Office of the Historian

396.1 LO/5–1750: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Acting Secretary of State

secret
niact
London, May 17, 1950—noon.

Secto 284. For MacArthur.1 Refer Secto 214.2

1.
We are informally advised Schuman agreement on NAT central machinery3 conditional acceptance proposed French resolution (Secto 258, May 14),4 though willing to discuss amendments.
2.
Delegate at official level has drafted counterproposal attempting revise French resolution to be more nearly summary actions taken US resolutions and endorsement things already being done.
3.
Schuman proposes raise his resolution connection discussions central organization. We would propose that any resolution adopted be prefaced by statement that principles contained reflect experience secured thus far and work done as indicated in reports by NAT agencies, and were to guide them in future activities. Would want to emphasize no intention putting duties on new central organization which are now being performed by Defense Committee or DFEC.
4.
In this context would propose revise French resolution along following lines:
a.
Paragraph 1.

“Essential objective of signatory powers of NAT is to insure that they shall be collectively in position to deter and if necessary resist successfully aggression.

This objective can best be attained: ‘by use and standardization of most up-to-date material and equipment capable of being produced in volume;

‘By maintenance of forces available for initial fighting, character and composition of which should be adapted to agreed NATO plans, based on most modern material, equipment and techniques, with view to obtaining maximum efficiency in common defense.

‘By creation of necessary services and material facilities for the common logistic support of the military forces provided within framework of NAT common defense.’”

b.
Paragraph 2 unchanged.
c.
Paragraph 3. First paragraph delete in second sentence everything after “up-to-date”. Remainder of paragraph 3 revised as follows:

“At same time Council agrees that following questions should be examined as soon as possible by appropriate and responsible NAT agencies:

(a)
Unchanged.
(b)
How should necessary services and material facilities be created for employment of these resources should war break out?
(c)
Either delete the clause ‘taking into account economic, financial and social stability’ or along lines yesterday’s amendment to our resolution add to this clause ‘and the needs of defense.’” Prefer deletion as question is one of distribution and not of level.

5.
Preparation this counter draft and this message joint with Defense representative. Appreciate response coordinated with Defense as urgent matter, with understanding present evidence indicates important to success of meeting to agree to resolution along these general lines. This counterdraft will probably be discussed informally in working group this morning.
6.
Telephone or telecon reply if possible.
[
Acheson
]
  1. Douglas MacArthur II, Deputy Director, Office of European Regional Affairs.↩
  2. Telegram Secto 214 from London, May 10, not printed, indicated U.S. thinking on the type of action that the NAT Council might take on reports of the Defense Committee (396.1 LO/5–1050).↩
  3. See the “U.K. proposal” in Secto 267, May 15, p. 103.↩
  4. Resolution on a new NATO central organization. See Secto 258, May 14, p. 98.↩