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

240. Telegram From the Delegation at the North Atlantic Council Ministerial Meeting to the Department of State⁰

Paris, December 18, 1959, 5 p.m.

Polto 1192. Dept pass Defense and Treasury. Subject: Ministerial NAC meeting, afternoon, December 16, continuation of Item II (Military).¹

Chairman announced President’s request for relief of AdM. Wright and President’s offer to nominate successor.²

Spaak praised the performances of Admiral Wright and of General Parker (Standing Group’s Representative to the NAC) and expressed regret at their departure. In inspiring farewell speech, Admiral Wright made the following points: SACLANT’s mission of controlling the Atlantic for NATO is vital; NATO organization must adjust to technological changes and other developments; and the MC 70 goals are the absolute minimum for naval forces. After commenting on the lag in the infrastructure program, Admiral Wright noted several accomplishments, such as the application of atomic fission to submarine propulsion and anti-submarine weapons, the research center at La Spezia, and combined naval planning and operations. He concluded by expressing the importance of the unified NATO defense as a deterrent to aggression.

Pearkes (Canada) noted that Canada’s efforts in behalf of North American defense are part of her contribution to NATO. He indicated that Canada had decided to re-equip its air squadrons in Europe but because of the high costs of modern weapons, could not contemplate additional commitments beyond those accepted by the government. He also noted that the changing threat had increased Canada’s maritime responsibilities in view of the need to provide escorts and maritime aircraft for the Pacific coast as well as the Atlantic.

Moniz (Portugal) noted that Portugal’s defense budget for next year would contain some increases which were significant in terms of Portugal’s resources. He emphasized Portugal’s overseas responsibilities, particularly in Africa.

Gilson (Belgium)³ outlined the reorganization of the Belgian Army, and then turned to a discussion of the problem of maintaining economic and social stability and the need for aid to under-developed countries, particularly in the light of Belgium’s responsibilities in the Congo. He emphasized the necessity for the smaller countries to achieve a greater integration of defenses and a pooling of production.

Handal (Norway) also stressed the need of the smaller countries for cooperative NATO efforts especially in coordinating the development and production of naval vessels. He indicated that in view of the importance of the close integration of European air defenses, his government was prepared to recommend to Parliament that the measures proposed in MC 54⁴ be implemented. In view of the relatively small changes in Annual Review procedures over the past eight years he urged consideration of the suggestions put forward by the Norwegian Delegate for reforming the Annual Review process.

Krag (Denmark) apologized for the absence of the Danish Defense Minister who was presenting the Danish defense budget to Parliament. He expected that the decisions now under consideration would show an increase in Denmark’s defense budget.

Zorlu (Turkey) reiterated the dangers of a détente and endorsed the need for overcoming the defects in NATO’s defenses pointed out by the military authorities. He underscored the need for actions in the logistic field. He noted Turkey’s progress in the installation of an IRBM squadron and endorsed the importance of an integrated air defense. He expressed appreciation for the assurances of the United States, Great Britain and Germany. He noted that like Greece, Turkey had a low national income and continued to devote a relatively high share of her resources to defense. He indicated that Turkey had decided to increase its subsequent defense budgets by three percent but that continued assistance of the other members of the Alliance would be necessary.

Averoff (Greece) concluded the general discussion by reiterating that even the minimum requirements as set forth in MC 70 had not been achieved; Greece is particularly aware of the danger because of its geographical position between Albania and Bulgaria. He stressed that we must all increase our defense efforts and noted that despite the low per capita national income, Greece is spending 6 percent of it for defense. He again cautioned on the need to obtain the essential military strength and to meet our responsibilities in view of the danger to NATO.

General Norstad then gave a presentation on atomic weapons in Europe. He expressed satisfaction with the support given to MC 70, but indicated that deeds were necessary as well as words. He stated that little had been accomplished on achieving a collective balance of forces, but noted the possibilities open to the Benelux countries in the field of collective balanced forces and requested them to set an example for the rest of NATO.

[3 paragraphs (1-1/2 pages of source text) not declassified]

Next agenda point was then taken up on status of air forces. General Norstad reviewed development of air defense in Allied Command, Europe, since 1951 outlining need for centralized authority for integration of air defense and concluded that, in view of weapons developments, it was absolutely essential from military standpoint. He then discussed meaning of integration, emphasizing that it applied at highest level, and indicated many important functions which would be performed as national responsibilities. Guillaumat expressed hope that a formula could be found to reconcile military and political factor and that France was prepared to discuss technical aspects of air defense.

General discussion followed on question of air defense, in which Strauss strongly and convincingly supported Norstad’s view on serious implications of a further delay in decision on unified air defense system. Watkinson affirmed support of his government for principle of unified command, and indicated willingness to reconsider disposition of Britain’s squadrons if this would help in removing present deficiency. He was followed by Visser who stated that it was right and just to give Supreme Commander responsibilities and powers which he needs to carry out task assigned to him.

Secretary Herter made statement which emphasized requirement for instantaneous ability to react; this cannot be obtained, under modern time-space relationships, through loose cooperation of coalition. He also pointed out that continued support of NATO is going to depend upon assurance that funds contributed are being utilized to maximum, and that air defense was case in point.

Andreotti indicated Italy’s support for integrated air defense of Europe, following which Pearkes cited Canada’s experience with integrated air defense system in NORAD. He indicated that, speaking from definite experience, any misgivings about loss of individual sovereignty through integrated air control were unfounded.

SecGen then summarized questions of nuclear weapons and integration of air forces, concluding that we need to know precisely what specific issues divided members. After further discussion, it was agreed that France would examine and comment on papers submitted by General Norstad, and that after discussions between SHAPE and French Government, report would be made in two months on what problems could not be solved and reasons therefor. Norstad emphasized that next move (i.e., definitive comments by French on his proposals) was up to France, since SHAPE could not offer any further technical ways around what had now become political problem. This was clearly understood by all and explicitly accepted by Guillaumat.

Remaining discussion was devoted to question of what statements would be made to press (agreed to say no more than fact military matters were discussed) and to arrangements for next day’s meeting.

0. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 396.1–PA/12–1859. Secret; Priority. Transmitted in two sections. Repeated to London and Bonn and pouched to the other NATO capitals and Moscow.
1. The verbatim (C–VR (59)48) record of this session, dated December 16, is ibid., Conference Files: Lot 64 D 560, CF 1559. No summary record of this session has been found.
2. The suggested text of the message Herter recommended President Eisenhower send Spaak concerning the release of Admiral Wright from his assignment as SACLANT, effective February 29, 1960, was transmitted in Topol 1144 to Paris, December 11. (ibid., Central Files, 740.5/12–1159)
3. Arthur Gilson, Belgian Minister of Defense.
4. Not found.