86. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in France1
6051. Following is based on uncleared summary of conversation, FYI Noforn and subject to review:
Calling at his request May 21, French Ambassador Alphand and Secretary had tour d’horizon in which Santo Domingo, Southeast Asia, ChiCom nuclear weapons and NATO were discussed along familiar lines. Alphand’s remarks about French attitude toward NATO and its European neighbors of particular interest. Replying to Secretary’s query re significance of Couve’s remarks on NATO to Foreign Affairs Commission of National Assembly May 20, Alphand said General De Gaulle had told him that time would be ripe “next year” for discussion of revision of NATO. Secretary remarked that last December De Gaulle had mentioned 1967 as time for such discussion, which perhaps indicates French are accelerating time schedule. Alphand stated he hoped consideration of NATO revision could be handled by “silent diplomacy” and that agreement on changes could eventually be reached quietly and undramatically.
Secretary pointed out GOF continues to stress NATO no longer corresponds to existing needs and world situation but does not state specifically how NATO should be revised to make it conform with changed circumstances. Secretary said it would be most helpful if GOF could give us its more detailed thinking on this subject.
Alphand pointed out France in 1958 had put forth proposals for reorganizing the Alliance but had been rebuffed. Secretary smilingly commented that if France were able to obtain acceptance of its neighbors for those proposals, US would have agreed. Alphand retorted France different from its neighbors in two important respects: namely, it is a world power and has nuclear weapons capability. Secretary said he hoped emphasis France places on nuclear capability as status symbol would not encourage proliferation. Alphand said France hoped its [Page 212] neighbors would not achieve nuclear weapon programs for long time to come but in long run, proliferation probably inevitable.2
In concluding talk, Secretary said he wished to stress we are in no way contemplating use of nuclear weapons in SEA; nevertheless we feel we cannot make commitment never to be first country to resort to nuclear warfare. In case US was faced with fighting 800 million people, use of nuclear weapons could be necessary to avoid being bled to death. Secretary emphasized however that we do not wish war with ChiComs nor do we seek excuse destroy Chinese nuclear capability.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, DEF 4 NATO. Confidential; Limdis. Drafted by McKillop and approved by Richard H. Davis (EUR). Repeated to London, Rome, Bonn, Paris for USRO, Brussels, The Hague, and Moscow.↩
- On June 3, Ambassador Bohlen transmitted a lengthy telegram summarizing De Gaulle’s intentions toward NATO. He suggested that in response to statements about France’s unwillingness to propose specific revisions, De Gaulle would demand early in 1966 a firmer commitment by the United States under Article 5 and revision or deletion of Article 9, which provided for the North Atlantic Council. Since France expected these proposals would be unacceptable to the rest of the Alliance, De Gaulle would be given an excuse to terminate the treaty. Bohlen added that it was also clear France intended, by 1969 at the latest, to have no forces or installations on French soil that were not under French command and subject to French law. (Telegram 6843 from Paris; ibid., POL 1 EUR W–FR)↩