52. Memorandum of Conversation0
SUBJECT
- Organization of Free World Defense
PARTICIPANTS
- The Secretary of State
- His Excellency, Sir Harold Caccia, Ambassador of Great Britain
- The Viscount Hood, Minister, British Embassy
- J. Graham Parsons, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Far Eastern Affairs
During a call devoted for the most part to Far Eastern subjects, the British Ambassador gave the Secretary a copy of General de Gaulle’s message of October 7 to Prime Minister Macmillan (copy attached).1 This referred to the problem of the organization of world security and to reasons why de Gaulle thought this problem should be taken up again as a whole.
In the foregoing context the Ambassador wondered what means there might be to broaden somewhat the handling of collective defense. Could it be possible, for instance, to organize some form of free world mobile force instead of the U.S. and UK always having to produce forces needed, as in Lebanon and Jordan? It was, he commented, easier to see difficulties in all such proposals than positive means to bring them about. Possibly there could be a US–UK–French mobile division.
The Secretary said that, of course, one should try to come up with some positive response to the recent de Gaulle initiative. It was quite clear that the organization of the free world was inadequate at the present time. One should not turn de Gaulle down out of hand. The Secretary was not sure, however, that a three-power force was the answer as one ought to get away from the great power concept which was not popular in many quarters. Lord Hood interjected that there was also the problem of the circumstances in which such a force could be used.
The Ambassador, in apparent reference to the reluctance of smaller powers to join in such a force, remarked that the Danes and Norwegians, for instance, would be most reluctant to commit themselves outside the NATO area. He had been thinking of other positive ideas it [Page 93] might be possible to put forward. One such was to resort to pre-clearing of policy and action at least in certain areas. The Secretary pointed out that we have done this to some extent although perhaps less of late. Sir Harold pointed out “summitry” as an example and the Secretary mentioned the German problem as having been handled this way. Lord Hood remarked that soon Germany would have to be brought into the picture and it would thus cease to be a tripartite affair. The Secretary pointed out that the Italians were also eager. He went on to say that NATO consultation was helpful but it cannot range over all areas because many do not like to have their affairs covered in this way. There was the device of the SEATO Protocol which gave protection to certain countries in that area but you could not do this without the consent of the countries thus covered. He referred to the Middle Eastern Resolution2 in this context where countries were covered that asked for such protection. In Africa, however, there were areas that would be highly sensitive to such activity.
The Secretary continued saying that a formal extension of the NATO Treaty area would be quite impractical. Apart from the problem of Senate ratification, there would be objections both on the part of those who had to give extended commitments and on the part of some in the extended treaty area. [3–1/2 lines of source text not declassified]
- Source: Department of State, WE Files: Lot 72 D 441, de Gaulle Letters. Secret; Limited Distribution. Drafted by Parsons. A summary of this conversation was transmitted in telegram 3674 to London, October 10. (Ibid., Central Files, 740.5/10–1058)↩
- Not printed. This message, in which de Gaulle stated he did not object to Macmillan discussing his ideas on the organization of the defense of the free world with Adenauer, was transmitted in telegram 3634 to London, October 9. (Ibid., 740.5/10–958)↩
- Reference is to the joint congressional resolution approved by the President on March 9, 1957, which established the American Doctrine for the Middle East.↩