740.5/3–851: Telegram
The United States Deputy Representative on the North Atlantic Council (Spofford) to the Secretary of State 1
niact
Depto 604. For Cabot from Spofford. Re Todep 288 March 5.2
1. In view receipt reftel, notably paragraphs 1 and 4 thereof, have not tabled February3 paper in CD pending clarification final position of FEB geographical location. Understand reftel dispatched before receipt in Washington of Repto 1007 from Paris of March 5,4 paragraph 1 of which set forth view of Katz and myself that, failing consolidation NATO activities in Paris, FEB should have main headquarters in London. Consider it appropriate therefore to present following further views on this subject. These views concurred in by SUSRep and cleared by JAMAG, but since Katz has informed me he feels unable pursue matter further as result telephone conversations with Washington since receipt thereof Repto 1007, have not requested him concur this message.
2. Fully share your desire for intimate working relationship between FEB and OEEC and would expect achieve same through inner-outer circle arrangements involving maximum personal union in NAT country representation on two bodies and their respective subcommittees. Such arrangements would ensure that national representatives FEB and subcommittees would be fully conversant with OEEC activities, problems, and policies. However, a further major operating problem remains, namely how to develop intimate collaboration among various NATO agencies and in particular, how to secure proper orientation economic and financial personnel and activities toward importance military considerations and problems associated with defense effort (to cite just one example, question financial measures to promote defense production—see ECC message in Embtel [Page 93] 47095). See no effective answer to this problem other than locational arrangements proposed in Repto 1007. Note these proposed arrangements fairly flexible on location meetings FEB and subcommittees. However, believe FEB secretariat (which should be small in comparison OEEC, but which we all apparently agree should be separate from OEEC) must be located in immediate proximity to other elements NATO international staff in order ensure day-to-day coordination of NATO work programs and close gearing FEB activities to problems arising out of additional defense and defense production programs.
3. Desire reiterate view that in initial presentation CD, FEB paper should not specifically address itself to locational problem. However, if can secure your reconsideration conclusions in reftel, would contemplate making oral statement to effect secretariat should be located, and in general FEB meetings should be held, at headquarters permanent NAT organization. Would further suggest organizing committee be invited consider this question (with any guidance which may be provided by CD) in connection with its report regarding relationships with OEEC. (See last sentence proposed resolution in Depto 586.6)
4. Agree paragraphs 2 and 3 of reftel and am making corresponding amendments to FEB paper. Re paragraph 6 reftel, had not intended affect PBO’s status, at least for present, but have added to proposed FEB functions advance planning for wartime economic mobilization, which would eventually have to be brought into relationship with PBO’s work. Re paragraph 7 reftel, very much hope avoid raising this issue in initial CD meeting, since this might result long delay even in reference problems organizing committee. However, if pressed, would contemplate making oral statement to effect that relationship with DFEC should be studied by organizing committee in light any guidance provided by CD as result their consideration NATO top-level reorganization.
5. Believe necessary proceed as rapidly as possible with FEB paper in view fact British appear opposed developing NATO body with such broad jurisdiction and, if given time, may succeed in developing substantial Continental opposition to whole idea. British view appears based not so much on sensitivity re OEEC as upon feeling that burden-sharing is far most important NATO economic and financial activity, and that extension NAT functions into field economic and financial mobilization in support defense effort might involve UK in undesirable commitment to multilateral review such matters. Note that British at least agree (see paragraph 5 London Embtel 4802 March 77) that NATO should have a small staff in economic field operating in London [Page 94] with rest of NATO international staff (cf. last sentence paragraph 2 above), although their “one or two persons” is of course less than we would expect to have in FEB secretariat.