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

270. Memorandum of Conversation⁰

SecDel MC/105

New York, October 4, 1960, 6 p.m.

SECRETARY’S DELEGATION TO THE FIFTEENTH SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY

New York, October 3–7, 1960

PARTICIPANTS

• U.S.
  • The Secretary
  • Ambassador W. Randolph Burgess, U.S. Permanent Representative to
  • NATO
  • B.E.L. Timmons, Advisor, USDel, UNGA
• NATO>
  • Paul–Henri Spaak, Secretary
  • General of NATO
  • Andre Saint–Mleux, Special Assistant to the Secretary General

SUBJECT

• NATO Problems: UN Matters

Mr. Spaak opened the conversation by saying he had had very good conversations in Washington in the last two days. He had found that the U.S. Government was preparing important projects for the strengthening of NATO. They must be tried, in spite of the fact that some difficulties will arise. Spaak suggested that before the military proposals were laid before the North Atlantic Council by the U.S., the President should write to General De Gaulle, Prime Minister Macmillan and Chancellor Adenauer, explaining the proposals. In addition, the U.S. should privately approach Adenauer and seek his agreement to support the proposals with De Gaulle.

[1–1/2 lines of source text not declassified] Spaak said the French position was becoming more and more difficult. Most other NATO countries would be favorable to the U.S. ideas, but there would be steps, the first of which would be the sea-based Polaris. The Secretary remarked that by beginning in this way, some difficult problems could be avoided. Spaak said that France’s problem would be eased, as in that stage there would be no missiles on French soil.

Ambassador Burgess said that last Saturday the French had informed Spaak of the status of negotiations on the atomic stockpile for French forces in Germany.¹ The Secretary said that when the training agreement was publicly tabled before the Congress, there would undoubtedly be further Soviet attacks on the “arming of Germany”. Spaak said it was important to emphasize that it is the Alliance—not Germany—that is being armed. Germany is an integral part of the Alliance. The Secretary agreed and said that while some in the U.S. Government had favored bilateral agreements, the predominant feeling on the U.S. side had been that such agreements would be a divisive rather than a unifying force. Spaak said he agreed fully.

Spaak commented that the manning of the Polaris squadrons would require specially–trained people, and that he could envision that in time, “as a logical consequence”, this could lead to the creation of a true NATO integrated force.

Ambassador Burgess said Spaak has made an important contribution by his emphasis on the step–by–step approach.

The Secretary inquired regarding the discussions in Washington on other aspects of the proposed NATO Ten–Year plan. Ambassador Burgess said that the Department had given to the Secretary–General an outline piece of paper.² Spaak has certain suggestions and the next order of business is to fill in the outline. The Secretary said the question of timing was of great importance. Spaak agreed, saying that preliminary discussion in NAC had not been possible until some U.S. ideas had been made known. These ideas were now taking form. Spaak said he envisaged agreement “en principe” on the military proposals at the December NATO ministerial meeting, and preparatory discussion on other aspects, with decisions thereon at the Spring meeting.

On the political aspects of NATO, Spaak said he thought that the report and recommendations of the Three Wise Men should be reaffirmed, and the process of political consultation continued and developed.³ Spaak said there had been very good examples of consultation, and also some “not so good”. As an example of the latter he cited the German statement last week on trade with East Germany.⁴ Spaak said the Scandinavians, Belgians and Dutch were not enthusiastic. Insufficient time had been allowed for real consultation.

[Here follows discussion of unrelated subjects.]

0. Source: Department of State, Conference Files: Lot 64 D 559, CF 1767. Secret; Limit Distribution. Drafted by Timmons on October 6 and approved in S on October 11. The meeting was held at the Waldorf Towers.
1. In his October 3 conversation with Dillon (see footnote 1, Document 269), Spaak indicated that he had only just heard from Couve de Murville about the U.S.-French NATO stockpile agreement.
2. The memorandum of Dillon’s October 3 conversation with Spaak indicates that Dillon gave Spaak “a very preliminary paper, containing some of our current thoughts on the non-military aspects of long-range planning.” A copy of this paper, as transmitted in circular airgram 3258 to the NATO capitals, October 7 (Department of State, Central Files, 375/10–760), is attached to this memorandum.
3. See footnote 4, Document 139.
4. In this statement, September 30, the Federal Republic of Germany denounced the interzonal trade agreement with East Germany.