143. Telegram From the Delegation to the North Atlantic Council Ministerial Meeting to the Department of State0
Secto 12. Brussels for Embassy and USEC. Following is fuller report on Secretary’s discussion MRBMs in informal meeting with NAC permanent representatives.1
[Page 412]Secretary explained he wished try to clarify certain aspects MRBM question, without going into question in any great detail. US has been faced with rather difficult dilemma on MRBM issue. We are aware of interest in this question in the Alliance and, after Ottawa speech by President year ago, had hoped NAC would pick up question largely without US. Later became apparent that more facts were needed by Alliance and US tried provide some of this at Athens. June 15th statement by Ambassador Finletter2 further step in same direction.
Secretary also stressed that MRBMs are only part of picture. US is trying move on broad multi-lateral front on all nuclear questions. Secretary also stressed that US wants avoid presenting US plan and that June 15th statement not presented in “take it or leave it” spirit. Sole purpose was to give our views such as they are until we hear views of our allies. We had hoped that there would be thoughtful examination by NAC of MRBM question, process which might take some time.
Secretary finally stressed by no means US intention to kill MRBM idea. Wholly incorrect to conclude this our motive. Citing text of US June 15th presentation, noted that we said there was “not an ‘urgent’ requirement.” We did say that MRBMs would have military utility. We also feel that costs are another factor which must be put into scales by Alliance. Our whole purpose, in short, was to make a responsible and full reply to many requests for our views on MRBM question.
Following points came out in ensuing discussion:
Belgium opened with praise for Rusk/McNamara Athens statements and expressed approval US June 15th MRBM presentation. Stressed two points: (1) Hope all Alliance members will participate fully in MRBM question, and (2) need is to find compromise between exclusive US nuclear capability and desire by Europeans to participate in decisions. US June 15th statement contained a possible compromise to meet these two points. Stressed also political questions involved. Belgium concluded by saying had read US statement carefully and noted that it does not deny military requirement.
Belgium then alluded to relationship MRBM question to Common Market negotiations. Great decisions pending on UK joining EEC are bound have profound effect on Alliance, just as child’s growth in a family often disturbs its surroundings.
Netherlands fully seconded Belgian point on Common Market negotiations and suggested MRBM question not be precipitated too soon, because of its obvious relationship to Common Market negotiations. Would be wrong to overload governments with two such basic decisions as UK-EEC negotiations and MRBM question at same time. Suggested [Page 413] might take several months, or even years, before MRBM/nuclear question could really be dealt with.
Secretary fully agreed on timing of MRBMs, indicating US not pressing. Said we are nevertheless making certain preparations, such as decision make development studies of missile X. Secretary added that we understand fully relationship of MRBM question to Common Market negotiations and future organization of Europe in political/defense fields which might result from UK entry.
Secretary also said Stikker’s proposed order for discussion MRBMs seems satisfactory i.e., discussion of military aspects, followed by discussion of costs. Main US purpose has been to relieve ourselves of any responsibility for holding back discussions.
Secretary said he also wanted lay special stress on importance of buildup in conventional capability of NATO forces. This may lead to certain questions as to relative priority for MRBMs and conventional forces. Fact is that conventional capability of Alliance continues to deserve much greater attention and effort than has been case to date.
Should be noted that UK, French, and German permanent representatives made no comment on MRBM question.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 740.5612/6–2062. Secret; Priority; Limit Distribution. According to another copy, this telegram was drafted by Fessenden and approved by Kohler. (Ibid., Conference Files: Lot 65 D 533, CF 2122) Repeated to the other NATO capitals.↩
- Secretary of State Rusk visited Europe June 18–28. Background and briefing papers for the visit, a chronology, telegrams, and memoranda of conversation are ibid., CF 2121–2127. A summary report on the meeting was transmitted in Secto 11, June 20 (ibid., Central Files, 762.00/6–2062); a memorandum of the conversation at the meeting, SET/MC/9, is ibid., 110.11–RU/6–2062.↩
- See footnote 1, Document 142.↩