840.20/8–1248
Memorandum of the Tenth Meeting of the Working Group Participating in the Washington Exploratory Talks on Security, August 12, 1948
[Here follows a beginning paragraph concerning the members’ decision to ask their governments to investigate certain public disclosures of confidential information dealing with the London Military Talks and to take all necessary steps to prevent further disclosures.]
The group considered a paper prepared by the State Department Working Group listing provisions of the Rio Treaty which might be suitable for inclusion in a North Atlantic Security Arrangement.1 Mr. Hickerson suggested that for psychological and many other reasons the Preamble of the United Nations Charter might be appropriate as the preamble for the proposed North Atlantic Treaty. Mr. Hoyer Millar and Mr. Bérard suggested more precise language for Article 3 of the Rio Treaty, which provides that an armed attack against one Party shall be considered an attack against all Parties, and requires each Party to assist in meeting the attack. Mr. Hoyer Millar proposed substituting language such as, “An armed attack against any High Contracting Party shall be considered by each Party as an attack against itself, and consequently each Party undertakes to assist in repelling the attack by military, economic, and all other means within its power.” Mr. Hickerson explained that our Constitutional provision that only Congress can declare war prevents us from entering into any commitment that the United States would automatically be at war as a result of an attack on another State. It may be that “within its power” would provide the safeguards necessary under our Constitution. Furthermore, immediate military assistance could be ordered by the President in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces. In signing a treaty of reciprocal assistance such as the Rio Treaty, the President would obligate himself to take all measures required to fulfill United States commitments.
[Page 213]Mr. Hickerson felt that obligations of the signatory States might be specified more precisely in defining the functions and responsibilities of a consultative organ under Article 10 than in the statement of the duty of each Party if another Party were attacked. Mr. Bérard emphasized that a European country under invasion would have to be furnished assistance with the greatest speed and suggested therefore that the Organ be required to meet beforehand in order to agree upon plans for unified resistance to any attack. He felt that the proposed Treaty should provide for advanced planning by such an agency, as well as action after hostilities had commenced.
Mr. Hickerson pointed out that entering into a pact such as the proposed North Atlantic Security Arrangement would constitute one of the most far-reaching changes in our foreign policy in U.S. history. Therefore, it is necessary before concluding such an arrangement to insure that the treaty would meet with Congressional approval. Acrimonious debate over the Treaty or serious objections to certain of its provisions by leaders in Congress would actually serve to jeopardize the security of Western Europe. Since the Rio Treaty has already been approved by leaders in the Senate, it would be advisable to adopt similar language for a North Atlantic Treaty, particularly in Article 3. Mr. Bérard said that difficulties in ratifying the treaty might be experienced in France if it did not provide for advance planning and immediate military assistance.
There was some discussion of the geographic area to be covered by the terms of the Treaty. Mr. Hickerson stated that the United States position on this question is flexible and that we would welcome the suggestions and views of other countries. With respect to the action required of signatory states in the event of an attack on a state not a party to the arrangement but within the area prescribed, it was generally agreed that the arrangement should provide for immediate convocation of the Organ of Consultation so that collective measures might be planned.
The Group decided to reconsider the subject paper at the next meeting at 3:00 P. M. Monday, August 16, after the various governments represented have had time to study the articles listed. After suggested changes or additional articles have been incorporated, the paper should be submitted to the Under Secretary and the Ambassadors who will probably meet during the week of August 16. A draft treaty would be drawn up only upon instructions of the Ambassadors.
A paper on the Nature of North American Association with North Atlantic Security Arrangement (Agenda Item 4) should also be prepared for this meeting. This paper should contain the conclusion of the Group that there appears to be no alternative to a North Atlantic Security Arrangement in meeting the objectives desired.
- Draft dated August 10, 1948, not printed (840 20/8–1048).↩