Office of the Historian

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

Paris, October 7, 1966, 1930Z.

5117. NATUS. Subject: NAC Relocation.

1.
Long restricted meeting of the Fourteen under Brosio chairmanship today provided a first full dress discussion of NAC relocation. Full report will follow.2 Highlights in this cable.
2.
Meeting provided snapshot of present state of thinking of every member of Fourteen.
A.
US, Netherlands, UK, Italy, Belgium, Greece, Turkey, Luxembourg and Iceland clearly favor a decision to move, and would be willing to have decision made at PermRep level.
B.
FRG, Norway and Portugal are ready to go along with majority; Norway is relaxed upon how decision is taken, Portugal leans toward and FRG favors a formal confirmation at Ministerial level in December.
C.
Canada and Denmark are not yet ready to make the substantive decision, and strongly favor decision taken at Ministerial level in December.
3.
Arguments used by those who want to act soon were mostly familiar: need for propinquity to SHAPE and collocation with Military Committee; need for assured communication; need for decision before December to avoid undue political significance of having December meeting in Paris; need for NATO headquarters to flourish in simpatico atmosphere; need to maintain credibility NATO deterrent and determination vis-á-vis the Soviets.
4.
One argument not previously stressed was high economic cost of further delay in deciding to move. Point (stressed by Netherlands, Norway and UK) was that if we stay in Paris after SHAPE, AFCENT, and other agencies move out, we will have to set up new communication channels which will then have to be duplicated by later move to Brussels. An early decision to move might obviate some of the duplicate expenses.
5.
Next session on this subject will be Thursday Oct 20. Hope of SYG Brosio and most PermReps is that today’s demonstration of overwhelming majority sentiment for relocating NAC will soften position of Canada and Denmark, whose representatives here do not yet even have authority to discuss the substance of the question.
6.
We will continue to press for early decision to leave Paris and move to Brussels. (There is no objection to Brussels as new site, once decision to move is agreed.) We can then afford to demonstrate some flexibility in procedure whereby decision is somehow formally taken at Ministerial level. But meanwhile our interest lies in driving toward a consensus on the substance, reserving procedural flexibility for the moment when it is needed to bring the Danes and Canadians aboard.
7.
My guess is Danes will be more impressed with the near consensus already reached to move than the Canadian Foreign Minister will be. If Chalfont heard Danish Prime Minister Krag correctly, there may already be the basis for softening the line in Copenhagen. In any case, it is now clear that Danes and Canadians are only real holdouts.3
Cleveland
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, NATO 17–1. Secret. Repeated to the other NATO capitals.↩
  2. Telegram 5236, October 10. (Ibid.)↩
  3. By October 19, the countries in doubt had lifted their reservations of moving the North Atlantic Council, and one week later a draft resolution including the move to Brussels was accepted by the French. For text of this resolution as approved at the December NATO Ministerial Meeting on December 16, see American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1966, p. 379.↩