Office of the Historian

37. Memorandum of Conversation1

Washington, October 6, 1964, 4:30 p.m.

SUBJECT

  • MLF

PARTICIPANTS

  • Germans
    • Ambassador Grewe
    • Mr. Blomeyer
    • Mr. Kroneck
  • Americans
    • The Under Secretary
    • Ambassador Smith
    • Mr. Ronald Spiers, RPM
    • Mr. Richard B. Finn, GER
    • Mr. Robert Anderson, U

The Under Secretary opened by saying that there is no ambiguity in President Johnson’s interest in the Multilateral Force. He wishes to move ahead with the force.

As regards timing, the Under Secretary said that the US is in favor of keeping to the agreed schedule. Following the British election and after further developments in Italy and the Netherlands, the US hopes that other countries will get on board quickly.

The Under Secretary assured Ambassador Grewe that a prompt answer to the Chancellor’s letter2 will be forwarded, and that this response would probably be affirmative.

Ambassador Grewe said that he had had useful discussions during his trip to Washington.3 He emphasized that he had not wished to reopen in Washington the points being discussed in Paris but had felt that discussion on future tactics would be useful. He stressed that the FRG wants to proceed in the most effective way toward creating the force. He agreed that it is important to work closely with the British, the Italians and the Dutch.

The Under Secretary referred to Harold Wilson’s press conference on October 6 and quoted from the news ticker to the effect that Wilson did not think the MLF gave Germany a finger on the nuclear trigger because of an American veto. The Under Secretary said that American officials have discussed this subject on a number of occasions with Wilson, and it is their impression that he wants to retain freedom of maneuver. [Page 81] Ambassador Grewe said he thought the MLF was not too far from the defense doctrine of the Labor Party in the UK.

The Under Secretary asked about the position of Dutch Foreign Minister Luns. Ambassador Grewe replied that Luns seemed to be in a 50–50 position. In principle he seems positive toward the MLF but is reluctant as regards timing. He claims to have trouble with his parliament on this, even though Luns’ staff does not appear to see any great difficulty here. Luns also is looking to the British attitude. Ambassador Grewe stressed the importance of proceeding as far as possible in the eight-nation working group in Paris and of continuing the bilateral US–FRG discussions in Paris at the same time.

The Under Secretary asked whether the UK was taking an active role in the eight-nation group. Ambassador Grewe replied that the UK position varies. Sometimes they are cooperative and sometimes they delay. On several issues—MLF flag, legal status of MLF and disciplinary rules for MLF personnel—the UK has reopened discussions and insisted that appropriate principles must be inserted in any MLF charter. The Ambassador said that in his opinion it is not a question of speeding up the work of the eight-nation group but rather a problem of the necessary political will to make progress.

Ambassador Grewe asked about press treatment of his visit. Mr. Spiers said there had been little comment in the US press but that Chancellor Erhard’s statement of October 6 regarding the possibility of the US and the FRG going it alone was receiving some attention.

Ambassador Smith suggested that the best press treatment would be to say that Ambassador Grewe’s visit was a further routine meeting in a series of meetings on this subject.

Ambassador Grewe thought that the German press might want a little more. He suggested that something also be said to the effect that we are adhering to the schedule set forth in the Johnson-Erhard communique of June4 and that we are studying the question of signatories.

Mr. Spiers said that the subject of the MLF had come up at the Department’s noon briefing, where a statement had been made to the effect that the US hopes as many nations as possible will join and that the question has not come up at this point regarding possible signature by only two nations. It had been added that Ambassador Grewe’s visit does not involve a negotiation. Reference had also been made to the timing indicated in the June communique.

The Under Secretary said it should be made clear that the Ambassador’s visit does not involve negotiations. It should also be stressed that we want to have as many signatories as possible.

[Page 82]

Ambassador Grewe said he was leaving immediately for New York and would be returning to Europe in a day or so.

  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, DEF(MLF). Confidential. Drafted and initialed by Finn and approved by Ball on October 7. The conversation was held in Ball’s office.↩
  2. Document 36.↩
  3. Memoranda of Grewe’s conversations with Smith, Tyler, and McNamara on October 5 are in Department of State, Central Files, DEF(MLF).↩
  4. See footnote 3, Document 26.↩