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

179. Telegram From the Delegation at the North Atlantic Council Ministerial Meeting to the Department of State⁰

Paris, December 18, 1958, 10 p.m.

Polto 1757. From USDel. Subject: Ministerial Meeting on defense resolution under Item III of agenda, December 17 [18].

After conclusion Item II of agenda, morning session turned to IS draft resolution (copies pouched addressees).¹

Summary: After disclosure of differences between United Kingdom on one hand, and United States and some others re proposed British amendment implying favorable consideration of Sandys’ proposal for political level review of NATO military requirements, debate adjourned until afternoon. Only solution to U.S.–U.K. split was proposal not to have any resolution, which was unacceptable to Benelux, so compromise language proposed by Italy accepted by Council. Full text final resolution sent separately.² End summary.

Spaak explained IS draft. Council accepted first and third paragraphs without debate.

Issue focused on paragraph 2, with Sandys (U.K.) leading off with statement that IS text too broad and failed mention some proposals made.³ Sandys referred to his own suggestion to improve methods by which Permanent Council examines requirements put forward by military authorities. Too little opportunity for civilian and political examination of requirements at busy Ministerial meeting. Unable to discuss, e.g., priority between SACEUR and SACLANT requirements. Since there are difficulties in meeting all requirements, essential examine them more closely and make most economic use of resources. He therefore preferred alternative text for paragraph 2 (pouched).⁴

Germany supports U.K. Dutch, however, pointed out alternative draft left out phrase “strengthen NATO defense effort”, and it is imperative to tell parliaments that this is purpose of whole exercise. Suggested Permanent Council agree Defense Ministers prepare NAC Ministerial meetings as reply to Sandys’ complaint. Strongly preferred original draft.

U.S. (Secretary McElroy) made strong statement regretting necessity disagree with U.K. Much concerned at alternative proposal. Alternative seems to imply lack of confidence by governments in military requirements established by MC–70 at time when should be very clear particularly in light Berlin that our emphasis is on belief in soundness of requirements. Must not now add to doubts that military forces can be kept in being. Ministers yesterday gave clear evidence efforts being made by all to meet requirements. Secretary particularly praised Italy. Much better to stand fast so far as requirements go, give Secretary General approval to make trips to capitals, and observe whether situation may not be more favorable before any decision taken. Alternative draft implies that military requirements be reviewed under political auspices.

Belgium said U.S. arguments changed their minds and they now felt U.K. proposal adulterated text. U.K. idea gives more stress to questioning needs of Alliance and fails to meet Belgium point of yesterday re special problem for smaller countries.⁵

Canada proposed adding to IS draft that part of U.K. alternative language “to study ways of improving the methods for the examinations by the Council of the military requirements submitted to it”.

Portugal supported, but U.S. said same question still remained.

After some give and take on this issue, Belgium then proposed to drop reference to “coordination” in paragraph 2 of IS draft, saying that since “integration” unacceptable (to French) word “coordination” should not appear as it might preclude consideration of integration. Canadian solution reflected in re-draft (RDC58/443 Revised) (pouched)⁶ which was before Council afternoon recess.

3 p.m. session⁷ opened with U.S. statement that in order to resolve conflict re paragraph 2, and since Canadian idea implied doubts as to MC–70 validity at time when strength of Alliance under test, and since SecGen already has authority to make visits and Permanent Council authority undertake any studies without ministerial direction, U.S. and U.K. proposed no resolution be issued. Dutch opposed strongly, saying they must tell story of NATO action on their proposal to parliament. Urged Canadian amendment be deleted. Ministers should direct Council.

Sandys said that while question of procedure and examination of military requirements by Permanent Council of great importance, it need not go into resolution. However, could not just omit this one point and refer to others in resolution. Belgium strongly supported Dutch. Turkey said that if suggestion of one minister included, suggestion of all should be included. U.K. then proposed that in lieu of paragraph 2, resolution invite Permanent Council to examine and report on suggestions made by different delegations in debate. U.S. replied that would be too general to meet U.S. views, and believed U.S. alternative suggestion which might be put forward would certainly not meet U.K. views. Therefore proposed Council return to original paragraph 2 or drop resolution.

Spaak supported having resolution. Spaak said MC–70 was not in question as it was already accepted by yesterday’s resolutions. But no one had said could carry requirements out and military situation is serious and we cannot close eyes to problems.

Italians proposed to delete all detail from paragraph 2 and merely invite Permanent Council to pursue actively study of measures to strengthen NATO defense efforts in light of statements made by ministers.

Spaak asked U.S. what danger it saw. Secretary McElroy replied issue very simple. MC–70 and military requirements for future should be prepared by qualified military experts. Proposal indicates to us that there would be imposed on top of that a political judgment of individuals who with the best intent in the world have no similarly military capability to pass judgment.

Spaak recognized question whether Alliance could follow pattern of individual nations in having political review of military statement of requirements was very important, but felt it would be mistake to indicate system could not be improved. Sandys said he wished to make clear U.K. had no doubts as to validity of MC–70. Spaak again referred to text of AR resolution in which nations had committed themselves to do best possible to meet MC–70. Council then accepted Italian formula.

0. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 396.1–PA/12–1858. Secret. Repeated to London and pouched to the NATO capitals.
1. Transmitted in Polto A–410 from Paris, December 19. (ibid., 396.1–PA/12–1958)
2. See Document 180.
3. [Text not declassified]
4. [Text not declassified]
5. See Document 173.
6. RDC58/443 Revised has not been found but is presumably the same as the revised text of paragraph 2 of the draft resolution, which was placed before the December 18 afternoon session, [text not declassified]
7. The verbatim (C–VR(58)67) record of this session, dated December 18, is in Department of State, Conference Files: Lot 64 D 560, CF 1178. No summary record of this session has been found.