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

82. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in Belgium¹

Washington, May 1, 1965, 12:29 p.m.

2200. Reftel Polto 1570, repeated Brussels 83; Deptel 2173 to Brussels April 26.² Spaak will of course wish to determine himself how best to handle the state of the Alliance and in particular De Gaulle’s April 27 speech. In view of De Staercke’s inquiry on behalf of Spaak you may say that I intend to deal with the matter in the following fashion:

A public attack on or specific refutation of April 27 speech might well have the effect of strengthening rather than weakening the theses propounded. We note that press comment has been generally unfavorable.

The most effective response to De Gaulle’s statements will, in my view, be found in the clearest possible statements of what policies we and the Europeans favor. We expect to issue a high level statement on May 7.³ Further, the meeting of the Action Committee for a United States of Europe in Berlin on May 8th and 9th, with Erhard attending the second day, should result in a further strong reiteration of the goals of European integration and Atlantic interdependence. Through authoritative restatement of these constructive policies, which clearly enjoy broad support in Europe, both officials and the general public, will draw appropriate conclusions.

We have all been sensitive to the difficult situation confronting the German Government and have attempted to meet their desire to minimize direct confrontations with Paris. We intend to do our best to help the Germans on this score. With this in mind I do not expect to initiate at the London meeting a detailed analysis of the State of the Alliance. However, I believe that we cannot put off such an examination beyond the December Ministerial Meeting. At that time we should take specific actions looking toward modernizing and strengthening NATO. As indicated reftel we would take preliminary step in this direction at London; propounding certain questions for consideration in December and suggesting small expert group.

You and Finletter should draw on the foregoing as you see fit.

Rusk

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, DEF(ANF). Confidential; Priority; Limdis. Drafted by Schaetzel on April 30, cleared by McKillop and Popper, and approved by Rusk. Also sent to Paris Topol and repeated to Bonn, London, Rome, and The Hague.
2. Polto 1570, April 29, reported that Spaak was concerned about the effect of De Gaulle’s April 27 speech and wanted to know what Rusk believed should be done about it. (Ibid.) Telegram 2173 informed the Embassy in Brussels that if Spaak confirmed his desire to launch an initiative at the NAC meeting in May for a reorganization of NATO forces, he should be told that the time was not right since the NATO force planning exercise begun in 1963 was just beginning to bear fruit. (Ibid., NATO 3 UK(LO)) For text of De Gaulle’s speech, see American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1965, pp. 434–436.
3. On May 2, the Department of State asked the Missions in Rome, Paris, London, Bonn, and Moscow for recommendations on the content and temper of a statement that the President might make on the anniversary of VE-Day, May 7. (Telegram 2542 to Rome; Department of State, Central Files, POL 1 EUR-US) The replies all stressed the importance of such a statement and the need to reiterate U.S. support for and commitment to Europe. (Ibid.) For text of the President’s address, in which he outlined six pieces of urgent and unfinished business in U.S. relations with Europe and stressed the need to build a Europe reaching across the Atlantic, see Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, Lyndon B. Johnson, 1965, Book I, pp. 506–509.