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

42. Circular Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in France¹

Washington, October 23, 1964, 8:15 p.m.

733. Ref: Circular 700.² Following based on uncleared memcon,³ is subject to review and is FYI only.

At his request Amb. Alphand called on Secretary October 23 for exchange of views recent international developments. It apparent, however, main thrust of Alphand call was to sound out Secretary on status of MLF and express concern about its realization as alleged divisive element for NATO and Europe. Without being as specific as was French Embassy Counselor De Leusse in his earlier conversation with Assistant Secretary Tyler, reported Dept. Circular 700, Ambassador made clear his concern but without admitting to official change in French line that while France would not join MLF, it would not oppose membership of other NATO countries.

Even after being assured MLF would not be outside NATO but would be new force (rather like 16th new member) available to NATO and under its high command, Ambassador insisted MLF by creating new groups of ins and outs within NATO constituted most serious divisive problem confronting organization.

Secretary challenged this view pointing out current French policy toward NATO has posed as difficult problem for maintaining NATO unity as any other. Furthermore, faced with growing possibility of proliferation of national nuclear weapons programs, continuation of present nuclear arrangements could lead to far greater source of disruption for NATO than if nothing done at all along lines now contemplated under MLF. MLF plus broad international non-dissemination agreement should meet as effectively as possible fears of Soviets and others re German aspect of nuclear weapon problem.

Referring to De Leusse view reported in Reftel that MLF would produce chill in French-German relations, Tyler asked why this would be so in light of declared French policy of not opposing German membership. Obviously discomfited, Alphand evaded direct reply.

While Alphand claimed he was expressing own views and not on instructions, it apparent he pursuing at higher level De Leusse approach as means expressing growing French opposition and concern about MLF without yet abandoning official line of non-opposition to membership of other NATO countries.⁴

Rusk

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, DEF(MLF). Confidential. Drafted by David H. McKillop (WE) and approved by Tyler. Repeated to the other NATO capitals and USRO.
2. Dated October 21. (Ibid.)
3. A memorandum of the conversation is ibid., Department of State, Secretary’s Memoranda of Conversation: Lot 65 D 330.
4. On October 23, Ambassador Bohlen also raised the changing French position on MLF with Foreign Minister Couve de Murville. Citing De Leusse’s demarche, Bohlen asked if the French position had changed and reported that Couve “was not too forthcoming on the answer.” Couve raised some of the same issues that Alphand had. Bohlen told him that if the French were developing serious doubts, they should discuss them with the United States before some dramatic declaration by de Gaulle had unfortunate repercussions on U.S.-French relations. (Telegram 2384 from Paris, October 23; ibid., Central Files, DEF(MLF))