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

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

Paris, July 5, 1960, 9 p.m.

Polto 35. Department pass Defense.¹ References: Topol 2607; Topol 19; Polto 2621.² I had talk with Spaak yesterday on MRBM matter. Pursuant Topol 19, gave him substance US position as set forth numbered paras Polto 2621.

[1 paragraph (7 lines of source text) not declassified]

I emphasized US agreement with Spaak on importance of developing MRBM program in manner to maintain and increase political cohesion of NATO, and said that essentially what US now required was more time to study certain technical matters which would affect deployment problems, and which might conceivably result in sounder and more feasible way of meeting collectively this requirement. Pending completion of this review, we now felt that question was not yet ripe for further Council discussion. I admitted that this suggestion was a reversal of our statement of June 8 (Depcirtel 1514, Polto 2389, Topol 2401)³ calling for prompt Council consideration of this matter occasioned by new technical studies. In answer to Spaak’s questions, I indicated type of studies now going on, but said that I could not predict US conclusions in the matter, which would be based on military and political factors.

[1 paragraph (6-1/2 lines of source text) not declassified]

Nolting

0. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 740.5612/7–560. Secret; Limit Distribution. Repeated to Bonn and London.
1. A typewritten notation on the source text indicates that the telegram was passed to the Department of Defense on July 6.
2. Topol 2607 to Paris, June 28, contained the Department of State’s response to Spaak on MRBMs. On the basis of reactions from various sources in France and other countries, the Department concluded that “there is reason to doubt that Spaak suggestion would be accepted by the French as adequate to bring about their adherence to the NATOMRBM proposal.” The Department was reviewing various other features of U.S. propositions but in the meantime did not consider it desirable to modify Secretary Gates’ proposals. (Department of State, Central Files, 740.5612/6–2860) Polto 2621 from Paris, June 30, welcomed the general line of Topol 2607 but made suggested changes in four numbered paragraphs so that the U.S. position would not be “subject to misconstruction by Spaak or others who would hear of it.” (ibid., 740.5612/6–3060) Topol 19 to Paris, July 1, agreed with the rephrasing of the reply to Spaak along the lines suggested in Polto 2621. (ibid.)
3. Circular telegram 1514 to all NATO capitals, June 2, contained the text of the report of the British, French, and U.S. Foreign Ministers to the NAC on their agreed post-summit positions following their meeting in Washington on June 1. (ibid., 396.1-WA/6–260) Polto 2389 from Paris, June 3, summarized the discussion of the British, French, and U.S. NATO Permanent Representatives on coordinating the text. Regarding MRBMs, France strongly opposed raising the issue at the NAC meeting on June 3; the United Kingdom would go along if it was made clear these were U.S. views; and Nolting, Acting U.S. Permanent Representative, opposed raising the subject at this time. (ibid., 396.1-WA/6–360) Topol 2401 to Paris, June 4, indicated that the Department of State preferred to keep a brief reference to MRBMs in the text but would agree to drop the matter if France still strongly objected. (ibid.)