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

66. Circular Telegram From the Department of State to the Posts in the NATO Capitals¹

Washington, December 20, 1964, 11:18 a.m.

1152. We are making following points in response to diplomatic and other inquiries re our views on NATO Ministerial Meeting.²

1. As Secretary said to press, NATO members are today more secure and more prosperous than ever before. This is measure of NATO success. Despite press hand-wringing over NATO decay, delegations except for French expressed importance of and need for NATO.

2. Contrary to expectation, meeting did not dodge contentious issues. Nuclear problem overshadowed all other matters, on and off the floor.

3. In routine review of international situation, consensus was that no immediate major change to be expected in post-Khrushchev Russia. Soviet-ChiCom rivalry in underdeveloped world believed likely result in sharper Soviet anti-West policy in those areas. Long-run effects of ChiCom nuclear shot assessed as highly important.

4. Press appears to have read too much significance into two military developments. First, it has tended to equate talk of future coordination of targeting of French force de frappe with that of other nuclear forces with agreement to participate in ANF or some similar integrated nuclear operation. Fact is that no firm agreement on French-US nuclear coordination yet reached and French remain wholly opposed to ANF. Second, German remarks at meeting re atomic demolition munitions (ADM’s) [less than 1 line of source text not declassified] have given impression emplacement and use of such devices much closer to realization than is evidently the fact. While use of ADM’s is prominent feature in recent German views on NATO strategy, subject is still under intensive study by US and German military as result McNamara-von Hassel November talks.³

5. Discussions on ANF-MLF resulted in rough threefold division of positions. At one wing French did not conceal their opposition to this and other measures of Atlantic integration; on other side major ANF proponents defended its utility; middle group of Canada, Scandinavian countries and Belgium indicated they were satisfied with present situation. Latter group worried at divisive effect of ANF discussion outside NATO forum. Germans, Italians and Dutch pressed for mixed-manned surface force, in private discussions; together with UK and US they agreed tentatively on high-level multilateral meeting, perhaps at end of January, to work out general lines of ANF.

6. Debate on NATO strategy showed growing recognition all-out general nuclear exchange not suitable way of meeting crisis situations. Also showed increasing comprehension of need for flexible, non-nuclear response to most likely contingencies of unpremeditated, smaller-scale conflict. However French are still unyielding on trip-wire concept. Continuation of NATO Force Planning Exercise as agreed at meeting provides best means of bringing about modernization of NATO strategic concept.

7. Secretary’s high-level talks with French produced better atmosphere, but little change in substantive positions. On other hand, Franco-German relations deteriorated as result French refusal to agree to quadripartite communique stressing time had come for initiative on reunification. (You will recall Germans issued communique stating French had not approved it.) In meetings, French were isolated on approach to NATO in general, and to some extent on strategic problems.

Posts authorized draw on foregoing as appropriate.

Ball

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, NATO 3 FR(PA). Confidential. Drafted by Popper on December 19, cleared in draft by Schaetzel and in part by DOD, and approved by Tyler. Repeated to USUN and three military commands.
2. The 34th NATO Ministerial Meeting was held in Paris December 15–17, and while considering many issues, focused heavily on a review of the international situation in light of the fall of Khrushchev and on Cyprus. Briefing papers, NATO documents, telegrams to and from the U.S. Delegation, memoranda of conversation, and miscellaneous documents are ibid., and ibid., Conference Files: Lot 66 D 110, CF 2462–2472. For text of the final communique, see American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1964, pp. 507–508. A summary of the military questions discussed at the meeting was transmitted in CA–6521, December 24. (Department of State, Central Files, DEF 4 NATO)
3. Von Hassel visited Washington November 12 for a discussion of NATO strategy. In a summary based on a debriefing of Popper, who attended the talks, the Department of State noted that there was wide agreement on such general topics as flexible response, multiple options, and conventionality, but that on many specifics there were important areas of disagreement. (Memorandum, November 13; ibid.)