740.5/4–651: Telegram
The United States Deputy Representative on the North Atlantic Council (Spofford) to the Secretary of State 1
Depto 723. Ref Depto 7112 and Knight-Achilles telcons.3 When Neths deputy was approached with two changes suggested in statement given in Depto 711 for inclusion in minutes of Apr 2 mtg he readily agreed that it be made clear “guidance” meant merely political guidance but he was unwilling to accept ref to appeal procedure. He pointed out correctly that USDep had not mentioned appeal procedure at that point in Mon mtg and that had US done so Neths deputy wld have discussed point at length. In circumstances it was decided that record Apr 2 discussion must be merely record of what was said and that agreed minute wld need to be worked out later. Accordingly Apr 2 minutes will incorporate statement in Depto 711 with fol changes: (1) first sentence reads “USDep stated his govt considered word ‘guidance’ in phrase ‘political guidance upon which strategic decision shld be based’ synonymous with ‘direction’ and that he wld be glad to have [Page 126] his statement recorded in an agreed minute”, and (2) last sentence concerning deputy’s acceptance of interpretation agreed upon is deleted.
It is clear from importance which both Wash and Hague attach to “appeal” procedure that this matter shld be definitively settled. While DC 24/3 was approved by council Starkenborgh points out that this approval contained reservation that problems raised in part I (including this particular problem) shld be remitted to council deputies for joint study with mil comite (para 25, C 6–R/1). Since part I also covers SG and MRC relationships which some non-SG countries wld still like to be reopened but which US feels strongly shld not be reopened (Todep 293 para 44), we believe “appeal” procedure problem shld be dealt with as quickly, simply and informally as possible.
On basis discussion with Adm Wright hope this can be done satisfactorily simply by clarification of para 16 of DC 24/3.
Principal Neth preoccupations with para 16 appear to be (1) belief it fails make clear that final power of decision on political matters lies in civilian rather than mil hands, (2) that SG wld be free to accept or reject “political guidance”, (3) that para 16 appears to provide for appeal to mil rather than civilian agencies, and (4) that SG members in acute emergency might act in their natl rather than gen NAT interest.
Wright explains re first point SG recognizes seniority and auth of political guidance from council or CD and that first sentence of para 16 intended to make this clear. On second he interprets “militarily unacceptable” as meaning “military impracticable of achievement” and refers to obvious duty of any mil officer natl or intl to advise his superiors if in his honest opinion he considers an order recd to be militarily unsound. On third point he states question is not really one of “appeal” but of SG advising CD who issued guidance that it is militarily unsound and thereafter reporting to mil superiors that it has done so, the latter having no auth to overrule CD in reaching decision. On fourth point he states SG obviously bound to act in best gen NAT interest.
Starkenborgh in Hague today; Wright explained para 16 to Bakker, Neths No. 2, along foregoing lines and latter believed para so interpreted wld be unobjectionable to his govt if interpretation given some formal status in writing. We requested him to ascertain whether interpretation given was satisfactory to his govt and if so how it wished interpretation recorded.
We will seek to work this out in simplest manner possible and believe one satis means, simpler than getting deputies agreement on wording agreed minute, wld be for Wright as Chairman of SG to write [Page 127] Spofford as Chairman of Deputies along these lines in reply to request for interpretation of para 16. Wright has done draft of such ltr which he is bringing to Wash.