396.1 PA/10–2254

Telegraphic Summary by the United States Delegation 1
secret

In final three and one-half hour session, nine power meeting reached agreement on all Brussels treaty protocols.2

Meeting characterized by French efforts obtain concessions on all points in which they had shown major interest, including long list controlled arms, early consideration arms pool, and channeling United States aid through Brussels organization. French also made new proposal for common schools under Brussels.

One highlight was discussion future ratification plans. Mendes made clear French plan initiate Assembly action November 3, with Assembly approval completed by end year, at latest. Doubted action by Council of Republic possible until January. Spaak hoped complete ratification by end second week January at latest. Martino, however, said impossible complete Italian ratification before end of February at earliest, citing lengthy parliamentary procedures in Italy. Spaak expressed regret Italian timetable and made strong plea for expeditious approval by all.

Below were principal points in substantive discussion:

1.
Dispute over force table in Article I Protocol number II finally resolved by stating that air and ground forces which parties would place under SACEUR would not exceed limits specified in EDC [Page 1416] special agreement. Special agreement would not be made public, hence avoiding public release force figures for continental Belgian countries. Limits for United Kingdom stated in Article I itself as four divisions and second tactical air force. Problem of planned increase in Italian air force to 1350 needed for interior air defense handled by ministerial understanding that exception be made for Italy to exceed EDC special military agreement figure.
2.

Discussion list major weapons subject to control (Protocol III, Article 4), opened with strong pleas by Adenauer, Beyen, and Spaak for keeping list to barest minimum in order insure effective control. Agreement finally reached after item-item consideration. Agree that list would include following: All guided missiles with no exception for smaller anti-aircraft missiles (item 3 on original list), aircraft bombs of more than 1, 000 kilograms (item 10), ammunition for weapons described in paragraph 2 of list (item 11) and jet engines, turbo-propellor engines and rocket motors (item 11C). Agreed to drop flame throwing equipment (item 3), propellants and explosives (item 12), and machines used only for manufacture of weapons (item 14).

Mendes made special effort retain last item. Other ministers, principally Adenauer, opposed strongly, contending item 14 went beyond London agreement and pointing out great difficulty defining machinery used for weapons production. Mendes finally agreed omission this item, but on understanding question would be discussed by later working group.

2. [sic] Re definition A, B, C, weapons agreed present text Protocol III would not be changed, but that council would be charged with responsibility for more closely defining and up-dating definitions these armaments. No specific agreement on body to undertake this work, but presumably working group intended.

3.
Be Protocol IV on agency, French proposed and others accepted new draft Article 10 stating agency “shall direct its attention to production end-items and components listed Annexes 2, 3, and 4 Protocol III, and not to processes. It shall insure that materials and products destined for civilian use are excluded from its operations”. Second sentence Article 7 (1) (A) Protocol IV dropped.
4.
Spaak objected to Article 19 Protocol IV as inadequate. Complained Article very important one which had no teeth. Article strengthened to provide: That in case more important infractions, council would invite member concerned to provide necessary explanation. If explanation unsatisfactory, council would take measures it deems necessary in accordance with an agreed procedure. Decision of council under article as revised to be taken by majority vote.
5.
Separate cable being sent on discussion United States aid to Western European Union.3
6.
Re further consideration arms pool, French introduced new proposal in form of draft resolution citing importance of national organization arms production and calling for conference in Paris December 1 of seven Brussels powers.4 Eden, Spaak and Beyen opposed [Page 1417] resolution on grounds both procedure and timing. Eden stated his definite understanding at London that French arms pool proposed would be studied by expanded Brussels Council after it had been formed. Beyen concerned over early date, pointing out this would inevitably produce wait-and-see attitude among parliamentarians process ratifying London agreements. After lengthy discussion, French resolution finally accepted with two changes: (1) Date advanced to January 17; (2) Only working group to be convened, not full conference.
7.
In discussion NATO resolution implementing Section IV London act, Mendes introduced new draft protocol providing that Brussels Council may organize schools and consider other steps for fostering common doctrine and training.5 Other ministers had little sympathy for Mendes explanation that this proposal merely reintroduced EDC provisions. Other ministers also strongly opposed Mendes resolution on grounds competition with NATO. Mendes withdrew proposal.6

  1. Transmitted to the Department of State in telegram Secto 8, Oct. 22, and repeated to London, Bonn, Brussels, The Hague, Luxembourg, and Ottawa. A 96-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. The documents under consideration which dealt with a modification of the Brussels Treaty were the following: Declaration Inviting Italy and the Federal Republic of Germany to Accede to the Brussels Treaty; Protocol I Modifying and Completing the Brussels Treaty; Protocol II on Forces of Western European Union; Protocol III on the Control of Armaments; and Protocol IV on the Agency of Western European Union for the Control of Armaments. Protocol I was drafted by the Brussels Treaty Working Group in London, while Protocols II through IV were drafted by the Brussels Treaty Working Party in Paris and approved by the Paris Steering Group of NATO. For information concerning these drafting groups, see the editorial notes, pp. 1377 and 1378. For the text of the Declaration and the four Protocols, which were signed in Paris on Oct. 23, see pp. 14401457.
  3. Infra.
  4. The text of this resolution, which was tabled by the French Delegation during this meeting and amended as indicated in the source text, was circulated as document NPC/Paris–D/11 (Final) and is in the Conference files, lot 60 D 627, CF 391. The text is printed on p. 1429.
  5. For the text of the NATO resolution, approved at the Oct. 22 meeting of the North Atlantic Council, see p. 1431.
  6. For two additional reports of this meeting, see the telegraphic summary infra and the telegraphic report by Deputy Secretary of Defense Anderson, p. 1419.