Foreign Relations of the United States, 1951, European Security and the German Question, Volume III, Part 1

740.5/6–651: Telegram

The United States Deputy Representative on the North Atlantic Council (Spofford) to the Secretary of State ¹

confidential

London, June 6, 1951—6 p. m.

Depto 1075. 1. This preliminary report on consideration of armed forces status agreement in CD today.² Date for signing was fixed at 3 p. m. June 19.³ All deps appeared to have auth to sign except US must await instr due to Newfoundland base problem.

2. The fol points were made:

(a) Canada dep said that negotiations were in progress with the US regarding status of troops in Newfoundland. Canada would make reservation unless his agreement was concluded prior to the time of signature.⁴ USDep indicated that he hoped that agreement wld be concluded before time of signature. Pls keep us advised of your thinking so that if we can not sign on June 19, we can so advise other deps as soon as possible. Sincerely hope nothing will prevent final execution of agreement on June 19.

(b) US made fol statement: US service Attachés and certain senior MAAGs wld not be considered covered by the armed forces status agreement. Other deps made no comment.

(c) US made statement on APO’s contained in Todep 478.⁵ Brit and Fr both indicated that operation of APO’s was a privilege and not a right, but both indicated that there had been no difficulty about our operating APO’s as in the past.

(d) US made point regarding exclusive jurisdiction over its forces during hostilities. UK alone made comment on this indicating that although such rights were granted during the last war with respect to US troops in UK, there cld be no guarantee that Parliament wld do likewise again. He did not indicate that Parliament wld not give the same treatment again, but only that they might not.

(e) US made point re security screening of members of fon forces who handle highly classified US material as set forth in Todep 469.⁶ There was no comment.

(f) Neth again made its statement regarding possibility of national legislation being passed which wld subject other govts to the jurisdiction of its courts. There seemed to be no occasion to comment further on this statement.

(g) Informally we advised Fr that US Emb in Paris wld negotiate a bilateral with the Fr extending the multilateral agreement without change to Algeria. Presume that further action on this subj will be taken in Paris.

(h) Informally UK chairman of WG stated that his govt expected the existing agreements to continue to cover the Bahamas and Bermuda but that this matter had not been referred to the colonies themselves, and that there was a bare possibility (which he thought was highly unlikely) that they wld prefer the multilateral. The UK is satisfied with the present arrangements.

3. WG report approved. Copy has been pouched.⁷

4. No statement made re protocol between SHAPE and Fr auths which we know is in process of negotiation.⁸

5. Understand that SHAPE expects to issue statement on multilateral the clay after it is signed. Wld expect some communiqué on the subject will be issued by deps also.⁹

Spofford

1. Repeated for information to Reykjavik and Paris.
2. Under reference here is the draft agreement between the parties of the North Atlantic Treaty regarding the status of their armed forces; see the editorial note, p. 186.
3. Regarding the signing of the NATO status-of-armed-forces agreement on June 19, see telegram Depto 1152, June 20, from London, p. 187.
4. In a memorandum of June 5, delivered to the Department of State that same day, the Canadian Government raised the question of the applicability of the proposed NATO status-of-forces agreement to the military bases in Newfoundland leased to the United States under the terms of the United States-Canadian agreement of March 27, 1941, as modified (E.A.S. 235; 55 Stat. 1599). The Canadian Government indicated that it would sign the status-of-forces agreement with reservation unless the appropriate application of its terms to United States forces in Newfoundland were worked out (740.5/6–751). Telegram Todep 484, June 5, to London, informed Spofford of the Canadian request, explained that an interdepartmental decision on the matter was urgently being sought, and instructed that the United States request postponement of the signature of the status-of-forces agreement rather than have a Canadian reservation (740.5/6–551). Regarding the resolution of this problem, see telegram Todep 528, June 18, to London, p. 186.
5. Not printed.
6. Not printed.
7. No copy of the working group report under reference here has been found in the files of the Department of State.
8. The negotiations under reference here continued during the remainder of 1951 and eventuated in the North Atlantic Treaty protocol on the status of international military headquarters, signed at Paris, August 28, 1952.
9. Regarding the statements issued to the press at the time of the signing of the NATO status-of-forces agreement on June 19, see the editorial note, p. 186.