740.5/6–151: Telegram
The Ambassador at Large (Jessup) to the Secretary of State 1
niact
7433. From Jessup. If it becomes necessary to make some further statement next week concerning NAT either here or in Wash (ourtel 74112) I think it might be desirable to develop fact that NATO relationship is broader than its purely military aspects. Hitherto we have, in response to Sov allegations, tended to confine our remarks to pointing out defensive character of NATO, its relation to UN charter, etc. Wld there be disadvantages in pointing out in addition long-range political importance of NAT as a long-range continuing organization of like-minded states bound together by a common civilization, common ideals, etc. Such presentation wld lead up to fact which we have mentioned in meetings here that NATO will continue regardless of discussions or even agreements with Sov.
Advantage I see in such a presentation is getting away from Sov thesis that NATO is purely an offensive military alliance. Believe [Page 173] emphasis on broader aspects of NATO is of general utility aside from question of debate with Sovs. There wld be some difficulties in framing such a statement since Gromyko has been putting increasing emphasis on fact their item includes Amer bases as well as NAT itself. Statement I have in mind, however, wld not ignore defensive measures which we are necessarily taking in implementation of NAT.
I am sending these personal views in hope of receiving comments from Spofford and Achilles as well as from Dept. I have discussed them with MacArthur who agreed with my general thought but who has not seen this telegram.