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

220. Memorandum From the Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs (Shuff) to the President’s Assistant Staff Secretary (Eisenhower)⁰

August 14, 1959.

SUBJECT

• European Country Assumption of Burdens of Troop Maintenance in NATO

Reference is made to your memorandum of 4 August 1959 addressed to Assistant Secretary of Defense Irwin, on the subject above.¹ For the sake of clarity in providing the data requested, the following will deal with: first, what we have done to induce greater European country efforts; and second, to what extent the individual countries have assumed or plan to assume such burdens.

In December 1956 the NATO countries were put on notice by Secretary of Defense Wilson that the U.S. would concentrate its military assistance efforts upon advanced weapons, requiring them to assume increasing or complete responsibility for their own recurring force maintenance and conventional matériel requirements.² Subsequent military assistance programming has emphasized this policy and some of the more significant steps taken to induce greater European country effort include: (a) termination of MAP grant matériel aid for the U.K. and Germany in FY 1956; (b) progressive cutoffs of spare parts aid; (c) vigorous measures to stimulate country participation in coordinated European development and production of advanced weapons and aircraft, using their own resources. Since the adoption of the NATO minimum essential force objectives in MC 70,³ we have strongly urged country force adjustments, as a means of generating savings to meet remaining troop maintenance costs.

The success of these programs, though gradual and unspectacular, may be outlined as follows: (1) all NATO countries except Greece and Turkey have assumed responsibility for substantial portions, and in some cases all of their spare parts requirements, previously required as grant aid; (2) Germany pays cash for all matériel and training, except limited special training sponsored in the U.S. interest, which is cost-shared; (3) the U.K. pays for all but limited U.S. training, and certain matériel costs associated with IRBM (Thor) missiles in accordance with a special U.S.-U.K. agreement;⁴ (4) Belgium and Luxembourg are now excluded from grant matériel aid except for certain advanced weapons, and a Department of Defense recommendation of the same status for France is currently under inter-departmental consideration; (5) Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, Norway and Portugal still receive decreasing amounts of matériel assistance, in both the conventional and advanced weapons categories; and (6) Greece and Turkey are the only NATO countries still requiring full grant military assistance, as well as Defense Support (Economic) assistance.

Italy and Germany are now producing the G–91 NATO lightweight fighter aircraft with their own funds; Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands are purchasing and jointly financing European production of the Hawk missile;⁵ and several NATO countries are preparing to produce the Sidewinder missile. Beyond this, some encouragement may be found in the fact that Belgium recently announced an 11 % increase in its 1960 defense budget, and Italy has committed itself to increase its defense budget 4% each year for the next five years.

While the foregoing gives some cause for optimism, much remains to be accomplished, particularly in Denmark, France, Italy, Norway and the United Kingdom. It is our intention within the Department of Defense to continue to press for increasing European assumption of the economic burden, including encouragement of cost-sharing of U.S. produced equipment and increasing European financed production.

Charles H. Shuff⁶

0. Source: Eisenhower Library, Staff Secretary Records, Defense Department III. Secret.
1. Not found.
2. For text of Secretary Wilson’s speech to the NAC Ministerial Meeting in Paris, December 14, 1956, see Foreign Relations, 1955–1957, vol. IV, p. 158.
3. See Document 131.
4. Reference presumably is to the agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom providing for the supply of IRBMs to the United Kingdom, February 22, 1958; for text, see American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1958, pp. 627–629.
5. For text of the NATO announcement of the establishment of a new NATO agency to supervise the coordinated production in Europe of the Hawk missile, June 18, see ibid., 1959, pp. 523–524.
6. Printed from a copy that bears this stamped signature.