Office of the Historian

205. Memorandum of Conversation1

US/MC/5
New York, September 19, 1966, 5 p.m.

SECRETARY’S DELEGATION TO THE TWENTY-FIRST SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY

New York, September–October 1966

SUBJECT

  • Relocation of NAC (Part I of V)2

PARTICIPANTS

  • U.S.
    • The Secretary
    • Mr. Bertus Wabeke, EUR
    • Mr. Neil Seidenman, Interpreter
  • Foreign
    • H.E. Amintore Fanfani, Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs
    • H.E. Egidio Ortona, Secretary General of Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
    • H.E. Piero Vinci, Italian PermRep to the UN
    • H.E. Sergio Fenoaltea, Italian Ambassador to the US

Following a brief discussion of a paper submitted by the Italians on the technological gap between the US and Europe,3 the Secretary raised the issue of the relocation of NAC. The Secretary recalled that at the Brussels Meeting he had expressed a strong preference for keeping NAC and SHAPE together. Since then the attitude of the French towards NATO has been clarified in many directions: they have withdrawn support of military budgets;4 they have placed severe limits on coordinating policy on French troops in Germany; they have stated that not one ton of NATO supplies is to remain in France; they have given no assurance that the pipeline can continue to function. The basic explanation for this attitude would appear to be that De Gaulle wants to be able to stand aside from NATO in the event of a crisis. Should this happen and NAC remain in Paris, this could be embarrassing to the French and cause difficulties for NATO. On balance, therefore, the Secretary favors moving NAC out [Page 469] of Paris. The Secretary suggested that such a decision might be taken by the PermReps, obviating the need for a Foreign Ministers Meeting. The Secretary stated he would discuss the matter with the Canadian and Danish Foreign Ministers and explore if a consensus exists. It is preferable that NAC move of its own volition rather than be thrown out.

Minister Fanfani stated in reply that he had never questioned the need for SHAPE and NAC to be located together. He had merely wanted to defer the decision in order not to cause bitterness on the part of the French. This, however, was now a thing of the past. As to procedure, he recalled that he had sent a telegram to Paris suggesting that the 14 Standing Members continue to meet and decide on a proposal to submit to the Ministers. While Italy would not object if the 14 PermReps were to take the matter into their own hands, Fanfani emphasized that once the decision to move had been taken, the Allies should get out of Paris promptly, preferably before December.

  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, NATO 17–1. Confidential. Approved in S on September 23. The conversation was held in the Secretary of State’s suite at the Waldorf Towers.↩
  2. Parts II–V dealt with Vietnam, nuclear fuel, disarmament, and U Thant. (Ibid., Conference Files: Lot 67 D 586, CF 83)↩
  3. Not found.↩
  4. On September 7, de Leusse announced that France would contribute to the NATO general military budget. (Telegram 3123 from Paris, September 7; Department of State, Central Files, NATO 6–2 FR)↩