396.1 LO/5–1750: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Acting Secretary of State
Secto 293. North Atlantic Council morning May 17 [4th meeting], discussed strengthening of organization using UK draft resolution [Page 115] (D–4/15 Rev 2) as basis.1 Text incorporates minor revisions in draft in Secto 267, which are in immediately following telegram.2 Acheson, opening discussion, said four aspects required consideration: substantive questions of need for further cooperation in political, economic, and information fields; and organizational question of creation of new central machinery. He suggested all four points be handled in course of morning’s discussion on document 15.
Bevin introduced paper, emphasized need for giving vigorous drive and direction to NATO.
Lange (Norway), welcomed document and expressed agreement with need for continuing machinery, Referring to tasks proposed in subparagraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), wished to make clear that, although agreeing first priority should be given to (a) and (b), others should not be ignored. Commenting on “(e) what further action should be taken under Article 2 of the treaty” he emphasized importance of Article 2 and close inter-relationship between political, military, and economic matters. Recently much attention had been given to problem of economic integration of Europe. Need for European integration obvious but alone it would not be enough. He felt in addition, further integration of North Atlantic community required. Otherwise danger of creation of two areas. He felt it important to regard Europe and North America as one unit. However, at present it was difficult to determine machinery required and problem should be studied. It might be that best arrangement would be a Western economic organization composed of the OEEC countries and US and Canada, or might be better to expand Article 2 of the pact. He felt Council could not reach decision now but should set up a special group to study question or ask deputies to do so. Work should be begun immediately, and accordingly suggested if deputies were to do job that paragraph (e) be amended to read “study and report on what further action should be taken under Article 2 of the treaty”.
Secretary said conclusions of tripartite discussions and subsequent conversations with Pearson had been much the same as that of Mr. Lange, i.e., that no final decision possible at this time and that it was necessary to study question further. Problems were of two types: (1) economic aspects of defense and (2) broader economic aspects of strengthening area generally and bringing US and Canada into close relationship with Europe. With respect to second, answer depended in part on time period considered. Role of OEEC was obviously of great [Page 116] importance in immediate future. President had directed Cabinet as a matter of urgency to review what action required by US now and after 1952. Gordon Gray had been appointed to coordinate this work,3 and Secretary believed it would be useful to work being done within US Government if there were some European organization with which the US could work closely. The question of the long-term relationship was, however, clearly one requiring much consideration.
Stikker commenting on document expressed full agreement with choice of London as site and need for new machinery but felt it should be left to countries concerned whether they appointed a single permanent deputy or designated deputies for particular meetings. He indicated concern with subparagraph e, referring to Article 2 of treaty. He referred to constructive work now being done both by OEEC and Council of Europe, and felt it undesirable to duplicate this work in NATO. OEEC would in any case have to study post-52 problem and he considered that rather than having parallel study undertaken by NATO, it would be preferable to associate US and Canada with OEEC for this purpose. Since role of Germany was obviously of great importance in any study of relationship of Europe to North America, membership of Germany in OEEC was additional reason for study being carried on by that organization. He therefore suggested that subparagraph e be omitted and that instead, the NAT Council express its wish that OEEC associate US and Canada with it for study of post-52 relationship.
Pearson, although recognizing number of organizations concerned with economic problems and undesirability of duplication, stressed importance attached to Article 2 by Canada. Although recognizing that OEEC in some respects a broader organization, OEEC was fundamentally a European organization whereas Article 2 related to North Atlantic area. He did not consider Stikker’s suggestion of associating US and Canada with OEEC necessarily inconsistent with suggestion that Council consider further action to be taken under Article 2. He considered, however, that it would be inappropriate for OEEC to consider how an article of the pact should be implemented since membership of two organizations was not identical. He emphasized a number of times importance he attached to Article 2 and misunderstandings which would arise if no reference made to implementation of that article in a document of this type. Referring to other questions raised by proposed text, he indicated desirability of maintaining flexibility in composition of Council and questioned identifying Foreign Ministers with members of Council as in paragraph 1. Although [Page 117] agreeing with statement that priority should be given to tasks outlined in subparagraphs a and b, he assumed this would not be interpreted to mean that work on these items need be completed before work begun on others. He queried statement that deputies should “have the same responsibilities and powers as the Council” and referring to paragraph on “full time organization” he inquired whether contributed personnel would be responsible to Council or to their own governments. He also sought clarification on question of whether “vigorous leadership” should come from secretariat or chairman of deputies.
Schuman although agreeing with Stikker that overlapping with existing organizations in particular OEEC should not occur, considered that inter-relationship between economic matters and defense made some implementation of Article 2 desirable. He emphasized need for more cooperation between US and Canada and European members of OEEC and need for some relationship which would outlive ERP. Although relationship of economic and defense questions should be considered under Article 2 he considered economic relationship between the US and Canada and Europe should not be confined to Article 2 relationship.
Van Zeeland considered proposed text sufficiently broad to ensure adequate consideration of work being done by other organizations. Although full use should be made of existing organizations, there were questions of peculiar interest to treaty members which needed to be considered within the NAT framework. Article 2 also covered cultural matters as well as strictly economic questions.
Sforza expressed agreement with Stikker’s comments but not his conclusions. Calling Article 2 “one of most precious assets of NAT” he suggested instead of deletion of subparagraph (e) an amendment establishing close relationship between Council and existing organizations in order to avoid duplication. He also expressed concern with language in text giving deputies same responsibilities and powers as Council.
Stikker in light of foregoing comments withdrew his suggestion that subparagraph (e) be dropped and suggested the Sforza amendment be modified. He felt neutrals would object to “contact between NATO and other bodies” and suggested instead addition of following words to subparagraph (e), “taking into account the work of existing agencies in this field”.
Lange accepted Stikker amendment and suggested that to avoid any possibility of duplication deputies might consider subparagraph (e) through a sub-committee sitting in Paris. Lange suggestion was not commented upon but Stikker amendment accepted by all members Council.
[Page 118]Acheson suggested that other points of obscurity in text be referred to a drafting committee and specifically mentioned sentence stating that deputies would have same responsibilities and powers as Council. As guidance to drafting committee he gave his interpretation, i.e., that on instructions deputies should be able to take decisions on questions before them in same manner and without subsequent reference to Council. This was what had in fact happened in two Council meetings held in Washington at which Ambassadors had sat for other countries. The second point requiring clarification was reference to priority of tasks.
Rasmussen suggested addition of a third minor point and referred to points made by others with respect to “full time organization”.
Acheson suggested Ministers have further discussion on matter of full time organization and the proposed “vigorous leadership” before giving guidance to drafting committee.
At conclusion of morning session Acheson suggested Council reconsider question of press conference. He indicated his view that press conference might lead to confusion and that preferable to issue as full a communiqué as possible. In addition, if Council adopted a declaration, chairman might read it to press as a formal pronouncement by the Council.
- The reference here is to the subject matter of the so-called “U.K. proposal” in Secto 267, May 15, p. 103.↩
- The text under discussion in this fourth meeting, referred to below as document 15 (D–4/15 Revision 2), is the “U.K. proposal” as amended by the revisions described in footnote 2, p. 103, and a few other minor changes.↩
- Gordon Gray was appointed by President Truman in March 1950 as his special assistant to study and make recommendations to him on U.S. worldwide economic policies and programs. Prior to this appointment, he was Secretary of the Army.↩