Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, Western European Integration and Security, Canada, Volume VII, Part 1

198. Telegram From the Mission at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and European Regional Organizations to the Department of State⁰

Paris, March 9, 1959, 8 p.m.

Polto 2570. Spaak tells me the following:

On Saturday¹ Spaak was present at a luncheon given by De Gaulle and after lunch De Gaulle pulled him over to a corner and told him about his conversation with Vinogradov,² De Gaulle saying that he had taken a very firm line with him.

Spaak then raised the question of financing of IRBMs and the French Fleet, and asked General De Gaulle if, in opposing the infrastructure financing of IRBMs, he was not in effect raising question of control of atomic weapons, and whether in withdrawing Mediterranean Fleet he was not really raising question of the chain of command.

De Gaulle’s reply was that this was true. The conversations in Washington have not been getting results and so it was necessary to take the questions directly to NATO.

At same time De Gaulle said he was strongly in favor of NATO and wished to do nothing to injure it. Spaak told him it was difficult to help him because he had not made clear exactly what he wanted.

Spaak reviewed with me how to handle these questions in Wednesday meeting and said he wanted first to raise question of procedure, which is not clear in French statement because they start by saying they are following procedure in CM(55)82³ but at same time they indicate a decision has been reached. Spaak told me, however, that De Leusse had told St. Mleux that decision was fait accompli. Official document, however, is sufficiently ambiguous so that one is justified in raising this question.

Spaak then referred to difficulty in discussing this matter in full Council on Wednesday and said he wanted to invite De Leusse, Frank Roberts and me for a preliminary meeting tomorrow at 11:30 to clear up this question of procedure and ask De Leusse if French could not clarify what they really wanted.

In reviewing course discussion might take on Wednesday, Spaak had particular reluctance with respect to possible discussion of conditions of use of IRBMs.

I said I would cable home about it, but thought preliminary meeting would be useful.

I have in mind fully danger of this bordering on tripartite discussion, but I think it can be kept in nature of private consultation with Spaak at his instigation. Of course I shall be there primarily to listen and, if I speak, it will be without guidance and on personal basis.

It seems to me Spaak’s initiative has chance of being useful and should be encouraged.

Burgess

0. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 740.5/3–959. Secret; Niact; Limit Distribution.
1. March 7.
2. Sergey Aleksandrovich Vinogradov, Soviet Ambassador to France.
3. Not found, but see Documents 192 and 196.