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

236. Circular Telegram From the Department of State to the Posts in the NATO Capitals¹

Washington, February 11, 1967, 4:07 p.m.

135657. NATUS. Ref: Brussels 3873 (Notal).² Subject: Study on Future of the Alliance.

1. Belgian representatives Davignon and De Staercke met with Under Secretary Rostow February 10 to discuss follow-up to Ministerial resolution re study on future of the Alliance. Other participants for US were Cleveland, Bowie, Springsteen and Department staff members. Belgian Ambassador Scheyven and his staff also present.

2. Highlights, which follow, are for addressees info. Posts should take no initiative. They may draw on content this message if queried re US thinking. Matter should be handled with care, however, since Belgians are continuing to take the lead in moving ahead on this subject.

3. Discussion, purpose of which was to explore respective positions in advance of February 15 NAC session, took as point of departure latest Belgian paper (reftel). Exchange of views brought out considerable common ground between ourselves and the Belgians re (a) desirable next steps in NATO and (b) overall goals for the study. Specific subjects covered were:

4. Confirmation that NATO countries will remain in Alliance after 1969. We agreed with Belgium’s objective in seeking political recommitment to Alliance. We thought it important nevertheless to avoid raising questions of new commitments for fixed period of years or any actions requiring parliamentary ratification. US side considered more useful approach would be to have the study document the continuing long-range need for NATO in terms of purposes (e.g. achieving and maintaining East-West settlement).

5. Belgians showed much interest in this approach. They maintained however that some clear declaration is required at end of the study to strengthen hand of Alliance supporters in Belgium and other countries as 1969 approaches. Both sides recognized this point need not be raised for action at present stage although Harmel plans to refer to it in his remarks at NAC. Rostow made clear U.S. receptivity to appropriate declaration at end of study.

6. Procedure for the study. Belgians outlined their two-stage proposal envisaging broadly: (a) study on improvement of Permanent Council’s work methods between now and June; (b) factual examination of international situation as it relates to the Alliance, also to be ready for June Ministerial meeting, and (c) establishment in June of open-ended group of governmental representatives. Latter would do main substantive work of defining future Alliance tasks and preparing political report for Ministerial action next December.

7. Davignon and de Staercke emphasized that, while Belgian approach partly motivated by practical considerations, chief concern is tactical. They wish to avoid frightening off any hesitant governments by introducing politically-charged questions in first stage. They are also anxious to give French as small a target as possible until the exercise is well under way.

8. Belgians would however seek to have factual examination shaped so that main political issues of concern to Alliance members would emerge logically. This they believe would make it more difficult for NATO members to refuse to go along with examination of policy issues in second or substantive stage.

9. While recognizing advantages in Belgian approach, we queried whether it is necessary or even desirable to await June Ministerial to establish substantive group. Rostow stressed importance of taking last December’s Ministerial resolution³ as firm decision committing governments to participate. He saw potential danger in requiring new Ministerial action in June to set up second group after factual examination is concluded.

10. Conclusion was that we might use February 15 meeting to try for earliest possible NAC action embracing following elements.

A. Decision to implement December resolution by establishing open-ended group under Brosio’s chairmanship with flexible procedures. Membership would be at level each government decided. (We would urge periodic high-level participation from capitals for at least the key countries.)

B. Group would be charged with preparing factual examination of the international situation as it affects the Alliance for interim report to Ministers in June. Same body would then proceed with policy exercise to define tasks of the Alliance and procedures for carrying them out for next December’s Ministerial with no break in continuity; i.e., one NAC decision now would take care of both stages in Belgian proposal.

C. NAC would ask Brosio to commission an independent management study on means to improve the organization’s operations. Permanent Representatives would participate in this exercise.

11. European Caucus. Belgians made clear they are still much interested in some system for consultations among European NATO members. They have decided to soft-pedal matter for the present, however, hoping arrangement will emerge naturally in course of the study. Rostow made clear that US remains sympathetic to aim of Europeans consulting together in Alliance framework.

12. Content of Study. Both sides considered it important soon to begin quiet exploration of political topics that might be considered in study’s second phase. We mentioned various examples of questions involving Alliance members directly (e.g. European security problems) and issues outside Treaty area (e.g. Middle East arms and security aspects of the food crisis in Asia). Belgians several times mentioned China as illustration of problem external to NATO but which clearly concerns Europeans via impact on USSR.

13. As to method, Belgians like ourselves thought NATO might profit from McNamara Committee’s experience. Instead of abstract study of procedures for improving political consultation, we would aim at series of “model” or “practice” consultations. These substantive exercises, useful in themselves, would give basis for general recommendations at end of the study.

14. In addition to improving consultation arrangements, US and Belgian participants agreed study might also embrace such other issues as strengthening NATO Parliamentarians and improving NATO information policy.

15. Summary of Brosio’s paper (Paris 12187)⁴ just received and therefore did not figure in talks with Belgians.

Rusk

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, DEF 4 NATO. Confidential. Drafted by Myerson, cleared by McAuliffe and Springsteen, and approved by Eugene Rostow.
2. Telegram 3873, February 9, transmitted a translation of an aide-memoire that outlined Belgian thinking on how to proceed with the study on the future of the Alliance. (Ibid.)
3. For text, see American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1966, p. 379.
4. Telegram 12187, February 10, transmitted the text of PO/67/89, a tentative outline on the substance and procedure for the study of the future of the Alliance. (Department of State, Central Files, DEF 4 NATO)