Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, Western European Integration and Security, Canada, Volume VII, Part 1

169. Telegram from the Delegation at the North Atlantic Council Ministerial Meeting to the Department of State⁰

Paris, December 17, 1958, 4 a.m.

Polto 1719. From USDel.

1. NATO Ministerial Meeting reconvened in secret restricted session 3 p.m. December 16¹ to discuss Agenda Item I (Spaak’s interim report on political consultation).

2. Secretary opened discussion by expressing strong approval of activities reflected in Spaak report.² Said that under Spaak’s leadership there have been great strides in development of NAC as valuable organ of consultation. There remains much to do, but can take satisfaction in development that has already taken place. Secretary stated that U.S. policies regarding possible use of force are quite well known, as they are embodied in published documents, such as treaties. U.S. is prepared to expound all of its policies in NAC and to heed reasoned advice and counsel our partners concerning them. Stressed that work of a consultative body must be done primarily in advance of events calling for action, since in latter case action is required and it may well be impossible consult in advance of taking action. Emphasized that through consultation undertaken in spirit partnership and cooperation, NATO members can come to know each others’ policies and weigh them in advance. This unique process is making NATO more than military alliance. NATO has made enormous progress this direction since report of Three Wise Men under Spaak’s wise and vigorous leadership.³ Secretary expressed to Spaak appreciation of U.S. Government for these developments.

3. Wigny (Belgium) expressed appreciation his government for Secretary’s generous statement. He then developed at some length thesis that aggression may be result of events outside NATO area, and that NATO nations might be drawn in war as result such aggression. Political consultation cannot be confined to NATO area. Must try achieve common policies and make advance plans to counter Soviet initiatives. Suggested there might be “regional groups” within NATO, comprising countries most concerned with particular areas of world, with SecGen represented. These would consult with full Council.

4. Lange (Norway) joined with others in congratulating Spaak on his report. Definite progress in implementing report Three Wise Men. Much remains be done however. NATO is developing habit of consultation, which is time-consuming process. Problem not primarily one of machinery. Consultation cannot be limited to NATO area but must remember NATO created defend particular geographical area. Primary purpose consultation is to arrive at agreed position on primary task of Alliance, which is to defend NATO area. Cannot expect identity of views among NATO nations on other areas, since no identity of interests. Consultation not exclusively NATO function, since there are bilateral consultations in capitals and inside other organizations, such as UN. NATO cannot be “directorate” over other bodies such as SEATO, but should be kept informed. Welcomed Secretary’s statement on discussing U.S. policies in NATO. Warned against too many expert committees or “bureaucracy” in consultation field. Perhaps a member country could prepare position paper on particular subject for discussion in NAC.

5. Krag (Denmark) welcomed strengthening political consultation and Secretary’s statement. Agreed with emphasis on timely consultation before events occur.

6. Smith (Canada) said he valued opportunity for really private consultation in NATO. “Middle powers” like Canada do not have responsibilities and interests of major powers but all share burden of risk in modern world. Welcomed Secretary’s statement and opportunity express views in NAC. Silence in NAC does not necessarily mean assent or indifference. Sometimes views best expressed other channels. Common policies not always aim of consultation, and lack of agreement in certain cases does not mean failure of consultation those cases, since disclosure attitudes can serve most useful purpose. Expression of views in NAC involves some responsibility, but not military or political commitments beyond NATO treaty.

7. Couve (France) said France supports political consultation, success of which does not depend on machinery but rather on habits and traditions. Essential thing is spirit in which undertaken.

8. Fanfani (Italy) made point NATO faces direct and indirect risks. All important situations concern NATO and all members have interest in having such matters discussed in NATO. Content of a situation, not geographical location, should be criterion for deciding what matters to be discussed in NAC. Recognized consultation must not be factor of delay in urgent situations. Results of restricted discussions should be submitted to full Council for consultation. Said powers with wide responsibilities should participate in all ad hoc committees. Did not favor Atlantic Study Institute.⁴ Spoke of need coordinate NATO’s “political orientation” and also work in information field. Suggested Spaak sum up this discussion on Agenda Item I in document which Ministers could approve December 17 as directive to Permanent Council.

9. Zorlu (Turkey) supported wide political consultation, particularly as regards Middle East.

10. Lloyd (United Kingdom) said agreed with almost everything already said. Purpose consultation is to obtain reactions other countries and harmonize policies. Agreed consultation should extend beyond NATO area, mentioning United Kingdom and Turk interest in consultation on threat in Middle East. Certain limitations on NATO consultation, such as question time in Commons and speed of events. Subject these reservations, the more consultation the better. Agreed Spaak should produce a formal summing-up as guide to future.

[3 paragraphs (26 lines of source text) not declassified]

14. Averoff (Greece) speaking of Cyprus, said crisis is over, thanks to efforts of Spaak and Permanent Council. Went on to say Spaak report on political consultation admirable and progress in past year is encouraging. Stressed necessity bring matters to Council on timely basis. Sometimes it has seemed major powers submit questions as a formality. However, does not ask for too much in one fell swoop. Was worried that ad hoc committees might hamper consultation in Permanent Council.

15. Spaak, in conclusion, said things were going well in field political consultation. He needed time consider discussion under this agenda item. Noted that his report was only interim report and suggested he might, in April, draw up another progress report. Meanwhile, this meeting could note in communiqué progress made in political consultation and desire member countries continue and improve process.

16. Discussion this subject ended at 5 p.m.

0. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 396.1–PA/12–1758. Secret. Transmitted in two sections. Pouched to the other NATO capitals and Moscow.
1. The verbatim (C–VR(58)62) and summary (C–R(58)62) records of this session, both dated December 16, are ibid., Conference Files: Lot 64 D 560, CF 1168.
2. Text of the Secretary’s remarks on the activities reflected in Spaak’s report is ibid., CF 1176.
3. Regarding the Report of the Committee of Three on Non-Military Cooperation in NATO, see footnote 4, Document 139.
4. Reference presumably is to various proposals for creation of an Atlantic Institute, which an Atlantic Congress subsequently organized by the Conference of NATO Parliamentarians in London June 4–10, 1959, recommended. The Atlantic Institute with provisional headquarters in Milan, Italy, was founded in January 1961 and moved to permanent headquarters in Paris in November 1961.