Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, Western Europe, Volume VII, Part 2

187. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in the United Kingdom⁰

June 30, 1960, 1:16 p.m.

9966. Following for immediate delivery is text of letter from President to Prime Minister. Advise date and time delivery.

“June 30, 1960.

Dear Harold:

The ideas set forth in your letter of June 27¹ about our future tripartite political consultations are quite satisfactory to us. Your original suggestions² and the discussion held here in Washington on June 1³ appear to provide a means by which the tripartite meetings of our foreign ministers can be made more useful. I assume that their next meeting will take place this fall in New York in connection with the United Nations General Assembly. The arrangements for this meeting would, in accordance with the suggestion we have all approved, be made by Sir Frederick Hoyer Millar, Mr. Merchant and by whomever the French select for the task.

While this arrangement should improve our tripartite political consultation, it does not meet General de Gaulle’s desire to see such consultation paralleled by strategic discussions by military representatives along the lines he proposed in his original memorandum. In his letter to you of June 10,⁴ of which he sent me a copy, General de Gaulle suggested that our military representatives in the Standing Group could hold talks outside the regular deliberations of that body. In my reply⁵ I expressed to him my doubts as to the practicability of using any part of the NATO mechanism for strategic consultations, believing that our Allies would object. I am sure that this would be the case, as it would be difficult to keep secret such consultations and the very fact that our representatives to the Standing Group were meeting separately to discuss global strategic matters would lead other members of the alliance to believe that we had, in fact, established some sort of inner directorate. This impression we must avoid.

It does seem, however, that we must find some way to cope with this aspect of General de Gaulle’s thinking. It might be possible, for instance, to have talks here in Washington by appropriate military representatives. You and the French might delegate this responsibility to a senior military officer assigned to Washington. The French might, in such case, select their representative to the Standing Group. We, on the other hand, could select an appropriate general officer who has no connection with the Standing Group itself. These talks, of course, would have to be conducted along previously-agreed guidelines, but I am sure that we could work this out.

In this connection, I would like to recall that a year ago we did hold tripartite talks on Africa under the chairmanship of Robert Murphy.⁶ At these talks military representatives were present. Both you and the French were represented by your members of the Standing Group. At those talks the French requested separate and continuing military talks. After a period of consideration we agreed to do this, selected an appropriate officer to head up our side, and informed the French we were ready. They have never responded to this offer.

I think, nevertheless, that we could re-new this offer and I would propose so doing in my reply to General de Gaulle. This may not be the organized strategic planning on a global scale, including the question of the use of nuclear weapons anywhere, which he appears to want. It is, however, a definite move forward in the field of military consultation which may in the end strengthen our alliance. It will, of course, have to be carefully and discreetly conducted.

I will ask the State Department to discuss this matter more fully with your Embassy here with the hope that we can work out promptly a common position which we can communicate to General de Gaulle.

With warm personal regard,

As ever, Dwight D. Eisenhower”

Observe Presidential Handling.

Herter

0. Source: Department of State, Presidential Correspondence: Lot 66 D 204. Secret; Niact; Presidential Handling. Drafted in the Department of State and approved by Herter on June 29 and by Goodpaster on June 30. A copy of Herter’s memorandum to Eisenhower, June 29, enclosing the draft of this letter, is ibid., Central Files, 396.1/6–2960.
1. In his June 27 letter to Eisenhower, Macmillan reviewed the course of tripartite correspondence since his May 25 letter (Document 177) and stated that the British would probably nominate Hoyer-Millar as their representative. (Department of State, Presidential Correspondence: Lot 66 D 204)
2. See Document 177.
3. See Document 178.
4. Document 182.
5. See footnote 5, Document 182.
6. For a summary of these talks, see Document 107.