Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963, Volume XIII, Western Europe and Canada

214. Telegram From the Mission to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and European Regional Organizations to the Department of State ⁰

Paris, October 11, 1963, 10 p.m.

Polto Circular 33. Summary: First Paris meeting MLF working group held October 11 attended by permanent representatives Belgium, FRG, Greece, Italy, Turkey, UK, and US. As result extensive informal consultations among delegations and with SYG, as well as several informal preliminary working group meetings, this first formal meeting went smoothly. Military sub-group constituted, with first meeting Washington October 18 under permanent chairmanship Admiral Ward, USN. Germany, Greece and Turkey approved US proposed mixed-manned demonstration in principle and stated ready to participate but at request Belgium, Italy and UK, military sub-group initially asked to consider technical aspects proposal and report to working group. Press release concerning convening working group and establishment military sub-group agreed for use by each delegation.¹ End summary.

At request other delegations, initial session MLF working group convened October 11 in US delegation conference room. US permanent representative, as host, welcomed SYG underlining importance working group attached to his interest and attendance even though NATO not immediately involved in present discussions. Recalled that discussions had been conducted in Washington over several months among five interested countries and that Belgium and UK had joined group at final Washington meeting October 7² when decision taken to shift discussions to Paris. Since present meeting represented continuation discussion already underway, formalities were dispensed with. US permanent representative then summarized agreements as to arrangements worked out in several informal meetings of national representatives, who were all permanent representatives, and in informal consultation with SYG. Only previous formal act had been invitation by Belgian permanent representative to SYG at NAC meeting October 9 to attend working group as observer in personal capacity, which SYG had accepted. No chairman of working group would be designated, even on rotational basis; meetings would be held in various delegation conference rooms with host representative taking lead in discussion. (Comment: Informal chairmanship arrangement arrived at because of unwillingness Belgian Government on instructions from Spaak to have Belgian permanent representative be chairman even on rotational basis and because of desire avoid any procedure in which all permanent representatives could not participate equally.)

US permanent representative continued that meetings would provide for two places at table for each delegation with not more than three additional seats per delegation. SYG would also be at table. While informal Secretariat arrangements expected to become necessary, these would be deferred until shape of work more clearly seen, but informal contact points for communications among delegations would be designated. No formal meeting record would be kept for time being.

US permanent representative said contemplated committees or sub-groups would be established as needed. Discussions in Washington had resulted in apparent consensus military sub-group would be needed, which would work in Washington except as otherwise agreed, would function under the supervision of the Paris working group and would report to the working group. Since it was desirable to proceed rapidly, October 18 had been suggested as first meeting date. Admiral Ward would represent US and Embassies in Washington might be asked to notify him of their representatives and work out arrangements. It was understood that countries participating in Paris talks might be represented on military sub-group or not as they chose.

UK permanent representative said that he was instructed to call attention to conditions under which UK participating in discussions. These contained in UK Government statement of October 1³ of which he read final two sentences. Belgian permanent representative associated himself with UK remarks. US permanent representative observed that all participants were working on “no commitment” basis and Turkish permanent representative pointed out draft press release made this clear. Italian permanent representative read short statement expressing gratification at convening of Paris talks and hope that problems being discussed would lead to beneficial impact on NATO and on European role in Alliance if properly solved. MLF represented important initiative to strengthen nuclear defense European continent and could give impulse toward united Europe within Atlantic Alliance. US paper on “basic elements” was useful working paper. He added we start our work completely free to explore any solution that might appear politically and technically advantageous it being understood eventual political decision reserved to governments.

Sub-groups.

German permanent representative thought various sub-groups would be needed. Agreed military sub-group should be constituted and meet in Washington October 18. Others might be organization and management sub-group, legal sub-group to consider in particular status of MLF under international law and question of flag, and possibly subgroups personnel and finance, etc. He also suggested sub-groups might work more effectively under permanent chairmen. Since military subgroup to meet in Washington and since US has led preparations, he proposed US nominate chairman, with other countries providing chairmen for groups subsequently established. All representatives agreed to establishment military sub-group and to US permanent representative formula that it would be supervised by and report to working group. US permanent representative suggested not be productive attempt formulate precise terms of reference at this time, but suggested working group hear Admiral Ward re organization and work of military sub-group and then ask military sub-group to develop and recommend a proposed work schedule and agenda. Admiral Ward read brief statement (copies pouched Department) outlining in abbreviated form concept of organization and main work components military sub-group. Belgian permanent representative suggested draft list topics be circulated for review and German permanent representative said he could agree that mixed-manned demonstration and MLF war game should be firm items taken up but that other topics should be considered further in light military sub-group shown more detailed recommendations. Italian permanent representative requested following language be included in any terms of reference for military sub-group: “A military sub-group is established within the working group to provide the latter with technical data concerning practical implementation of the MLF. To this end, the subgroup will make a detailed study of the possibilities of establishing the force with the most suitable naval vessels and it will, among other things, make a comparative technical assessment of the strategic effectiveness of these vessels”.

(After meeting Italian permanent representative told Admiral Ward Italy had to urge study various modes in order be able tell their Parliament various possibilities had been thoroughly examined.) It was agreed Italian language would be studied. UK asked clarification of “MLF war game.” After Admiral Ward had briefly explained, UK permanent representative observed this exercise might in itself meet Italian objection.

US permanent representative observed chairmen of sub-groups should not automatically be chosen by nationality but should be particularly qualified for assigned talks. US would if desired nominate Admiral Ward. This was unanimously accepted.

Comment: Prior to this meeting, we, in consultation with Ward, attempted work out with German delegate simplified terms of reference for military sub-group which could be quickly adopted at working group meeting. However, Germans themselves concluded premature attempt formulate precise terms of reference at this time and accordingly at request German permanent representative we did not table terms of reference but contented ourselves with oral presentation by Ward. (In light Italian intervention it appears fortunate we did not press for agreement at this time, but in judgement USRO and Admiral Ward sufficient basis has been laid for military sub-group to commence work without delay.)

After good deal of discussion of other sub-groups, consensus was legal sub-group would be first one needed and that work should progress farther before others named. Since exact scope and composition legal sub-group not completely clear, German permanent representative was, asked, on Italian suggestion, take lead informally in discussions among permanent representative re talks and representation for legal sub-group.

Mixed-Manned Demonstration.

US permanent representative recalled US offer of September 12⁴ and asked whether countries were interested. He suggested per Topol 453⁵ that assuming desirability project generally agreed, it should go ahead with execution by US Navy in conjunction other navies and with military sub-group as consultative and advisory body. Italian permanent representative expressed interest in proposal but urged technical aspects and implications be first referred to military sub-group for study and report back to working group. Commented Italians consider mixed-manning feasible and experiment not needed though they would not object to having it organized. UK supported Italian request for technical study by military sub-group before those WG members who decide to participate decision and Belgium said for “known reasons” probably could not take part but encouraged study. Greek, German and Turkish permanent representatives stated agreement in principle and readiness to participate while willing to have examination technical aspects by military sub-group; despite US efforts to get more clear-cut action, consensus of working group was military sub-group should first examine and report to working group.

German permanent representative raised again MLF war game, stating it was important and relevant to subsequent operations. Assumptions on which war game conducted would have political implications and he proposed assumptions be reviewed in working group. UK permanent representative again raised question of meaning of “war game”, which he confused with proposed US demonstration. Belgian permanent representative observed phrase “war game” had undesirable connotations and suggested better term might be “exercise d’état major”. Admiral Ward made clear that while US would provide computing facilities, all participants would contribute to inputs and results would be evaluated by full military sub-group. Italian asked what type of vessel would be studied, urgent that three or four types rather than only US surface ship proposal be examined. It was left that this point would be among those considered when military subgroup submitted assumptions for war game to working group for approval.

Future business.

US permanent representative noted that purpose working group discussions was set forth in “purpose” section of terms of reference developed in Washington⁶ and suggested next step for working group was to get down to business. Since Belgian unable host meeting at present, German delegation turn came next and German permanent representative should set date next meeting himself or call meeting at request any delegation. German permanent representative asked for suggestions and Greek permanent representative suggested should be informal discussion among permanent representatives before setting precise date, time and agenda.

Press Relations.

US permanent representative commented all would perhaps prefer pay no attention to press but this was impossible in view of stories already being published and unfortunate content of press treatment if nothing positive was done. As for working group meetings themselves, however, we understood it was agreed that content of meetings should be treated in same way as privacy of NAC meetings so that representatives could continue to speak freely without fear of being quoted in press and thus maintain good working relations. Draft press release (Polto 418)⁷ reviewed and a few textual changes made. Turkish permanent representative pointed out letters “M.L.F.” were easily confused with “Mobile Land Force” and accordingly full phrase “Multilateral Force” was used throughout. It was agreed each delegation should release text at 4 p.m. Paris time, avoiding giving impression this would be first of series of releases.

Finletter

0. Source: Department of State, Central Files, Def(MLF) 3. Confidential; Priority. Repeated to the other NATO capitals.
1. Not found, but see footnote 7 below.
2. A summary of this meeting was transmitted in Topol 429, October 7. (Department of State, Central Files, Def(MLF) 3)
3. Not found.
4. Presumably the aide-mémoire transmitted in Document 210.
5. Topol 453, October 10, transmitted suggestions for the handling of a mixed-man demonstration. (Department of State, Central Files, Def(MLF)3)
6. The terms of reference were transmitted in CA–2557, September 4. (Ibid.)
7. Polto 418, October 9, transmitted the text of a draft press release that had been circulated to the other MLF delegations. (Department of State, Central Files, Def (MLF)3)