Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957, Regulation of Armaments; Atomic Energy, Volume XX

277. Telegram From the Office of the Permanent Representative at the North Atlantic Council to the Department of State¹

Paris, August 2, 1957—4 p.m.

Polto 310. London for USDel Disarmament. Pouched all other NATO capitals and Moscow Polto unn. NAC meeting August 2 disarmament.

Council today accepted Western Four proposal on inspection zones (USDel Disarmament 460 and 461, as amended²) and approved telegram to this effect from Spaak to Western Four.³ (Prior to meeting, I spoke with Spaak and German, French, Canadian, United Kingdom, and Italian PermReps. Dutch and Norwegians also contacted. All indicated would have no objections to advance.)

Germany led off with prepared statement contained immediately following telegram.⁴ Only other substantive comments came from Belgium, Netherlands, and Italy. Belgium and Netherlands noted that paragraph 3⁵ did not refer to specific zone and asked whether Western Four agreed with NAC that 5–35 was minimum European zone. Italy asked whether “as agreed” at end first sentence paragraph 4 meant “as agreed in future”.

United States said would try to answer questions which had been raised. While we had not attended meetings of Western Four, had been present for discussions United States side during recent London consultations. Could assure Council that real effort had been made to meet NAC desires. On specific questions raised today, was sure that Italian understanding phrase “as agreed” was correct. Intent was “as will be agreed” or “as may be agreed.”

Re German position on linkage of zones, United States thought Western Four paper made clear that there was firm link between European and Western hemisphere–USSR zones, i.e. European zone could not be accepted unless Soviets agreed to one of two zones described paragraph 1 Western Four paper.

Re Belgium–Netherlands question, United States thought Western Four did regard 5–35 as minimum. Western Four were not thinking of going below that zone or even of going that far as yet. There was clear agreement that Western Four would not move from position set out in document before Council until Soviets had responded to proposals made therein. Thereafter Western Four would consider Soviet response and consult NAC before proceeding further.

Re German point on mobile inspection, United States remarked that this had been most difficult problem in London because, on one hand, inspection without mobility was not valid and, on other hand, Western Four very aware of NAC’s concerns and desires this matter. Proposal had therefore made clear that no form of mobile ground inspection could be agreed to unless it had been accepted by countries directly concerned. Western Four had also included in paper proposal for detailed study of inspection system because they realized that in all probability nature and extent of inspection zones would depend upon details of inspection to be carried out therein.

When it appeared that there were no further comments or questions, Spaak circulated draft telegram to Western Four which, after discussion, Council approved without substantive changes (text contained Polto 306).

United States asked whether last sentence of telegram applied only to Europe or whether Council expected also to be consulted re details inspection system in Western hemisphere–USSR zone. United Kingdom thought might be distinction between two: That Council would like to be informed re Western hemisphere but had right to be consulted re Europe. France, on other hand, saw no advantage making this distinction. NAC competence not limited to Europe. Moreover, if system established in Arctic, for example, would create precedent for Europe. There appeared to be general agreement with French view and sentence was left unchanged.

Canada proposed number of changes designed give NAC response “more positive tone”. Suggested that first sentence paragraph 2 be dropped and opening paragraph be modified to read “NAC has no objection to latest proposals …⁶ and is satisfied that they should be presented by Western Members UN subcommittee”. Also suggested that third sentence paragraph 2 recalling Council’s previous observations on mobile ground inspection be dropped. Finally, Canada suggested that second sentence paragraph 2 be modified to refer to “a limited system of mobile ground inspection”. United Kingdom objected to insertion of word “limited” on ground that Western Four had not as yet worked out details of system at all so that reference to “limited” was not really meaningful. United States also expressed doubts but pointed out nobody thinking of “unlimited” mobile ground inspection. Spaak then proceeded to defend his original draft in toto. His main point was that, in his judgment, statement that Council “has no objection” was strongest statement that could be made on behalf of Council as whole. Implied that he had in mind here not only views of Germans for example, but his own. Canada did not press proposed changes.

At conclusion of meeting Spaak asked whether press could be informed that today’s meeting had taken place. Noted that press already aware meeting scheduled for today.

After some discussion, was agreed on United States suggestion that, if queried by press, could be stated that Western Four had put certain questions to Council and answers had been sent to London. In course discussion Italy called attention to press reports, particularly in London papers, “accusing” NATO of slowing down disarmament subcommittee proceedings. Pointed out that NAC had in fact moved very rapidly on all matters put to it by Western Four and expressed view that this should be widely publicized, perhaps in connection with advising press regarding today’s meeting. Spaak disagreed. Thought it was basically up to Western Four what should be said about their consultations with NAC. In any case was opposed to saying anything specific about today’s meeting, so as not to give Soviets any pretext for rejecting Western offer. There might later on, however, be an occasion when NAC role in negotiations could be explained. Was confident that anyone who looked at record could see that Council had not held up negotiations. United Kingdom rep said he had reported to London Council concern over press reports referred to by Italy and had asked Foreign Office try to set press straight. Said was obvious that NAC had not held up negotiations.

Perkins

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 330.13/8–257. Secret; Priority. Repeated priority to London and Bonn.
2. Neither USDel Disarmament 460, Secto 9 from London, July 31, nor USDel Disarmament 461, telegram 845 from London, July 31, is printed. (Ibid., 330.13/7–3157) Some amendments on inspection are noted in Secto 18 from London, Document 275.
3. Transmitted in Polto 306 from Paris, August 2. (Department of State, Central Files, 330.13/8–257)
4. Transmitted in Polto 311 from Paris, August 2. (Ibid.)
5. Discussion of specific paragraphs in this telegram can be compared with corresponding paragraphs in the version submitted to the Subcommittee of the U.N. Disarmament Commission on August 2, printed in Documents on Disarmament, 1945–1959, vol. II, pp. 837–839.
6. Ellipsis in the source text.