Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, Western European Security, Volume V, Part 2

396.1 LO/9–3054

Telegraphic Summary by the United States Delegation ¹

secret

London , September 30, 1954—9 p.m.

1. Sixth plenary session opened at 3:00 with discussion formal amendments Brussels treaty. Draft invitation to Germany and Italy to join was agreed.² Draft protocol making certain other amendments³ was referred back for further consideration in the light of future decision which might be made at this conference to increase the powers of the Brussels treaty organization. Spaak in particular wished composition, voting procedure and powers Brussels council to be spelled out further. Secretary State pointed out already appears Brussels council would be more than consultative body, of which account should be taken.

2. Working from report of working group on “German defense contribution and strengthening NATO”,⁴ there was long and confused discussion of means for enabling French to say that none of safeguards in EDC over future increase in size of German forces had been lost without unduly complicating NATO procedures for fixing force goals. With major assist from Belgians, French position advanced from one of having NATO goals considered as minima, adopted by Brussels as maxima which Brussels countries would not exceed without unanimous consent, to position that should be separately agreed Brussels maxima, which NATO force goals could not exceed without unanimous Brussels council decision. Chancellor urged that both increase and decrease in force goals require unanimous approval Brussels powers.

Reluctant agreement was finally reached on basis Brussels council to agree separate forces protocol along lines EDC secret protocol, that forces of Brussels powers assigned to SACEUR would not exceed this level without unanimous approval Brussels powers, and that this decision by Brussels powers could take place either in Brussels council or through liaison NATO council.

In interest of simplicity, US had urged there was no real necessity for Brussels review of NATO decisions with respect maxima, since NATO operated only by unanimous agreement and each of Brussels powers thereby had veto. There seemed some danger that Brussels would have to set up competing annual review procedure, which was much to be regretted as present one complicated enough. Even in absence of that, requirement of double action seemed hardly in interest of real security for countries concerned. However, if they felt their political considerations were more important, that was primarily up to them. US did think, however, that if separate Brussels action required, should be recognition that, contrary to EDC, all Brussels members were in NATO and appropriate action could be taken either in Brussels council or through NATO.

3. In addition, was agreed with relatively little discussion:

a. That initial German contribution would be of size and general character agreed upon in EDC;

b. That all forces of NATO countries on continent of Europe would be assigned to SACEUR except as NATO has recognized, or will recognize, exceptions;

c. That Brussels treaty organization will fix strength and armament of internal defense and police forces of its members;

d. That deployment of NATO forces be in accord with NATO strategic plans that SACEUR shall determine deployment after consultation and agreement with countries concerned, and that redeployment on the continent may take place only with the consent of SACEUR subject to appropriate political guidance;

e. That SACEUR forces should be integrated so far as possible, consistent with military efficiency;⁵

f. That SACEUR coordination of logistics be made more close;

g. That SACEUR should inspect the levels of forces, the armaments, equipment and so forth of forces assigned to him;

h. That the Brussels countries will seek to arrange for SACEUR to designate a high-ranking officer to provide the Brussels treaty organization with information available in SHAPE on whether or not Brussels members have exceeded the agreed force maxima.

(Should be able send full and exact text tomorrow.)

4. Italian Foreign Minister and Chancellor both made statements of French armaments pool proposals, endorsing their objectives strongly but urging that in interest prompt action, further consideration of them be turned over to Brussels council. Chairman called attention to fact working group had been assigned task study Spaak paper dealing with central procedure but not Mendes paper on which perhaps more ministerial discussion required. Mendes urged that his paper also be considered by working group, but added that at working group meeting, his government would have some proposals to make to experts with respect to task to be undertaken by Brussels council. (While not entirely clear, this was generally felt to be concession in direction of move to postpone consideration here of substance French armaments pool proposals.)

1. Transmitted to the Department of State in telegram Secto 15, Sept. 30, and repeated to Bonn, Rome, Ottawa, Luxembourg, The Hague, Brussels, and Paris for USRO, CINCEUR, and Reinhardt. A 48-page verbatim record of this meeting 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 draft declaration inviting Italy and the Federal Republic of Germany to accede to the Brussels Treaty, which was circulated as document NPC (54) 20, was eventually made an annex to the Final Act of the Nine-Power Conference; for the text of this declaration, see p. 1355.
3. The draft protocol amending the Brussels Treaty, which was circulated as document NPC (54) 22, is not printed. The draft protocol, as finally approved by the Conference, became an annex to the Final Act of the Nine-Power Conference; for the text of this protocol, see p. 1356.
4. Presumably a reference to the First Report by the Working Party on German Defense Contribution, which was circulated as document NPC (54) 23 of Sept. 30; this first report, as well as an earlier draft (document NPC(54) 18) and a second report (document NPC(54)26), are in the Conference files, lot 60 D 627, CF 366. For the text of the report by the Working Party, which was circulated as document NPC (54) 38 and was adopted by the Conference during the Eighth Plenary meeting of Oct. 1, see p. 1338.
5. In telegram Secto 17 from London, Oct. 1, the Department of State was informed that Mendès-France requested that the record of these decisions be amended at this paragraph in order to note the wish of the French Delegation that the integration should be taken to the divisional level. (396.1 LO/10–154)