Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, Western European Security, Volume V, Part 1

740.5/12–1453: Telegram

The United States Delegation at the North Atlantic Council Meeting to the Department of State ¹

secret

Paris, December 14, 1953—midnight.

Secto 3. Subject: NAC ministers meeting—opening session—item I.²

Council chairman Georges Bidault delivered opening address touching particularly on NATO–EDC relations. (See Secto 1 for partial text.³)

Chairman asked delegations to appoint member to serve on communiqué drafting committee chaired by Deputy Secretary General Van Vredenburch. Committee to meet after each session for preliminary drafting of paragraphs for inclusion final communiqué.

Chairman then raised question of procedure, referring to C–M (53) 146,⁴ and asking whether council would wish to have separate meetings in p.m. of Foreign, Defense and Finance Ministers; any conclusions to be put to full session Tuesday morning. US Secretary State expressed view idea having restricted meetings very good, but wondered whether discussions in committee in advance of plenary discussion item II would be useful. Random discussions without agenda raised some questions in his mind.

UK Foreign Minister agreed with US, suggesting first two items be dealt with in plenary sessions because all ministers had a joint and collective interest in these vital discussions. It could then be decided whether to break up into committee. Norwegian Foreign Minister supported this view.

Bidault noted enthusiasm for his proposals not universal but stressed he felt NATO, representing more than a purely military alliance, should engage in free and frank exchanges on the political front. He reserved right to raise matter later.

Agenda Item I. Chairman then called on Ismay to speak on Secretary General’s report.⁵ Ismay underlined (1) importance and value of visits to international military maneouvers and headquarters; (2) called attention to paragraph 15, describing his comprehensive 5-year report, which he noted would be submitted to permanent council first; (3) referred specially to importance of emergency planning work, paragraphs 35 to 63, underlining civil defense particularly; (4) repeated his views on general ignorance about purpose of NATO, paragraphs 75 to 80, and noted that a re-organization of NATO information staff and creation of a special working group in information and cultural cooperation had improved work in this field. He recognized that a proper staffing for NATO information service would require money, which he was reluctant to ask for; and (5) pointed up valuable troop information and military community relations problems conference recently held.

UK Defense Minister noted progress of infrastructure and underlined importance of building up home front and particularly civil defense. He pointed out that much could be done in this area on a voluntary basis and welcomed start on this very important task.

Norwegian Foreign Minister noted paragraphs on relations with parliamentarians and expressed hope that in future visits of parliamentarians from a group of countries to Paris headquarters might take place.

Greek Defense Minister reported on two combined military maneouvers in eastern Mediterranean he had personally observed, commending excellent coordination under joint NATO command of troops from US, UK, France, Italy, Turkey and Greece.

Pella, for Italy, underlined importance of Article II work by NATO and referred particularly to recommendations on labor mobility made in last NATO WG report. He particularly cited specific recommendations approved by council in permanent session and referred to in paragraph 65 of C–M (53) 162, and thanked US Government for its action in relieving this surplus manpower situation in many European countries through refugee relief act. He furthermore underlined importance of permitting free interchange of a certain number of workers among NATO countries. He briefly supported closer contact between parliamentarians and NATO and urged that all NATO members “understand the internal situation in each country as a means of binding NATO more closely together”.

Greek Foreign Minister supported Italians in his views on labor mobility and touched on Italian suggestion that member governments should facilitate capital investments in overseas settlement schemes. He thanked Ismay and Council for its help to Greece in connection Ionian Island disaster, describing it as a practical illustration of Article II work.

Bidault, speaking as French representative, underlined importance of emergency planning and then took up French proposals for NATO informational cooperation resulting from David mission (C–M(53) 171⁶). He asked that its conclusions be approved. Turkish Foreign Minister and Pella endorsed plan. Pella noted coordination action in information field was especially important and suggested ad hoc committee study report and come up with suggestions for council action before end of meeting. US Secretary State welcomed French proposal and agreed with need for more information coordination but suggested as to procedure that permanent representatives act on this report after David had appeared before informational and cultural committee and this committee in turn had studied matter and referred it to permanent council.

Greek Foreign Minister supported Italian views on need for closer coordination in informational field and supported French proposal.

Portuguese Foreign Minister said report was of value, but requested council take it up at another ministerial meeting. Chairman Bidault thanked Council for its approval of paper in principle and noted that with a four-power conference coming up⁷ and vast USSR propaganda machine facing us, unified action now was important. Italy, Greece, suggested immediate consideration of paper by an ad hoc committee. Norway supported US in feeling that consideration of paper by a permanently established committee would lead to best results. After further discussion it was agreed that informational and cultural committee would study matter and report to council before adjournment what useful and feasible action might be taken on this report.

Canadian Defense Minister noted importance of troop information and community relations work and stressed value of standardization paragraphs 30–34. He noted that a copy of an agreement on standardization small arms round among Belgium–Canada–French–UK–US would be reported on under item III,⁸ and Canada would probably submit resolution on standardization.

1. Repeated to the other NATO capitals and to Bonn, Frankfurt, Heidelberg, and Wiesbaden.
2. Item I: Report of the Secretary General (see footnote 5, below); for the full agenda, see the editorial note, p. 454. A copy of the verbatim record, C–VR(53)53, of the first session which took place at 10:45 a.m. at the Palais de Chaillot, is in the CFM files, lot M 88, box 166.
3. Not printed. (Conference files, lot 60 D 627, CF 169)
4. No copy of this document has been found in the Department of State files.
5. A copy of “Report by the Secretary General of Progress during the Period 17th April 1953 to 3rd December 1953”, C–M(53)162, dated Dec. 7, is in the Conference files, lot 60 D 627, CF 170.
6. In May 1953 the French had appointed Jean-Paul David, a member of the National Assembly, to be a special envoy to the member countries of NATO. His conversations with NAC delegations on the question of public relations between NATO and its nationals resulted in C–M(53)171, “The Problem of Enlightening Public Opinion”, dated Dec. 11, which suggested that new powers should be vested in the Secretary General’s position with respect to all aspects of information problems. A copy of. C–M(53)171 is in the Conference files, lot 60 D 627, CF 170.
7. Documentation on the preparation for the Berlin Four-Power Conference is presented in volume vii .
8. Item III: Military Progress of NATO; for a report on the discussion of Item III, see Secto 5, Dec. 15, p. 469.