Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XIII, Western Europe Region

139. Circular Telegram From the Department of State to the Mission to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and European Regional Organizations¹

Washington, March 8, 1966, 6:40 p.m.

1646. Deliver Amb. Cleveland by 8 am, March 9. NATUS. Ref: Paris 5541 [5561].²

1. Formal receipt De Gaulle letter to President³ requires US take cognizance in NAC of French position on NATO and on US installations in France. De Gaulle letter itself is not bill of particulars, but general declaration of policy and intentions putting US on notice of French terms of reference for discussions to come rather than initiating those discussions. Immediate focus must therefore be on tone and content President’s reply rather than premature implementation specific contingency plans.

2. In dealing with situation, US objectives are:

a. Communicate seriousness with which US views potentialities of situation.

b. Leave no doubt as to our view that entire Alliance involved.

c. Make clear that Alliance business can proceed regardless of France.

d. Retain maximum flexibility to deal with specifics of situation as they may later develop.

3. Department believes that NAC meeting March 9 would make sham of Council if no cognizance were taken of De Gaulle letter. At same time, Dept unwilling commit self specifically to NAC as principal forum for future Alliance consultation on all aspects situation as it emerges. (De Gaulle letter strongly suggests that France will remain at Council table.) Time, moreover, prevents obtaining assurance that other Allies will be ready at March 9 NAC to espouse any sharply defined US position.

4. In order meet objectives of Para 2 above, you are therefore instructed consult with Roberts prior March 9 NAC, handing him text of De Gaulle-JOHNSON letter and seeking his support for following line at meeting:

a. Roberts would open meeting by announcing he is informed that certain members of Alliance have received communications from Government of France of serious concern to entire Alliance. Roberts then would call upon you to speak. You should make following statement:

“My Government has instructed me to inform the Council that it has received a communication from a government signatory to the North Atlantic Treaty, the Government of France. This communication raises serious questions for the Alliance. My govt will wish to consult its Allies re the general views of the French Govt as expressed in the communication and re the specific concerns of the French Govt when they are made known, since the questions raised are of vital interest to all of them.”

b. Roberts would then call upon any other PermReps who are prepared to make statements. When such statements have been made, Roberts would propose that Council move on to formal agenda, including Vietnam briefing, thus preserving the appearance of business as usual.⁴

5. FYI. We do not wish to take a decision to make NAC the immediate focus of further consultations on the developing French/NATO problem, particularly since France itself is a participant in the NAC. At the present point, this subject is a matter of communications and discussions at highest levels among capitals and for time being we wish to retain option of proceeding in this manner. End FYI.

6. With respect to meeting, we understand De Staercke has called for Friday to discuss UK draft declaration,⁵ you should be aware of our strong desire to let the British take the lead on this question. As you know, we are prepared to accept the declaration as it stands.

7. Foregoing instructions take account of Cleveland telcons with Secretary and Under Secretary.⁶

Rusk

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, DEF 4 NATO. Secret; Immediate; Exdis. Drafted by Richard W. Boehm (EUR/RPM) on March 7; cleared by Spiers, Leddy, and Thompson; and approved by Ball. Repeated to the other NATO capitals.
2. Document 136.
3. Document 137.
4. At the NAC meeting on March 9, Cleveland made the statement along the suggested lines at the invitation of acting Secretary General Roberts. All of the other delegations agreed that the French proposal was a matter of common concern which required consultations. (Telegram 5641 from Paris, March 9; Department of State, Central Files, DEF 4 NATO)
5. On March 7, the British Ambassador discussed the continuing validity of NATO with Rusk and gave him a draft declaration by the 14 NATO governments confirming this view. (Circular telegrams 1691 and 1692, March 8; ibid.) The draft declaration was discussed at meetings of the 14 Permanent Representatives on March 11, 12, and 14, and finally approved on March 18. For its text, see American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1966, p. 321.
6. A memorandum of Cleveland’s telephone conversation with Rusk at 12:50 p.m. Washington time on March 8 is in Department of State, Rusk Files: Lot 72 D 192. No record of Ball’s conversation with Cleveland has been found.