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

228. Telegram From Secretary of State Rusk to the Department of State¹

Paris, December 14, 1966, 0236Z.

9061. Secto 57. Subject: NATO Ministerial—Bilateral with NATO Secretary General. Following is uncleared FYI, Noforn and subject to revision on review.

1. Secretary met December 13 with NATO Secretary General Brosio accompanied by Bacchetti (NATO International Staff). In addition to Secretary, Rostow, Cleveland, Springsteen and Vest were present from U.S.

2. Nuclear Planning Group membership. Brosio was worried about Dutch attitude and uncertain whether exhibition of bad temper resulted from grudges against U.S. or was pre-meeting tactics. Luns inconsistently on one hand had said that Dutch might not even want to participate in NDAC and on the other had suggested need for a basic three-year tenure as minimum time in which NPG member could do meaningful work. Secretary said we prepared to proceed without Dutch if necessary. He was ready to talk to Luns but thought others like UK and Brosio could be more helpful in influencing Dutch. Brosio agreed and said he would probe extent of German interest (which influential factor with Dutch always), talk to Dutch PermRep and press British to use their influence. Brosio said he had urged Martin, who had agreed, to talk directly to Luns and try to settle first year’s position between two of them. Brosio asked whether U.S. insisted on six or would go to seven if that was the only way to have committee. Secretary preferred to wait and see what situation required.

3. Belgian initiative for study of Alliance. Secretary reviewed Belgian resolution and said we should avoid phrase “state of Alliance,” which implies it not in good shape, and use term “tasks of Alliance.” Re Belgian draft resolution, he preferred term “situation in Asia and Pacific” to term “situation in Southeast Asia” and thought there should be additional item “the continuing problem of organizing a durable peace.” He made point that U.S. would prefer to have SecGen and Council arrange with governments for an inquiry. This would invite higher political representation from capitals than PermReps although he did not exclude that activities should take place at the NATO Council table.

4. communique. Brosio said that French PermRep de Leusse on personal basis had suggested single communique which would report work of DPC and of full NAC and conclude with statement that French did not participate in or associate themselves with DPC paragraphs. Secretary underlined importance of having clear commitment from the French by the time meeting got underway that both Parts could appear in one document and that SecGen’s rep could brief press at conclusion of DPC discussions. If the French gave no guarantee, then Fourteen should put out own written report. Brosio agreed and suggested that at the beginning of DPC session Ministers should appoint a communique drafting committee as usual to prepare paper which could either be incorporated in single final communique or be issued at close of DPC business, dependent on needs. (See following bilateral tels re this subject.)

5. NAC relocation. Brosio said most nations favored building permanent new headquarters in Brussels but disagreed on interim arrangements. Choice was to lease Tour de Namur, build prefabricated tempo in Brussels, or stay in Paris until permanent building available. There was some opposition to leasing Tour, but cost of building tempo would be more than rent of Tour and he thought Tour was least bad solution. Secretary said U.S. would defer to combined judgment of SecGen and Belgians, and if he recommended Tour lease, U.S. would support him. Brosio said he hoped to work out harmonious conclusion with those most discontented. He did not want to spill blood. He recognized U.S. desire to leave Paris.

6. Italian proposal for technological gap. Brosio explained he had prepared resolution which would refer the problem to NAC. Italians were checking this with Germans and French. He hoped this would meet general acceptance since his treatment would not prejudice division of future tasks between NATO and other organizations.

Rusk

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, NATO 3 FR (PA). Secret; Limdis. Repeated to the other NATO capitals.