396.1 LO/10–354
Telegraphic Summary by the United States Delegation 1
Ninth plenary October 2 was confined to discussion of armaments control problem. It was followed by restricted session of Ministers with one adviser each. After a lunch break the restricted session was resumed at three. After lengthy discussion question was referred to expert group which submitted draft to plenary in course 10 p.m. meeting.
Do not believe it useful or necessary report this prolonged debate in detail. Substance of issue was insistence by Mendes prohibition of production all items in Annex 2 to Article 107 of EDC treaty by Germany and securing effective control of level of output in Brussels treaty territory on continent, most items in Annex 1 of Article 107. Initially insisted that changes could be made in future in Annex 2 prohibitions only by unanimous vote of Brussels Council. Chancellor unwilling accept imposition of control on Germany alone on grounds discriminatory from military standpoint. Belgians reluctant to accept strategic zone covering substantial portion their industrial areas. Most other Brussels pact powers very reluctant accept detailed control proposed and none of them like insistence on unanimity with respect to changes in prohibitions on the guided missiles, military aircraft, and warships paragraphs of Annex 2.
[Page 1325]Issues finally resolved by offer of Chancellor unilateral German declaration to be accepted and enforced by Brussels treaty organization that Germany would not produce atomic, chemical or biological weapons and that she would not produce guided missiles, warships over 3000 tons or strategic bombers without approval by 2/3 vote of Brussels council and recommendation subject by NATO supreme commander concerned. Benelux countries indicated they expected join in German declaration with respect to atomic, chemical and biological weapons. France and Italy refused to do so.
Control will be exercised over items to be selected from Annex 1 by expert working group in Paris (this selection process is apt to be difficult as French wish to include all but hand weapons and Benelux countries wish to include selected items of very heavy equipment). Control will be directed to stocks to insure that they do not exceed amounts justified for NATO forces, non-NATO forces and legitimate exports. Field inspection is authorized in addition to statistical and budgetary checks. Decision of Brussels council on control matters in this field will be by majority vote.
Provision is made for Brussels council to make annual report on its activities in this field to delegations of Brussels countries to Consultative Assembly of Council of Europe. US and Canada have agreed supply information to Brussels treaty organization on military aid programs of Brussels members and to receive Brussels treaty organization comments thereon.
The whole question of positive armaments pool program was turned over to Brussels treaty council for future study in light various proposals which have been or may in future be made by members on this subject including original French proposal. It has been made clear that no one is committed to accept any part of French proposals on this subject.
This somewhat complicated arrangement with number important questions still not worked out clearly is result long and sometimes vigorous clash of opinion on both major and minor points. It is difficult to forecast with any degree of certainty its future practical impact.
- Transmitted to the Department of State in telegram Secto 23, Oct. 3, and repeated to Bonn, Rome, Ottawa, Luxembourg, The Hague, Brussels, and Paris for USRO, CINCEUR, and Reinhardt. The source text summarizes the proceedings of the 9th through the 13th Plenary meetings, some of which were restricted in attendance; information concerning the 10th through the 13th meetings follows this document. An 18-page verbatim record of this 9th meeting is in the Conference files, lot 60 D 627, CF 368.↩