740.5/12–1854: Telegram
The United States Delegation at the North Atlantic Council Meeting to the Department of State
Secto 21. Subject: NAC Discussion of Item IV1 in Restricted Session, December 17.
To focus discussion, Ismay introduced MC 48 with following draft resolution which he said had been prepared by international staff and others:
“The council approves the report MC 48 as a basis for planning and preparations by the NATO military authorities, noting that this approval [Page 558] does not involve the delegation of responsibility of governments for putting the plans into action in the event of hostilities.”
The Secretary then made statement supporting draft resolution in which he pointed out that NATO had always sought a defense so adequate that it would, in fact, operate as a deterrent to war. He emphasized that program set forth in MC 48 would also, in opinion of NATO military authorities, permit of an effective forward strategy and would constitute an actual defense so that there would not be the necessity of future liberation. Turning to question of whether and how capabilities to be created under MC 48 would be put into action in event of hostilities, Secretary recognized problem matter of concern to all free nations which historically have always desired that responsibility for belligerent action basically be in control of civil branch of government. Pointed out that in US responsibility in this matter vested in President. Concluding, Secretary said he thought draft resolution made amply clear that approval of MC 48 would not involve delegation of responsibility of governments for putting plans into action in event of hostilities and indicated that the US strongly approved of adoption of MC 48 for purposes of planning and preparation by NATO military authorities.
French Defense Minister Temple supported draft resolution since it gave military authorities freedom to continue their planning for reorganizing of their forces in light of possible use of atomic weapons and since it left responsibility to political authorities to decide whether these atomic weapons were to be used.
Italian Foreign Minister Martino said he approved. Agreed with Secretary was essential to make clear decisions to use atomic weapons be left with governments. Added he believed approval of MC 48 should be subject to limitation that it apply only so long as no convention limiting armaments and use of atomic weapons were universally agreed. Believed that NAC affirmation of a desire to limit and control armaments would be favorably received by public opinion.
Speaking on behalf Greece, Permanent Representative Exintaris said his government not only approved MC 48 but that he also had instructions to say his government was in favor of enlarging the powers of Supreme Commander. He had no comment to make regarding the draft resolution.
Pearson, Canada, said that his delegation was heartily in favor of draft resolution which he hoped could be accepted unanimously so as to put an end to what he described as an unfortunate public controversy on this question. He identified himself as being among those who had had some doubt about the wisdom of the wording of one or two paragraphs in MC 48 and specifically as to the advisability of the wording of paragraph 37. These doubts had not arisen from a desire to restrict in any way those who had responsibility for planning collective [Page 559] defense; they had arisen from the idea that the wording of paragraph 37 might have created the impression that any hostile move of any kind would be met by the use of thermo-nuclear weapons. He thought the draft resolution satisfactorily disposed of these doubts.
Netherlands Foreign Minister Beyen expressed admiration for draft resolution which he considered conveyed right view of very delicate and difficult matter. Identified himself with concern Canadian Foreign Minister had expressed regarding question of publicity. In addition, thought it might be useful for Foreign Ministers to come to some broad understanding as to what they would say in parliaments if they had to speak of matter more in detail.
Portuguese Foreign Minister Cunha welcomed draft resolution and noted that the problem of determining how decisions would be made as to whether atomic weapons were to be used would require considerable study.
Norwegian Foreign Minister Lange accepted resolution and associated himself with statements by Canadian and Dutch Foreign Ministers on presentational aspect both to public and to Parliaments.
Eden then suggested that the word “the” be inserted in front of the word “responsibility” and deleted from its place in front of the word “plans”. He believed this would help in presenting the matter publically since no one would be able to answer questions as to what MC 48 says but they could indicate that whatever it does say the responsibility of governments remains.
After the Danish and Belgian delegates had supported the draft resolution, Pearson suggested adding the word “defense” before the word “plans” in the last line to indicate those were the only plans NATO had in mind. The Secretary then suggested that the word “defense” should not modify the word “plans” in the last line because in the event of hostilities our plans might not be purely defensive. Suggested instead the word “defense” should be inserted in the first line to modify “planning and preparations”. Ismay then said it had been suggested to him it might be better to use the word “aggression” instead of the word “hostilities”. The Secretary opposed this on the ground that nobody has yet been able to define agrression.
The council then approved MC 48, instructed the communiqué drafting committee to prepare a paragraph or paragraphs to be included in a final communiqué or in a separate communiqué making clear the unanimous agreement of the council of MC 48 and agreed that the press should be informed the subject had been discussed and that the results of the discussion would appear in a communiqué.2