396.1 PA/10–2154

Telegraphic Summary by the United States Delegation1
First nine-power meeting opened Palais de Chaillot with nomination by Mendes-France of Eden as chairman and invitation of Ismay to attend.
Eden reported briefly on four-power meeting yesterday afternoon.2 He said agreement had been reached in principle on all points. He summarized Bonn convention on right to station forces in Germany and pointed out this would be signed at present meeting by three occupying powers and Federal Republic. However, it would be open for accession by other governments with forces in Germany.
Massigli reported results London working group on Brussels treaty listing unagreed points. These were decided as follows:
Title of Council would be “Council of Western European Union”.
At Spaak’s suggestion paragraph 4 of Article 4 of Protocol I will be reworded to provide that where no particular voting procedure is otherwise provided for the Council snail have power to decide whether it will vote by unanimity, qualified majority, or simple majority.
As a result of further suggestion by Spaak Article 5 of Protocol I will be revised to provide that Council shall make annual report to delegations of Brussels treaty powers to Consultative Assembly of Council of Europe on all its activities and in particular control of armaments. Martino suggested that Council should report to CSC Assembly and was supported by Adenauer. However, other Brussels Foreign Ministers opposed this suggestion and it was dropped. Objections mentioned included fact that CSC Assembly did not include UK and was based on principle of supra-nationality while Brussels treaty was association of sovereign states. It was agreed that parliamentary dels of Brussels treaty powers at Strasbourg would constitute separate assembly and not subcommittee of Council of Europe Assembly.
It was agreed to eliminate commission between Brussels Treaty Council and any subordinate bodies including Armaments Control Agency.
It was agreed to establish seven-power working group in London to deal with such problems as could be effectively handled between signing of Brussels documents and their ratification.
It was agreed that expenditures of Brussels Treaty Organization would be met by dividing them into five equal parts—UK, France, Germany, Italy and Benelux.
Secretary pointed out that US had interest in relations between Brussels treaty organization and NATO and proposed addition of following text: “Recognizing the undesirability of duplicating the military staffs of NATO, the Council and its agency will rely on the appropriate military authorities of NATO for information and advice on military matters.” It was agreed to add this language to Article 3 of first protocol.
It was agreed that Armaments Control Agency should be located in Paris but that permanent headquarters of Brussels Treaty Organization would continue in London.

Steel then reported results of Paris working group on Brussels, again listing unagreed points.3 There followed rather intense discussion between Adenauer and Mendes-France of table-listing maximum force levels. Adenauer pointed out that table as submitted by working group resulted in manpower totals for France and Italy [that] were considerably higher than those for Germany. He argued that effective manpower ceilings were more important than ceilings on number of divisions which should be subject to modification as military requirements changed and proposed deleting division ceilings and substituting manpower figures tabled by each country at first meeting of working group which would provide 585, 000 for French and 500, 000 for Germany. Mendes-France pointed out that problem was to set maximum force limits and not to forecast forces which countries would actually raise. He argued that requirements for flexibility were met better by formula in working group table than by ceiling on manpower. He urged Adenauer to withdraw his proposal in view of very delicate nature of this question. Eden then proposed formula whereby Germany would be limited to forces provided in Paris treaty and other countries would be limited to forces agreed in 54 AR. He then suggested adjournment for lunch to give Ministers time to consider difficult problem.

  1. Transmitted to the Department of State in telegram Secto 7, Oct. 21, and repeated to London, Bonn, Rome, Brussels, The Hague, Luxembourg, and Ottawa. A 46-page verbatim record of this meeting is in the Conference files, lot 60 D 627, CF 390. The list of principal participants, not provided in the source text, was taken from the verbatim record.
  2. For a telegraphic summary of the first meeting of the Four-Power Conference on Oct. 20, see p. 1408.
  3. The document under reference is NPC/Paris–D/2 of Oct. 19, not printed, which contained the drafts of the four protocols to the Brussels Treaty under consideration by the Nine-Power Conference. The first protocol was drafted by the Brussels Treaty Working Group in London, while the last three were written by the Brussels Treaty Working Party in Paris and approved by the Paris Steering Group. Protocol II was circulated separately because of its security classification. The texts of NPC/Paris–D/2, its addendum (Protocol II), and NPC/Paris–D/2 (Final) as approved on Oct. 22 are in the Conference files, lot 60 D 627, CF 391. For the final texts of the four protocols, as they were included in the Paris Agreements, see p. 1441.