277. Telegram From the Delegation at the North Atlantic Council Ministerial Meeting to the Department of State0
Polto 871. From USDel. NATO Ministerial Meeting—December 16 (afternoon Agenda Item two (long-range planning) taken up in late afternoon and Secy Herter led off with overall statement (see separate tel and full text being pouched).1
Secy was followed by British, French, Canadian, Italian, German, Dutch, Turkish, Danish, Belgian, Norwegian, and Greek FonMins, all of whom welcomed Secy’s “proposals” in military field and promised to study them carefully. Most Ministers expressed particular satisfaction at U.S. offer to commit five Polaris submarines to NATO and at stockpile pledge. All emphasized or referred to complexity in multilateral MRBM force concept. Several also acknowledged importance of balance of payments problem.
Lord Home said UK feels time has come for comprehensive study of purposes, control and deployment of NATO nuclear arms with object giving deterrent maximum effectiveness without waste of resources. Study should include questions of permanent MRBM force and of increasing NATO authority over stockpile in ACE. Should be comprehensive and fundamental and include examination of basic purposes and objectives of NATO military policy and best methods of attaining them. Lord Home observed that balance of payments problem equally difficult for UK, that stability of pound sterling also essential to free world, [Page 683] and that relation of currency to defense should be considered in long-range planning.
Couve de Murville expressed great interest in U.S. presentation but pointed to many problems involved in MRBM force concept, he welcomed commitment of submarines and stockpile pledge. Said proposal must be studied carefully on basis of more precise information which will presumably be provided in due course. Also took special note of U.S. emphasis on relation of military costs and balance of payments, and said French fully appreciated importance and implications this problem.
Green emphasized need for study of use-control question. Made strong plea that Council communiqué treat this discussion in low key and make clear that suggestions merely put forward for study and not decision. Communiqué should also include statement of willingness negotiate disarmament while maintaining defensive strength of Alliance.
Secretary responded to Green by making clear that his presentation on MRBM force had been carefully worded to represent only concept for consideration. Said U.S. had never thought decisions should or could be made at this meeting. Referred to his acknowledgment that congressional action would be required to implement concept and said he could not commit U.S. Congress in advance.
Segni made positive statement re MRBM’s, but stressed importance of financial aspects.
Brentano said MRBM proposal would be big step forward.
Welcomed submarines and stockpile pledge as strengthening NATO and emphasized importance of common NATO policy on nuclear weapons. Said matter should be studied in conjunction with military authorities.
Luns welcomed U.S. military proposals and stressed importance, in view Soviet nuclear advances, of continued strengthening all NATO forces and also equipping them with most advanced weapons. Without committing his govt, he assured most careful consideration. Said lead must continue to come from U.S. and hoped new U.S. administration would follow through.
Sarper expressed particular satisfaction at Secretary’s statement that MRBM’s should not substitute for other NATO force contributions.
Averoff emphasized urgent need for provision further details by U.S. and that MRBM program should not reduce conventional forces which are still deficient.
At conclusion discussion, Spaak found that consensus was for referral of matter to Permanent Council, with understanding that concept presented by U.S. would be promptly explored.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 396.1–PA/12–1760. Secret. Repeated to the NATO capitals and Moscow.↩
- See Document 276.↩