Office of the Historian

123. Memorandum of Conversation1

Washington, December 30, 1965, 3:45 p.m.

SUBJECT

  • Italian Protest Concerning Tripartite Defense Minister Meetings

PARTICIPANTS

  • United States
    • The Under Secretary
    • Mr. David H. McKillop, Director, WE
    • Mr. Jacob Myerson, Special Assistant, U
  • Italy
    • Ambassador Sergio Fenoaltea, Italian Embassy
    • Mr. Rinald Petrignani, Counselor, Italian Embassy

Ambassador Fenoaltea called on the Under Secretary on December 30 to protest vehemently that according to a Le Monde article of December 15, the Defense Ministers of the United Kingdom, the United States and Germany had had a second tripartite dinner meeting hosted by the British NATO Permanent Representative, Evelyn Shuckburgh, December 14 during the NATO ministerial meeting. Referring to the first such dinner hosted by Ambassador Cleveland on November 27 during the Select Committee meeting, Fenoaltea said he had accepted the explanation that the first occasion was “more of a dinner than a meeting” and did not constitute any institutionalized procedure. The fact, however, that the second dinner held with the British rotating as hosts seemed to indicate clearly that the United States, the United Kingdom and Germany are establishing a clandestine tripartite steering committee in addition to the three Working Groups of the Select Committee.2

Ambassador Fenoaltea then gave a charged review of the reasons why any such U.S.-U.K.-German maneuver represented a tragic mistake not only insulting to Italy but capable of producing most serious repercussions there. These included weakening the pro-NATO, stabilizing Italian Center elements, strengthening extreme rightist and leftist groups, creating anti-U.S. feeling while enhancing Gaullist appeal to the Italians, and destroying sense of Italian community of interest with the West Germans.

Ambassador Fenoaltea added that the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy form natural pillars upon which integrated Europe would eventually rest and to exclude Italy, was like cutting off a leg from a four-legged table.

[Page 300]

Emphasizing that tripartite trysts also violate the spirit of a commitment made to Italy in connection with its membership on the Select Committee, Ambassador Fenoaltea declared: “These tripartite dinners must stop!”

Under Secretary Ball replied that frankly he was unaware of the second dinner but agreed with Ambassador Fenoaltea that any policy of building on a tripartite base would be a great mistake and contrary to U.S. policy. Replying to Ambassador Fenoaltea’s assertion that this problem involved a most important foreign policy issue, the Under Secretary said that he would take the matter up with Secretary McNamara and reassured the Ambassador that it is not our intention to proceed on a tripartite basis.

Ambassador Fenoaltea thanked the Under Secretary for his assurances, adding that he, too, might wish to talk to McNamara about the matter on some appropriate occasion.

  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, DEF 4 NATO. Confidential. Drafted by McKillop. The conversation was held in Ball’s office.↩
  2. Regarding the first and second tripartite Defense Ministers meetings, see Document 114 and footnote 3 thereto.↩