Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, Western Europe and Canada, Volume VI, Part 1

740.5/3–2152

No. 18
The Secretary of State to Foreign Secretary Eden¹

secret

Washington, March 21, 1952.

I have recently been giving further thought to the questions we have discussed before concerning the proper relationship between the NATO and the OEEC. It seems to me that we are now at a critical point. With the appointment of Lord Ismay as Secretary General of the NATO, and in view of the recent emphasis you and I have both been placing on the need for a strong North Atlantic Council and a strong international staff,² there has, perhaps inevitably, developed among some of the European countries a feeling that we are less interested than heretofore in an effective OEEC.

I believe much of the difficulty which has arisen in the past in seeking to assess the roles of the NATO and the OEEC has stemmed from the fact that many people have tended to regard them as competing organizations and representative of competing concepts. To my mind this is quite inaccurate. Although it is true that the United States is associated with, rather than a member of, the OEEC, I believe the OEEC is in a very real sense an organization of the Atlantic Community. Furthermore, it has seemed to me very important that in developing the closer cooperation between Western Europe and North America, which we all desire, every effort should be made to maintain the strong ties between those countries in Western Europe which are members of the NATO, and Sweden, Switzerland, Ireland, Austria and Western Germany, which are outside the NATO. The connection with Sweden is, I am sure you will agree, of first importance to the Norwegians and the Danes, and their continued active participation in the NATO is, I believe, made easier for them by the fact that Sweden has found it possible to play a leading role in the OEEC. Until other arrangements are made with respect to the Federal Republic, I also feel that the relationship with the Federal Republic in the OEEC is of great importance to all of us.

From conversations in Lisbon and since that time, I have gained the impression that the Ministerial meeting of the OEEC on March 27 will be looked at by many countries as a turning point in OEEC history. If at that meeting your Government and mine indicate clearly their support for a strong and reinvigorated organization, I believe it will be possible for the work which needs to be done on inflation, on trade liberalization, on payments problems and on production problems to be effectively put in hand. If, however, our two governments do not take the lead, I fear that it will be interpreted as a sign that we have written off the Organization. I am sure that you are as anxious as I am to avoid this result.

I understand Mr. Batt and Mr. Draper have recently discussed some of these same questions with Mr. Butler. Although the problem of the relationship between the two organizations is one which will require continuing re-examination by both our governments, I hope you will agree that at the present time it is important that we emphasize the complementary roles of the two organizations and seek to insure an effective joint effort.

Acheson

1. This message, drafted by Camp, cleared with Raynor, Perkins, Gordon (DMS), and Cleveland (MSA), and repeated to Paris, was transmitted to the Embassy in London in telegram 4664 of Mar. 21 with instructions that it be presented to Eden as soon as possible.
2. For documentation concerning Lord Ismay’s appointment and events relating to the Ninth Session of the North Atlantic Council which met in Lisbon, Feb. 20–25, see vol. v, Part 1, pp. 107 ff.