396.1 PA/10–2254

Telegraphic Summary by the United States Delegation1

This is separate cable reporting discussion at final nine-power of channeling US aid through Brussels.2

Mendes introduced subject by handing US delegation during meeting proposed revision Article 22 of protocol IV concerning armaments control agency. Translation French proposal as follows:

“While fully reserving to itself the ultimate right to decide the distribution of end item aid, the US Government declares that it is ready to participate with the agency in a procedure for consultation which would permit an examination on a multilateral basis of the problems posed by the distribution of that aid. French explained they had in mind procedure similar to consultation with OEEC re distribution EBP aid. Secretary pointed out that it would not be possible add much to what had been said at London. With more time, might be possible make declaration which would be somewhat more specific than London remarks and conform more closely to French suggestion.”

[Page 1418]

Secretary then made following points:

US would have to retain right to decide ultimate disposition aid, which appears to be recognized in French suggestion.
US wants to cooperate with new program and see it succeed, we have no desire through our aid program to bring about an armament in excess of that agreed by Brussels powers and no purpose enticing any country into violating its agreements.
At same time, we do not want cumbersome and complicated formal consultative machinery superimposed on what exists. This important practical problem for US from point of view appropriations. Hard enough to get funds obligated before end fiscal year, and if they are not obligated they disappear. Hence essential we not go through unnecessary and time-consuming consultations.
US of course has full desire keep council and through council agency informed so that what we do will be fully taken into account and weighed in relation to total program of armament.
If more complete consultation required, it could be worked out gradually as we go along.
In conclusion, US enthusiastically supporting new project, although we do not want duplication processes already in effect so as to frustrate effort we are making to help build defensive strength Western Europe.

Mendes replied he was fully aware validity of argument that US as distributor aid, must be free to distribute equipment as it wishes. On other hand agency, when it deals with armament problems—which French hope will involve widest scope—will have to take into account equipment which various countries receive from US. Agency cannot make its decisions as to production, standardization, and distribution common orders if it does not take into account what each country receives from US.

Two approaches possible: (1) Agency could itself distribute aid received, which does not appear acceptable to US; or (2) system of coordination and consultation could be established. Although recognizing need to avoid duplication, also clear would not be efficient if there were no close liaison between equipment coming from outside and that being produced on continent. Hence would like to see established procedure comparable to that for OEEC in distribution ERP aid.

Beyen expressed obvious interest of other receiving countries in French proposal and asked that they have better opportunity consider it. Eden raised question whether Article 22 protocol IV, which states only that agency will receive from council information re aid received from US and Canada, will remain unchanged. Mendes stressed importance which Assembly attaches to Brussels role re US aid and urged again acceptance OEEC-type consultation, if channeling aid not possible.

[Page 1419]

Adenauer stated that questions raised by Mendes come within framework of functions of arms pool, not within functions control agency. Agreed at London that questions relating arms pool should be discussed within expanded Brussels framework as soon as necessary prerequisites established. Adenauer agreed, however, that every receiving state had interest in knowing what other Brussels states receiving in way of US aid.

Secretary replied that he would not be able to elaborate much further. However, wanted to make clear that it was our eager desire see common agencies develop to maximum extent possible, and to extent we can help in such development, are glad to do so. However, we already have close relationships through MAAGs and through NATO; we do not want to pile machinery on machinery. Once Brussels council and agency get to operating and we see relationship it develops with NATO and member countries, US will certainly be disposed to adapt its processes to that. However, in advance of knowing how Brussels organs will work out, US would prefer letting general statement of our purpose stand. US would be very glad to consider problem further in connection with studies which council is making and to participate in those further studies.

Mendes stressed again importance aid question and of US willingness consider again French proposals after Brussels studies. Eden pointed out that it had been very welcome practice for US and Canada to attend Brussels treaty meetings as observers. Therefore, assumed that US and Canada would continue to participate in observer role when future studies undertaken.

Mendes asked that whole of above discussion be on record because of its importance.

  1. Transmitted to the Department of State in telegram Secto 9, Oct. 22, and repeated to London, Bonn, Rome, Brussels, The Hague, Luxembourg, and Ottawa.
  2. This is a further report on the discussion which took place during the second meeting of the Nine-Power Conference on Oct. 21; for two additional reports of this meeting, see supra and infra.