99. Telegram From the Delegation at the London Working Group to the Department of State1

4818. From Beam. Department pass Defense. Following is further description of Chancellor’s views re security system mentioned in Embtel 4812.2

Chancellor’s thought was at suitable time West should propose European security system comprising all European nations, US, Canada, USSR, and Soviet satellites. NATO, however, would continue in effect. New proposal not intended interfere with German military build-up under Paris Agreements. System would be based on principles of non-aggression, mutual assistance, loss of treaty rights by violators, arms restrictions and controls and no use of force for territorial changes. This European security proposal would accompany, but not be subordinated to, a renewed offer of German reunification under the Eden Plan.

In Blankenhorn’s view, Soviets at this conference not likely to consider any arrangement involving their withdrawal from Eastern Germany unless accompanied by simultaneous withdrawal of US forces from Europe or non-implementation of Paris pacts. Regardless of almost certain rejection, however, West should be prepared put [Page 157] forward European security proposals for tactical and propaganda reasons.

Blankenhorn emphasized complete unacceptability any form of German neutralization. As Adenauer’s direct spokesman in this working group, he is in frequent touch with Chancellor, and has made it clear to US reps that Adenauer considers it of paramount importance that Germany should fulfill her obligations to NATO under Paris Agreements. (Embtel 47963) Blankenhorn’s statements must therefore be viewed in this light.

During working group discussions Blankenhorn made it clear that “European Security System” would be on different plane from present regional groupings, specifically NATO, but would conform to principles of UN Charter. Presumably current Soviet defense arrangements with Eastern European satellites would also be unaffected by this new organization.

Begin Def Rep comments:

New security system would therefore appear to be limited to superstructure of high level security treaty, without further internal organization except machinery for enforcement of arms limitations throughout the agreed area. Arms limitations machinery would be continuing test of Soviet performance, however, since it could be operative only if USSR permitted effective inspection in satellites and Soviet Union itself. Conversely, level of arms limitations could be set sufficiently high so as to permit NATO to be able to bring collective strength to bear against aggression. While agreement for inspection in satellites would constitute some breach in Curtain, inspection in USSR itself would be much greater advance and would, unlike inspection limited to satellites, be of some security value. Proposal to include USSR raises question of whether arms limitation and inspection in US proper and Canada to be included, or only US and Canadian forces in Europe. Latter appears obviously preferable from US point of view. If West’s proposal limited to latter, Soviet would probably seek to add US and Canada proper. To this, US might wish consider whether comment might be made that this raises question of Soviet allies in Far East, and that such global arms restrictions should be handled within UN framework.

End Def Rep comments.

For first time USSR is included in proposed European security arrangement. Since NATO would continue, inclusion of USSR appears to meet in part the points raised in para 4a, JCS memo of April [Page 158] 22,4 but offers little new to meet JCS objections to a regional disarmament plan in absence of agreement on general principles involved (para 4b, same memo) which would have to be part of package.

Blankenhorn has indicated to US Reps that Adenauer wishes to consult Secretary Dulles before making this view known to UK or France in Ministerial forum presumably at May 8 Ministerial meeting. Therefore recommend, at Def Rep’s suggestion, that Defense consideration this project be so scheduled that Secretary would be prepared in some degree to comment at that time upon this type of security proposal, which can be taken to reflect Adenauer’s views.

  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 396.1/4–2955. Secret; Priority. Drafted by B.P. Barringer, Department of Defense representative on the delegation; cleared with Wolf and Kidd; and initialed by Beam. Repeated to Bonn and Paris.
  2. Supra.
  3. Document 97.
  4. This memorandum was a response to position papers drafted for the U.S. Delegation and in particular a response to the military implications of Allied and Soviet withdrawal from Germany under the terms of a German peace treaty. In paragraph 4a the JCS commented that European security would be illusory if it disregarded the motivating reasons for the establishment of NATO. In paragraph 4b the JCS commented that the security arrangement might better be called a regional disarmament plan. A copy of the memorandum is attached to a letter of transmission to Dulles, dated April 25. (Department of State, Central Files, 740.5/4–2555)