14. Telegram From the United States Delegation at the North Atlantic Council Ministerial Meeting to the Department of State 1
Polto 1038. Following is summary NATO Ministerial meeting afternoon December 16th. Verbatim text being air pouched.2
Before turning to agenda, SG emphasized importance of communiqué. Stated Spaak and von Brentano had been appointed special committee for drafing communiqué.
Agenda Item IV (Implementation of Article 2 of Treaty).
The discussion under this agenda item was considerably more lively than expected, and indicated a general feeling among many NATO members that more consideration than in the past should be given to the development of a collective policy in the political, economic, and psychological fields. Partly as a result of the recent change in Soviet tactics, and partly as a result of the need for types of cooperation other than military, many countries seemed to be groping for ways of implementing Article 2. It should be said, however, than in no instance did this reflect a subordination of the importance of maintaining a high degree of military defensive strength; but on the contrary, reflected an attempt to think through other ways and means of giving long-term substance and content to NATO. A brief summary of national statements follows:
[Page 42]Martino spoke for Italy, stating that recent developments and changes in Russian attitude have transferred problems of NATO from purely military field to other fields, thus making an exchange of views on Article 2 extremely pertinent. Pointing out that non-military cooperation under Article 2 covers three aspects, political, psychological, and economic, Martino noted with satisfaction the growing political cooperation within NAC. He called for further alignment of policies with respect to psychological activities and mentioned desirability of “psychological plan of infrastructure”.
Addressing need for further economic and social cooperation, Martino pointed to Russian initiative in helping underdeveloped areas as further reason for NATO’s consideration of ways and means to participate in common action to help underdeveloped areas. He led from this thought into advocacy of common NATO action to build up weaker countries within NATO, stating “it is necessary to undertake collective action for development of economically weak areas within the Alliance.” He pointed to need for common European market and said that Italy is not thinking so much in terms of direct action by NATO in competition with other international organizations, but rather that NATO should be forum in which action in various specialized agencies should be stimulated. He proposed study of problem at Perm Rep level and discussion at next Ministerial session.
Beyen spoke for Netherlands. He said it is generally realized that NATO more than purely military organization and that development of common way of thinking and living is basis of NATO. This is more difficult than cooperation in military field. Pointed out that political consultation in NATO had grown steadily. Expressed view that it would not be wise to bring matters into NATO forum if they can be done better in other ways. For example, accomplishments of OEEC in field of economic cooperation is partial implementation of Article 2. While favoring coordination of psychological efforts, Beyen pointed that this should not involve standardization, as problems different in each country.
Beyen discussed problem of underdeveloped countries, referring to what had been done under Point IV, UN technical assistance, international bank loans, and Colombo Plan.3 Expressed view that development underdeveloped areas very complicated and gradual process; therefore was not too worried by entry of USSR into this field. Stressed his view that best way of approaching problem is to bring underdeveloped countries into partnership with developed countries. Expressed disappointment that SUNFED had not gained [Page 43] support of US and UK. Thought NATO should not develop separate organization in this field, but could usefully discuss this subject as part of general economic problem.
Hansen spoke for Denmark. Suggested consideration of organizing rally of Western European youth as counter to Eastern European youth festival which, he said, scored big propaganda success. Proposed that NATO might consider organizing and financing such festival.
Theotokis spoke for Greece. Supported Italians on statement on Article 2, particularly in suggestion that disparity in economic status between member countries should be subject of concern to all NATO countries.
Lange spoke for Norway. Supported Dane’s suggestion. Conceded there is sense of frustration re implementation Article 2, but wondered whether this not result failure to make clear what is being done through agencies like OEEC. Referred to work in Information Committee in public relations field, and suggested that NATO should be willing finance this activity more heavily.
Nuri Birgi spoke for Turkey, supporting general idea that NATO should consider other aspects of treaty, but stressing defensive military strength as most important single problem facing Alliance. Next in importance is hard-hitting propaganda campaign. Nuri welcomed Martino’s ideas on economic cooperation to develop “underdeveloped areas of NATO”.
Pearson for Canada said that Article 2 lends itself more easily to discussion than to action. Agreed that action thereunder can only be slow and gradual. Felt that accent should be on more thorough exchange political ideas and development of common political policies. While maintenance military strength now has top priority, time may come when more enduring roots for NATO will be required. Expressed view USSR as anxious see political unity destroyed as to see military strength dissipated.
Canada, in suggesting discussions on current economic policies among NATO countries, is not suggesting any new economic paraphernalia. Purpose is to develop better understanding of each others economic policies. Though economic discussions should not jeopardize political unity, but should contribute thereto. Re Italian point of common action to strengthen weaker areas of Alliance, said that Canada would want to study before committing itself.
Cunha spoke for Portugal, stressing need improve NATO propaganda. Expressed belief desirability development of Atlantic Alliance in economic field, but cautioned that this should not be done at the expense of splitting Europe. Advocated OEEC as best forum.
[Page 44]Martino introduced resolution on implementation of Article 2.4 Secretary Dulles suggested that the Italian resolution be studied by Permanent Council, as US unwilling without proper study to commit itself, in view of other obligations and the possible reaction in other organizations of which US is member. After discussion and amendment, resolution was adopted as follows:
“The NAC, recognizing that recent developments in international situation make it necessary to have closer cooperation between members of Alliance as envisaged in Article 2 of treaty, taking note of statements made to this effect at present Ministerial meeting, decides to instruct Permanent Council to examine and implement all measures conducive to this end.”
Agenda Hem V (no other business).
Agenda Item VI (date and place of next Ministerial meeting).
Suggested that Ministers leave it to Permanent Council to make recommendations on date and place of next meeting. Suggestion accepted.
Agenda Item VII (Communiqué).
After prolonged discussion, communiqué finally adopted at 9:00 p.m. (Communiqué published in press and filed by USIA.)5
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 740.5/12–1755. Secret. Repeated to the other NATO capitals. Transmitted in two sections.↩
- The summary, C–R(55)60, and verbatim, C–VR(55)60, records of this session, both dated December 16, are ibid., Conference Files: Lot 60 D 627, CF 644.↩
- The Colombo Plan for Cooperative Economic Development in Southeast Asia was established by the United Kingdom in 1950 to encourage investment in Ceylon, India, Pakistan, and the British territories of Malaya and Borneo.↩
- Not printed; the discussion of the Italian resolution, which was the same in substance as the resolution adopted at this meeting, is in the verbatim record of this meeting, C–VR(55)60 (see footnote 2 above).↩
- For text of the final communiqué, issued at Paris December 16, see Department of State Bulletin, December 26, 1955, pp. 1047–1048.↩