Conference files, lot 59 D 95, CF 100
No. 334
Memorandum by the Deputy
Director of the Office of European Affairs (Perkins) of a Meeting
at the Department of State, January 7, 1952
1
TCT CONV–6
Present:
-
U.S.
- Mr. George W. Perkins
- Mr. J. Graham Parsons
-
U.K.
- Sir Roger Makins
- Sir Norman Brook
- Sir Leslie Rowan
Anglo-U.S. Differences on NATO Reorganization
Sir Roger Makins opened by stating that there appeared to be differences of view on only three points of consequence, namely, the location of NATO headquarters; the establishment of an Economic and Production Board, as specified in the UK NATO Reform paper;2 and the question of how to handle the Chairmanship of the Council.
It rapidly developed that there was no real difference of opinion on the Economic and Production Board as Sir Roger said that this would in effect be a Standing Committee under the Council, in other words, very close to our concept of a subcommittee.
Likewise, the Chairmanship problem seemed not too difficult although, as expected, the British could not accept having the Secretary General of the Council act as Permanent Chairman for all sessions of the Council. In place of the U.S. alternative (b) whereunder the Secretary General would serve as Vice Chairman and preside in the absence of the Chairman, the British suggested that the Council elect the Vice Chairman annually and provide that he could be re-elected. Thus, the same individual could carry on for some years. Sir Roger indicated in this connection that the British had in mind that only US, UK and French nationals would be elected Vice Chairman and also that over a period of time we could work in the direction of a Steering Group.
On the problem of location, Sir Roger indicated that the British held strongly to the view that London was preferable for two principal reasons: first, that the economic work of NATO should not be carried on alongside the OEEC and mixed up with it, and second, [Page 757] that there was disadvantage in having the political and economic structure on top of SHAPE which was, after all, merely a theater command. In this connection, he added that it was important that the position of the Standing Group not be prejudiced.
As it was then time for the morning conversations with Mr. Churchill to begin,3 Mr. Perkins merely said that we had considered the arguments which the British presented on location and still felt a preference for Paris.
At the conclusion of the meeting it was decided that both sides would report to their principals that there was no fundamental difference of view except as to location and that the matter should henceforth be discussed in the Deputies [meetings?]. Additionally, it would be recommended to Messrs. Acheson and Eden that a brief report of the progress achieved should be made to the plenary session, but that there be no further consideration of NATO reorganization there.
Several miscellaneous matters were also covered during this conversation, as follows. The British indicated a preference for the title “Secretary General” rather than “Director General”. They were quite clear that responsibility for running the NATO organization should not be divided between the Chairman and the Secretary General. They also felt that the Deputies should consider measures to make the Standing Group more conscious of political and economic realities and less prone to isolate themselves from such matters.