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

293. Telegram From the Mission to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to the Department of State¹

Brussels, March 13, 1968, 1921Z.

2131. NATUS. Subject: Item II, NAC meeting March 13, 1968: NATO and Malta. Ref: State 126086.²

1. At NAC meeting March 13 large majority supported Brosio’s procedural proposals in PO/68/102³ for improving NATO/Malta relationship, i.e., through NATO’s establishment of open-ended Malta Committee and through Malta’s official and public designation of Ambassador Curmi to maintain liaison with NATO. Only France and Denmark balked at these proposals. Brosio asked PermReps of these countries to report majority consensus to their governments and expressed hope that NAC could reach positive decision at March 20 meeting.

2. Re associating GOM with strategy study on Malta, there was general consensus that Maltese views should be solicited on study after NAC has had preliminary discussion on it but before study has been formally approved by Council. Comment: Present status is that SHAPE study has, unfortunately, been revised by international military staff at British insistence to delete all economic and political comments, as well as list of possible courses of action. This revised draft is scheduled for Military Committee consideration March 14. End comment.

3. Re Brosio’s suggestion that some form of collective economic aid for Malta might be considered, there was significant support in principle even though several delegates expressed anticipated doubts about NATO being appropriate forum for this subject. De Ferrariis (Italy) said that GOI is agreeable in principle to joint study of this idea. He suggested that, in view of Malta’s size, a minor effort could produce excellent economic and psychological results. Grewe (Germany) recognized the danger that Malta might turn elsewhere for economic aid. He said the FRG has already shown an interest in economic projects there and would be prepared to consult on this point within NATO.

4. In explaining French opposition to Brosio’s proposals, Seydoux (France) feared that, if NATO takes proposed procedural steps, it would risk giving impression that NATO is supporting the present Maltese government and that NATO plans doing more than it actually has in mind. He added that, personally, he is not convinced that Malta is an important part of the developing military situation in the Mediterranean and doubts the utility of taking steps which would give the impression that NATO considers Malta to be more important than it is in fact.

5. Hjorth-Nielsen (Denmark) said initial Danish reaction was doubt regarding the advisability of creating “new machinery” for NATO/Malta relations, but he promised to report faithfully the majority consensus in favor of these steps.

6. Groundwork for satisfactory outcome March 13 NAC meeting was laid in March 12 Malta group (US, UK, Italy) meeting convened by Brosio at which Ambassador Cleveland outlined US ideas reftel. In light of French and Danish positions, Cargo considered it was best during this NAC discussion to limit himself to statement in support of Brosio’s procedural proposals.

7. Re Department’s concern reftel about legal implications of designating Ambassador Curmi as “authorized link,” Brosio accepted suggestion by Boon (Netherlands) that it would be preferable to use term “liaison” rather than “link.” We agree that liaison is a better term, and see no problem if GOM chooses to name Ambassador Curmi as its “liaison” with NATO for consultation as foreseen in the 1965 NAC resolution.

Cargo

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, DEF 4 NATO. Secret. Repeated to London, Valletta, Rome, Naples for USDOCOSouth for POLAD,SHAPE, and USCINCEUR for POLAD.
2. Telegram 126086, March 7, welcomed other NATO countries’ concern about Malta, supported the idea of continued British presence on the island, and supported Brosio’s plan for individual member states providing economic assistance to Malta. (Ibid.)
3. Not found.