Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XIII, Western Europe Region

177. Telegram From the Mission to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and European Regional Organizations to the Department of State¹

Paris, June 10, 1966, 0802Z.

8632. NATUS. Subject: NATO Ministerial Meeting—atmosphere at end of meeting. Ref: Brussels Secto 102, Secto 105.²

1. At conclusion of tense two day confrontation between French and Fourteen, and after agreement reached on major substantive issues, atmosphere in communique session June 9 bordered on bonhomie. Bracketed words and sentences, which on other occasions might have produced fireworks, were abandoned in an atmosphere approaching gayety. It was as if French and Fourteen, having broken on key issue of French troops in Germany and subsequently reaching compromise, were eager to show their ability to agree on traditional issues of kind dealt with NATO communique issued by the Fifteen.

2. In marked contrast to the French behavior in the communique drafting session during the previous two days, when French representatives fought hard to reduce or eliminate reference to Soviet strength and aims, De Leusse and (when he arrived later) Couve lost no time in removing French reservations on language indicting “the basic aims of the Soviet Union” and recalling NATO’s repeated moderation when faced with provocation and hostile actions. Effect of earlier French moves had been to imply main European problems were non-European hegemonies, that tensions arose almost equally from US and USSR, and that European instability was mainly traceable to Germany. French Delegation voluntarily lifted reservations in both instances (paras 6 and 7 Secto 102 from Brussels) without waiting for appeal to do so. The result was a significantly stronger and more realistic communique.

3. When the Secretary opposed reference to NAC study of Danish idea for an European security conference, together with disarmament and non-proliferation, Couve was quick to support the US. He agreed with the Secretary that it was dangerous to raise false hopes in this area. Fanfani and others also supported deletion and the reference (in para 11 of communique) was dropped. (See Brussels Secto 105.)

4. Finally, the para concerning the report of the Chairman of the Special Committee contained alternative bracketed versions; the longer one described the nature of the committee’s work. Couve appealed for the shorter alternative which merely states that further report will be submitted in December. The shorter version, he said, would be “more agreeable” to the French Delegation. The Secretary said since French had withdrawn several reservations in course of meeting, US would follow Couve’s example and longer alternative was dropped. French had asked for this deletion ahead of time, and had been told our attitude would be influenced by how discussion went on communique as a whole.

5. Even though Brosio is not the world’s most decisive Chairman, the whole communique was edited and agreed by Ministers in just one hour, which may be a NATO record. Both French and Fourteen thus made considerable effort to end a ticklish meeting, which did not narrow the substantive gulf between them, on a note of personal and professional good fellowship. The resulting press play is largely devoid of extreme claims of diplomatic victory and defeat. Le Monde’s headline this afternoon is a reasonable summary:

“The Atlantic conference witnessed neither a trial of France nor the disintegration of NATO’s Fourteen.”

Cleveland

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, NATO 3 BEL(BR). Confidential. Repeated to the other NATO capitals.
2. Secto 102 and 105, both June 8, reported the details of the North Atlantic Council sessions devoted to drafting the final communique. (Ibid.) For text of the communique, see American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1966, pp. 344–347.