Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, Western European Security, Volume V, Part 2

396.1 LO/9–2854

Telegraphic Summary by the United States Delegation¹

secret

London, September 28, 1954—4 p.m.

I. Nine power meeting opened at Lancaster House at 11 this morning. After brief period for photos, following procedural decisions were made:

(A) Eden chosen chairman with understanding will continue speak for UK.

(B) Regular sessions will be held at 11 and 3:30 each day. However today Foreign Ministers of occupying powers will meet with Chancellor at 3 on restoration German sovereignty and session will be at 4:30.

(C) Each delegation will deal with own press but urged limit information to maximum extent possible.

(D) Verbatim transcript three languages available each night.

(E) UK permanent representative to brief daily London Ambassadors six NATO countries not present.

II. Chairman made opening statement in which repeated essential points last UK document.² In addition emphasized this meeting was preparatory to NATO meeting and its conclusions provisional until other governments concurred. Congratulated Bonn experts on progress made on restoration sovereignty.³ Also felt Brussels commission made good progress in amending treaty to accomplish addition of Germany and Italy.⁴

Then turned to problem of agenda pointing out have these memos on table. Suggested that rather than have general unguided discussion or attempt selection of memos as basis discussion preferable list subjects on which agreement required and address them one by one. Distributed proposed agenda in accordance this principle (reported separate message⁵). Believed working parties could be set up on any subject where they could help.

Mendes-France agreed procedure by subject appropriate but thought any minister who wished should have chance make general statement giving philosophical background of position his government on particular points. French would like, for example, to do so. He also wished to make IC.2 of UK agenda (“size and character of the German defense contribution”) the first item under C.1 (“arrangements to be applied to SACEUR forces on the continent”). Believe this derived from desire make sure these arrangements would apply to German contribution.

His points agreed. Chairman emphasized no government committed on any item until all work finished.

III. Chairman then asked each representative if he had anything to say. Only Mendes and Martino spoke. Mendes spoke at length but added nothing new of importance except to conclude with statement that package which French Government was willing to sell to French Parliament and chance of success included not only their proposals with respect to Brussels treaty and NATO but also solution of Saar problem and adequate guarantees with respect to maintenance US and UK forces on continent. His statement will be reported more fully in separate message.⁶

Martino welcomed restoration of German sovereignty and contribution of German to Western defense as indispensable. Thought NATO most suitable framework. Accepted extension Brussels treaty, but thought any guarantees under Brussels should be applied through NATO with its practical experiences. Wished support further developments Europe institutions and collaboration.

IV. Chairman called on Ambassador Massigli, chairman Brussels treaty permanent council, to report on its work. He indicated no difficulties in principle and agreement of present signatories on procedure for amending preamble and Article 7 and adding new article to cover future arrangements. It was agreed that these proposals should be discussed with Italian and German delegations.

V. Chairman then moved on to IC.1 in agenda, as amended, size and character of German defense contribution. Chancellor Adenauer said that his government and his people were anxious to remove past anxieties about what Germany would do with power to rearm. Wanted to assure group that this power will never be used except in Europe framework.

Stated his government prepared make binding declaration that size of German force would not exceed EDC limits.

Assured conference Germany will submit to any non-discriminatory controls considered necessary.

VI. Chairman suggested that members would wish to consider Chancellor’s statement, and adjourned meeting.

1. Transmitted to the Department of State in telegram Secto 5, Sept. 28, and repeated to Bonn, Rome, Ottawa, Luxembourg, The Hague, Brussels, and Paris for USRO, CINCEUR, and Reinhardt. A 23-page verbatim record of this meeting, which was circulated as document NPC(54)5, is in the Conference files, lot 60 D 627, CF 366. The list of principal participants, not provided in the source text, was taken from the verbatim record.
2. The British document under reference is NPC(54)2 of Sept. 24, which is printed on p. 1334.
3. Representatives of the United States, United Kingdom, France, and the Federal Republic of Germany formed a Working Group in Bonn to consider matters relating to the restoration of German sovereignty and the revision of the contractual agreements. The Working Group, which began meeting on Sept. 21 and continued through Sept. 24, was established to seek quadripartite agreement on these issues and to prepare a report on the results of their work for the Nine-Power Conference. Documentation on the meetings of the Bonn Working Group is in Department of State file 662A.00/9–2354 through 9–2554.
4. Documentation concerning meetings of the Permanent Commission of the Brussels Treaty Organization, which met in London to consider modifications of the Brussels Treaty and a draft declaration of invitation for Italy and the Federal Republic of Germany, is in Department of State file 740.5.

5. Telegram Secto 7, Sept. 28, not printed, informed the Department of State concerning the agenda proposed by the British. The agenda items were as follows:

   • “A. Termination of the occupation regime in Germany and accompanying arrangements.
   • B. Accession of the Federal Republic German and Italy to the Brussels treaty.
   • C. Arrangements to accompany German and Italian accession to the Brussels treaty and German accession to NATO.

   1. Arrangements to be applied to SACEUR’s forces on the continent.

   (a) deployment and movement

   (b) integration

   (c) logistics

   (d) inspection

   (e) force ceilings

   2. Size and character of the German defense contribution.

   3. Control of armaments production.

   (a) strategically exposed areas

   (b) arms pool

   4. Security declarations.

   5. Possible extension of the duration of the North Atlantic treaty.

   6. United Kingdom and United States declarations.” (396.1 LO/9–2854)

6. Telegram Secto 6, Sept. 28. (396.1 LO/9–2854)