses, control of pool by Assembly, etc. Mendes-France replied by reiterating many of points already included in French memo and made by him at morning session. Only new point was reference to possibility of establishing list of items to which operations of pool would be limited. Spaak suggestion for additional safeguards of type included in EDC Treaty could be studied.

Beyen made point, which we consider principle [principal] one concerning Dutch, that national governments are responsible for raising and supplying forces under French proposal but have lost control over production of equipment for these forces. This principle of divided responsibility was basic difference between French plan and EDC. Dutch felt strongly that this would create difficulty. He also felt that there was confusion over whether purpose of pool was to be control or increased efficiency. He wanted to know to what extent UK would participate in pool, pointing out that one benefit resulting from failure of EDC was closer association of UK with continental countries. He emphasized need to avoid long complicated negotiations and asked if French could not find some simpler way to meet their objective of control.

Eden closed discussion by pointing out that all could agree on principle of establishing security zones and limited production therein in accordance with principle of Article 107 of EDC Treaty.

  1. Transmitted to the Department of State in telegram Secto 10, Sept. 29, and repeated to Bonn. Rome, Ottawa, Luxembourg, The Hague, Brussels, and Paris for USRO, CINCEUR, and Reinhardt. A 26-page verbatim record of this meeting, which was circulated as document NPC(54)8, is in the Conference files, lot 60 D 627, CF 366. The list of principal participants, not provided in the source text, was taken from the verbatim record.
  2. The French proposal under reference is document NPC(54)1 of Sept. 27, which is printed on p. 1332.