325. Telegram From the Department of State to the Mission to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization1
233633. Deliver to Cargo opening of business: Cargo is requested to convey to Brosio as soon as possible the following letter from the Secretary. Cargo should inform Brosio in strictest confidence that similar letters have been sent to the Foreign Ministers of the Federal Republic of Germany, United Kingdom, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Canada.
Begin text.
“Dear Manlio:
Since the invasion of Czechoslovakia on August 20, we, like you, have been thinking deeply about the best response which the NATO Alliance might make, both in real terms and in relation to public opinion in Europe, America and around the world. In the early days of the invasion we felt that the uncomfortable spotlight of the United Nations on the Soviet action should be kept bright and that for the moment activity through NATO should be kept out of public view. This posture on the part of the NATO Alliance has in no way prevented intensive consultations [Page 755] in NATO on the military, intelligence and political levels and has well served its purpose.
But we are now thinking, as you no doubt know, of the need for a more publicly active role for NATO as the UN debate dies down and the need grows for public opinion in the Atlantic Community to be assured that the Alliance remains in place and will continue to be effective despite any changes in the military posture or deployment in the countries of the Warsaw Pact.
The problem as I see it is this. How can we best bring about a meas-ured reaction of the NATO Alliance so that it will be clear to its people that NATO continues with all strength to meet any challenge while avoiding a provocative NATO stance that could polarize the problem in terms of a confrontation between NATO and the Warsaw Pact rather than between the Soviets and the rest of the world—including some of the Communist world.
This is a difficult prescription and may contain within it some internal contradictions. It is indeed for this reason I ask your advice as Secretary General as to what you think we all ought to do.
Our own thoughts at this moment are best stated, I think, by saying, on the one hand, that a visible NATO reaction this fall is required but that, on the other hand, it would be a mistake to call an urgent high-level meeting of Foreign, Defense and Financial Ministers of NATO merely for the purpose of issuing a declaration or communique without real content. Surely we have enough words on paper. Another reaffirmation of what we have said before runs the risk that it would be regarded as an empty gesture in both the East and the West.
From these considerations we have formed the tentative conclusion that it would be best to have a series of intensive consultations on what each of the NATO countries might be prepared to do in terms of a positive contribution to the strengthening of NATO before we reach the point of calling for a full-scale NATO Ministerial meeting at a date prior to the normal December exercise.
A possible procedure, to which we are giving thought and on which the President and I would very much like your views would be the following:
We might begin with a special NATO meeting toward the end of September to which each member would send a Deputy Foreign Minister who would begin the process of consultation on the possibilities for real action later on. This meeting might be followed up by a meeting of the NATO Foreign Ministers under your chairmanship, which could be held in New York between October 1 and 10 when many Foreign Ministers would in any event be present. The advantage of this locale is that it would not tend to have the drama of a Brussels meeting but would provide the occasion for consultation. The Foreign Ministers meeting in [Page 756] New York could then, if there were general agreement and it appeared that a full-scale NATO Ministerial meeting would be productive of concrete results, bring about such a meeting in Brussels, possibly in late October or early November—in short speeding up the December Ministerial Meeting in the light of the new situation created by the invasion of Czechoslovakia.
We may have before us a period when it will be politically possible for each member to take steps that would provide the desired reinforcement of our NATO institution in a way which might not have been possible a few weeks ago. The opportunity should not be lost; but neither should we proceed in a way that would lead to insignificant results or could worsen an already dangerous situation. I think this problem needs our best thought. I would appreciate knowing whatever you may have to suggest on the best way to proceed.
Sincerely, Dean Rusk”2 End text.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, DEF 4 NATO. Confidential; Immediate; Exdis. Drafted and approved by Leddy and cleared by McAuliffe. A typed note on the source text indicates that the White House was informed.↩
- Cargo delivered the letter to Brosio at 9:30 a.m. on September 6. (Telegram 4585 from Brussels, September 6; ibid.) On the same day, Brosio sent through the Mission to NATO an interim reply agreeing with the general procedures outlined by Rusk. (Telegram 4599 from Brussels, September 6; ibid.) In a more extensive reply on September 9, Brosio reiterated his agreement and outlined the subjects and points that should be stressed in the several meetings. (Telegram 4637 from Brussels; September 9; ibid., NATO 3)↩