Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957, Western European Security and Integration, Volume IV

43. Telegram From the United States Delegation at the North Atlantic Council Ministerial Meeting to the Department of State¹

Paris, December 12, 1956—3 p.m.

Polto 1398. Subject: Second NAC restricted session, 3:30 p.m., December 11.²

Martino opened afternoon restricted session by reminding those present matters discussed in restricted meeting should not be disclosed to public or press. He said it would be his purpose to limit sessions to two hours at a time. He requested views re communiqué drafting group and after some indecisive discussion it was left that he would consult Ministers and make proposal at later session.

Spaak (Belgium) then spoke. Re Soviet policy, he said fact gradually emerging that de-Stalinization has produced no change in basic Soviet policy. He said judging by recent events Yugoslav-Soviet rapprochement is more apparent than real. Basic intent of Soviet policy is to make problems facing Western world more difficult. While Soviet Government does not want to push matters far enough to run risk of World War III, latter might occur as result of miscalculation. In this connection he said most dangerous incidents might occur in East Germany. Soviets have done nothing to help Middle East crisis but, to contrary, have done all they can to make solution more difficult. Spaak mystified by spectacular course of de-Stalinization program and considerable risks taken by Khrushchev in carrying out program.

Re disturbances in satellite countries, Spaak wondered if basis for such disturbances did not result from internal situation. He said Soviet boast of great economic power is bluff and Western world should not be taken in by this. He felt Soviets experiencing much greater difficulty internally than we had thought.

In underdeveloped countries Soviet deeds have not lived up to Soviet promises. He thought Western nations should have generally agreed policy toward Asian and African countries and described as false concept idea that we should necessarily help all such countries regardless of their feelings toward West. He opposed giving aid to hostile countries which, he said, would not in any case show gratitude. They take attitude that they have the right to such aid and West could reap more spectacular results by limiting aid to countries favoring Western policies.

Recent rift in NATO has caused considerable disillusionment. At very time that Three Wise Men were formulating recommendations for coordinating policies, international crisis broke in Middle East. He deplored fact smaller European countries faced with problem of choosing between United Kingdom and France on one hand and U.S. on other and described their positions as “most difficult”. Unfortunately no one had thought of convening NAC before first London Conference on Suez and NAC meeting after that conference had not been fruitful because some refused to participate in discussion.³ He said Anglo-French action in Egypt could have provoked chain reaction affecting all of NATO. If West desires to maintain its existence, NATO governments must comply with requirement for consultation.

He then turned to United Nations. He said efforts made at first UN conference in San Francisco⁴ were directed at setting up complete system which would result in barring use of force in settling international problems. Security Council as diplomatic council of world was heart of this system. He charged system is now bankrupt and cannot prevent war or insure rule of law. He described attempt to transfer authority to General Assembly as “unthinking”. He had just returned from New York⁵ and what he had seen there would not inspire any Western European representative with confidence or optimism.

General Assembly is divided on political lines into intransigent majority and minority. It is able to a certain extent to avert war but is incapable of anything “concrete”. He cited unjust cases and denial of right to smaller powers such as Israel and said, UN only capable of taking action when series of provocations brings countries to brink of war. He expressed great pessimism regarding future of UN. Referring to “double standard” he said Soviet champions recommendations of UN in one part of world and takes no notice of recommendations concerning another part. He asked how UN could be reorganized to perform its task properly.

He referred to Lange’s remarks on colonialism and warned against falling prey to idea that issue of colonialism should govern decisions of Western countries. Under guise of reaction against colonialism, treaties, alliances and human rights have been violated by certain countries. As for dependent areas, it is not question only of independence but of what such areas can do with independence, and it would be capital mistake to urge full independence for some areas such as Belgian Congo which is not prepared for such status. No one believes in 19th century colonialism which must one day be liquidated but there would be no advantage in making dependent areas suddenly independent and responsible for solution of their own problems. Spaak closed by reaffirming great importance of Atlantic Alliance and need for change in organization which would make possible fruitful consultation.

Averoff (Greece) referred to Lange’s statement warning against overestimating Soviet economic capabilities. He said Soviets have promised much but have given very little, although they exert great influence even by mere promises. Shepilov had promised to turn Greece into a paradise but Greek Government rejected his offers and did not make them public for fear of Greek public reaction in favor of Soviet. He said there has been no change in Soviet foreign policy and NATO must continue its military and political defense efforts. He described Hungarian tragedy as “re-awakening” for Western nations. He described crisis in satellites as far from being completed and economic disruption there so serious it will lead to further convulsions. He referred to visit of Greek Prime Minister to Belgrade,⁶ said he was convinced Yugoslavia decided to follow independent course. As for other satellites, Greek relations with Albania are “tense”, relations with Bulgaria “poor”. Yugoslav Government, which seems to be drawing away from pure Marxism, desires close relations with Greece as in Balkan Pact.⁷ Averoff deplored fact that this pact is “in abeyance” as it concerns Turkey. Cyprus “affair” makes it difficult to revive pact now but hope expressed that Alliance would be renewed again in near future.

Re Middle East, Averoff said countries in that area undergoing fundamental evolution and are awakening to status of individuality as nations. We must reckon with this new nationalistic trend. Greece has special interest in Egypt because of 200,000 compatriots residing there. Nevertheless, Greek Government had rejected request for Soviet planes to overfly Greece en route to Egypt. He believed Egyptian Government still wary of Soviet despite its hostility toward West and willingness to profit from Soviet assistance. He said immediate objective of all Western countries should be to assure Arab-Israel peace and thus deprive Soviet Union of reason for interference in area. He concluded by expressing concern for serious economic difficulties confronting Greece and importance to Greece of Cyprus problem which he intended to discuss later in meeting.

Hansen (Denmark) said people looking to present NAC meeting with greatest interest as result of differences among Western countries over Middle East crisis. In addition, Europe vitally concerned over developments in Hungary which have made deep and lasting impression and these developments, as well as those in Poland, are of far-reaching significance for future. He agreed with Secretary Dulles that once forces of liberty are loosed they cannot be stopped. He said East-West exchanges, now temporarily suspended, are not only of value to Soviet but also to West and warned against lowering Western Iron Curtain.

Re Middle East crisis, he felt NATO should not dwell on what has passed. While Denmark disappointed in French-British action, Danish Government has refrained from indulging in public criticism. As for solution of Suez Canal problem, he expressed interest in hearing Lloyd’s views, particularly with respect to part which could be played by SCUA.

Hansen said that the importance of North Atlantic Alliance is emphasized by recent developments in Eastern Europe. NATO is prerequisite to our survival. As Secretary Dulles said earlier, NATO countries must take offensive in moral field and must maintain strong defensive in military field.

Luns (Netherlands) referred to increased political tensions between Soviet and West Europe as result of brutal repression in Hungary and to increased tensions between West and uncommitted nations of Asia and Africa. He deplored latter and said unless we work to improve relations with these countries they would move more and more into Soviet orbit. He advised increased technical assistance on multilateral basis. He said widespread misery and illiteracy in these countries is fertile soil for anti-Western actions and sentiments. Today two words confuse men’s minds: 1) sovereignty and 2) colonialism. Newly independent nations set great store by former and have exaggerated ideas re its meaning. Sooner they understand there are always limits to sovereignty better off they will be. As for colonialism, it would appear that anything Western nations do is attributed to colonialism but nothing that Soviet state does is so called. This myth should be exploded. U.S., for example, is well-known champion of anti-colonialism but is no more exempt from criticism by uncommitted nations than other Western European powers. While urging we persist in seeking better relations with these countries, he warned against trying to overbid Soviet Union in encouraging nationalistic and anti-European trends and policies.

With respect to Middle East crisis and rift in Western Alliance, Luns said we must not sacrifice future to past. We should make sure no such rift occurs again. Whatever may be said re Anglo-French action, their motives could not be described as dishonorable in any way. Britain and France were not interested in any material gain or in threatening independence of Egypt, fact which contrasts glaringly with brutal repression by Soviets in Hungary.

Turning to UN, Luns said Secretary Dulles rightly congratulated UK and France for abiding by UN resolutions. He said they had right to expect during stay of UN force in Egypt solution to three basic problems: Israel-Arab conflict, Arab refugee problem and Suez Canal. UN has duty to take advantage of its new strength to cure illness itself and not merely to treat symptoms. If we return to status quo ante UN prestige will be reduced and one more failure chalked up on UN record. He lauded Spaak’s realistic appraisal of UN and said high ideals of architects who animated UN at San Francisco have been perverted. Luns termed NATO necessary to defense of West and said if its effectiveness is to be increased, efforts in military field must be unrelenting and policies must be coordinated by all members. Recent history teaches that negotiating from position of strength is only way to deal with Soviet. In military field he cautioned that reassessment should not be pretext for avoiding responsibilities and commitments and spoke particularly of maintaining level of U.S., British, Canadian forces on continent. Luns concluded by expressing hope that present frank exchange of views will bring about cohesion in NATO and an awareness of interdependence of NATO countries. He said Wise Men report only useful if recommendations for consultation are translated into action on day to day basis.

Cunha (Portugal) said NATO faces two varieties of problems which he described as “occasional” and “permanent”. He described Suez crisis as “occasional” problem and said that while he did not wish to fix responsibility for crisis, he was obliged to emphasize serious situation created, particularly with respect to rift created in NATO between most important members of Alliance. He counseled NATO members to look to future and to work to establish mechanism which would help avoid repetition of such situation. He said that danger for Western world had increased and emphasized need for maintaining unity within the Alliance. He praised Wise Men’s report as providing a basis for consultation, but said that apart from consultative mechanism proposed, main thing necessary for success of NATO is “will” for common action. Future will depend on willingness of members to speak frankly and openly around Council table.

Cunha referred to Secretary Dulles’ remarks concerning moral offensive and military defense⁸ and said that dangers in military field were never more serious. NATO military potential must therefore be further developed as only means for avoiding even more dangerous situation. With respect to moral offensive, Cunha said we must be able to preserve respect for human rights and international obligations. He agreed with Spaak’s previous comments re UN and said he also had suffered recently in New York.⁹ He said he had no hope that UN under present conditions of membership and procedure could solve any major problems and, in impassioned and somewhat unintelligible burst of oratory, he spoke of doing away with or rebuilding UN.

On subject of colonialism, Cunha said today is first time NATO countries have mentioned word “colonialism” in NAC. He said some colonialism is good and some is bad and recommended that NAC make study of subject. He was glad that subject had been raised in this forum.

In conclusion, Cunha said that this serious moment in NATO history when organization has been greatly weakened. NATO members must demonstrate need and will to strengthen Alliance by deeds rather than words or communiqués.

Menderes (Turkey) referred to present as time of great danger, and expressed his deep interest in defending common interests of Atlantic community and world peace. He referred to memorandum of Turkish Delegation presented to Council re NATO defense planning, its relation to Baghdad Pact, and said NATO planning, heretofore limited to area, must take account of developments outside.¹⁰ NATO, he said, should not lose sight of fact that its interests are not confined to area and events elsewhere might seriously affect NATO members. Middle East, where Soviet Union is trying to create local disturbances through subversive efforts, is where present danger lies. Soviet penetration should be subject of study and guiding principles should be established for handling situation. He felt that action should be taken now in Middle Eastern area before Soviets become more solidly entrenched. Connection between NATO and Baghdad Pact is best means of associating East and West, and such association cannot be maintained merely by bilateral relations. He expressed profound satisfaction of his government at recent U.S. statement re support for Baghdad Pact.¹¹ He expressed appreciation U.S. participation in certain committees of Baghdad Pact, and noted U.S. efforts to strengthen nations of area in order to maintain their independence. Question of NATO connection with Baghdad Pact deserves urgent study, and Menderes asked Council to undertake such study.

Menderes said Greek Foreign Minister had mentioned Cyprus and noted that question had been taken to UNGA by Greek Government where Greeks apparently hoped to solve this problem. He questioned Greek Foreign Minister’s purpose in raising question in NAC, and wondered whether he had done so for propaganda reasons or whether he proposed a settlement by NAC. Greek reference to Balkan Pact and Greek-Yugoslav relations would indicate pact has taken on bilateral character in Greek eyes. Averoff, due to lateness of hour, said that he would reply to Menderes later in meeting.

Session adjourned at 5:30 p.m.

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 740.5/12–1256. Confidential. Drafted and approved by Elbrick. Transmitted in four sections and repeated to the other NATO capitals and Moscow.
2. The summary, C–R(56)70, and verbatim, C–VR(56)70, records of this session, both dated December 11, are ibid., Conference Files: Lot 62 D 181, CF 825.
3. A summary of the discussion about the Suez crisis at the NAC meeting on September 5 is in Polto 462 from Paris, September 5. (Ibid., Central Files, 740.5/9–556) The representatives of the United States, Denmark, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, and Portugal refused to participate in the discussion.
4. Delegates from 50 nations met in San Francisco, April 25–June 26, 1945, to complete the U.N. Charter.
5. Spaak was in New York for the sessions of the U.N. General Assembly in October and November until he left for Brussels on November 26, 1956.
6. Karamanlis visited Belgrade as a guest of President Tito, November 18–20, 1956.
7. Reference is to the Treaty of Alliance, Political Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance signed by Greece, Turkey, and Yugoslavia on August 9, 1954, at Bled, Yugoslavia, which entered into force on May 15, 1955.
8. See Polto 1393, supra.
9. Cunha visited New York and Washington, December 3–10.
10. Not found in Department of State files.
11. For text of this statement issued by the Department of State on November 29, 1956, see Department of State Bulletin, December 10, 1956, p. 918.