211. Telegram From the Department of State to the Mission at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and European Regional Organizations0

Topol 3478.1. Spaak called on Acting Secretary Murphy afternoon April 17 for general discussion, highlights of which summarized this message.1 Saint-Mleux, Burgess and Timmons also present.

2. Spaak has requested that account of substance of talk be passed privately to Acting SecGen Casardi, which Nolting is authorized to do orally soonest. Burgess returning Paris April 20 and can amplify if necessary following summary.

3. Talk turned first to developments since closed NATO meeting regarding preparations for Foreign Ministers meeting with Soviets May 11. Murphy said that in London Working Group discussions British were showing themselves reticent on basic question of Germany, although not with respect Berlin. Concept of “zone” was not popular with Germans. British position on zone remains obscure, although they say they want no disengagement nor Rapacki Plan.2 Spaak reiterated his basic view that key question is how “package” is to be presented, specifically whether there could or should be any agreement on European Security measures without firm link to German reunification. In response to question from Spaak, Murphy said he thought eventually German reunification will be possible (definitive statement on Eastern frontiers might make fundamental difference), and West should avoid saying reunification impossible, although obviously talks with Soviets immediately ahead may not produce any results. Spaak inquired how long Murphy thought conference would last. Murphy said as a guess perhaps three weeks, based prior experience with Soviets.

4. Spaak inquired whether would discuss first whole German question or Berlin. Murphy thought it logical discuss entire German problem first. Spaak agreed, reverting to relationship between reunification and European security. He pointed out that if reunification occurred, conditions affecting European security problem would change, citing Western offer, provided reunified Germany joined NATO, not take military advantage as result withdrawal Soviet forces.

[Page 456]

5. Murphy said that Adenauer strongly opposed to confederation, believing it would be bar to reunification. Spaak said he agreed with Adenauer. Thought Germans, in sending to Soviets their note of last November 17,3 had gone quite far. Murphy agreed. In response question from Murphy Spaak said thought raising of Berlin question only pretext and that basically Soviets hope obtain recognition status quo in Eastern Europe.

6. Spaak said West must maintain troops in West Berlin. This is heart of matter. Went on say that most NATO countries (specifically mentioned Norway, Denmark, Belgium) were firmer on Berlin than he thought they would be. All NATO countries agreed military and civil communications between Berlin and West must be maintained. Real question, however, is with whom freedom of access would be discussed, i.e., if Soviets turn over to East Germany and leave, West cannot insist Soviets stay. Considerable discussion of legal aspects ensued, during which Murphy expounded “tenancy in common” principle, which is good legal base whereby Western powers would inherit Soviet rights if latter leave. Both agreed however that at base Berlin was political rather than legal question.

6. Discussion turned to question high altitude flights Berlin.4 Murphy filled Spaak in on number and type of flights that have taken place, and on U.S. position regarding such flights, indicating we do not and have never recognized any limitation on right fly at any altitude in corridors. Spaak thought both NATO and public opinion need more education this subject.

7. Re tripartite talks Murphy briefed Spaak on recent discussions regarding Africa (see separate Topol message referencing Deptel 3916 to Paris)5 and said U.S. anxious better understand main lines French policy on Algeria, Maghreb, and French Community. Spaak inquired concerning status De Gaulle letter last September,6 particularly re suggested global directorate. Murphy indicated Secretary Dulles had made clear U.S. could not accept directorate. Spaak said understood De Gaulle disappointed over lack “response” from Washington, and it appeared that there might be continuing difficulties in NATO from French [Page 457] side until French obtained some kind of “satisfaction” (not necessarily directorate). Murphy said Joxe had recently told him he (Joxe) believes De Gaulle understands NATO better than he did.7 Spaak commented that French fleet action was purely political question. Spaak said it “ridiculous” not have integrated air defense in NATO Europe and added how impressed he had been with NORAD briefing,7 which showed clearly integration indispensable. Spaak also commented that it dangerous for French make case on their national naval mission in Mediterranean, for some day Germans may do likewise in Central Europe regarding ground forces. Murphy agreed. Murphy said French may intend make some suggestions on NATO Mediterranean command. If so Ambassador Burgess will be informed and he in turn will keep Spaak advised.

8. Discussion closed with general reflections on overall African situation, including Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria. Spaak and Murphy agreed De Gaulle best hope for a solution in Algeria. Spaak also referred to heavy demands on France created by Algeria, i.e., both pacification and economic development. Problems confronting West in Africa need examination by all NATO countries. Said that in EEC economic development fund there is beginning of common policy.

9. After meeting Spaak asked see summary of NATO discussion on Germany, Berlin and European security prepared for use of London Working Group.8 After reading it said he thought it “very well done”.

Murphy
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 110.13-MU/4–1959. Secret; Priority; Limit Distribution. Drafted by Timmons, cleared with Dunnigan, and approved by Murphy.
  2. Following the Ministerial Meeting in Washington April 2–4, Spaak participated in a group tour with foreign NATO officials of several U.S. cities and military installations before returning to Washington.
  3. See footnote 12, Document 140.
  4. For text, see Moskau Bonn, p. 459.
  5. The Soviet and U.S. positions on flights in the Berlin air corridor were presented in the Soviet note to the United States, April 4, and the U.S. response, April 13, printed in Department of State Bulletin, May 4, 1959, pp. 632–633.
  6. Topol 3470 to Paris, April 18, reported that on April 17 Murphy briefed Spaak on the tripartite talks on Africa along the lines of telegram 3916 to Paris. (Department of State, Central Files, 110.13-MU/4–1859) Telegram 3916 to Paris summarized the Department’s briefing of Italian Embassy officials on the tripartite talks on Africa on April 16 and 17. (ibid., 770.00/4–1759) Regarding the April 16–21 talks on Africa, see Part 2, Document 107.
  7. Part 2, Document 45.
  8. Not further identified.
  9. Not further identified.
  10. Not found.