NATO UNCUSSiFIED. and PUBUC DISCLOSED

Transcription

1 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH 5th April, 1954 NATO UNCUSSiFIED and PUBUC DISCLOSED nxp.m I'l.A 1 RIi COPY N" '367 -NA-TO GEO RET SUMMARY RECORD C-R{54)11 S - Otnmary Record of a meeting of the Council held at the Palais de Chaillot,..Paris r on Thursday, Ist April at 4.30 p.m. ~ PRESENT Chairman - The Lord Ismay Mr. A. de Staercke (Belgium) Mr» N. Hommel (Luxembourg) Mr. L.. û. Wilgress (Canada) Mr. M.F. Vigeveno (Netherlands) Mr. J.A. Vestbirk (Denmark) Mr«A. Skaug (Norway) Mr. H. Alphand. (France) Count de Tovar (Portugal) Mr. G. Exintaris (Greece) Mr. Fatin R. Zorlu (Turkey) Mr. H. Andersen (Iceland) Sir Christopher Steel (United King<tan) Mr, A. Rossi-Longhi (Italy) Mr. J.C. Hughes (United States) Item INTERNATIONAL STAFF Mr. H. van Vredenhurch (Deputy Secretary General) Mr. S. Fenoaltea (Assistant Secretary General for Political Affairs) Mr. R.D. Coleridge (Executive Secretary) ALSO PRESENT Vice-Admiral R, Dick (Standing Group Liaison Officer) CONTENTS Subject I. Preliminary discussion of latest Soviet Note as reported in the press Page No. 1 II. III. IV. Possible meeting of Foreign Ministers with SACEUR on 24th April, 1954 USSR Note to the Netherlands, and reply by the Netherlands Minister Future meetings of the.council 3 4

2 I. PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION OE LATEST SOVIET NOTE AS REPORTED : IN THE PRESS " 1. In a preliminary exchange of views on. the latest Soviet Note, the majority of speakers said that their comments would he made in a personal and unofficial capacity only, since they had not yet received instructions from their governments. In the course of the discussion, the following main points were made : (a) A meeting of this kind was of great value when unexpected political developments took place, and gratitude was expressed to the Secretary General for having called the meeting. (b) (c) It seemed unlikely that the substance of this Soviet proposal, i.e. that the USSR should become a member of Ni 1 TO, was meant sincerely. In fact, the very idea seemed to most speakers preposterous. That, however, did not mean that the Note should not be studied seriously or that great care would not have to be given to the reply. The reason why great care was needed in the preparation of the reply was that the Note was clearly intended as propaganda, and was, in fact, addressed to the public opinion of member countries rather than to governments. (d) From a propaganda point of view the moment was cleverly chosen by- the USSR, since it coincided with a general feeling of alarm over the rapidly increasing destructive power of the H-bomb. The Note would, make a strong appeal to the wishful thinkers among the peoples of NATO countries, (e) (f) The main purpose of the Nöte seemed to be: (1) to retard and, if possible, to prevent the ratification and the entry into force of the EDC Treaty, and to block any chance of German participation in Western defence; (2) propaganda, as indicated, above; (5) to confuse and, if possible, to divide the members of NATO. The reply to the Soviet Note would presumably he prepared by the three Powers-to whom it was addressed. At the same time,.it seemed most important that the Council should try to reachagreement as soon as possible on the general line that should he taken in the reply, and that their views should be made known to the Governments of Prance, -the United Kingdom and the United States in time to be taken int«account in the preparation of the detailed draft. 2. After this preliminary exchange of views, the COUNCIL: (l) agreed to continue its discussion of the Soviet Note at its meeting on Wednesday, 7th" April, and

3 expressed the hope that all Permanent Representatives would have instructions from their governments by. that date ; (2) agreed that, if questions were'put hy the Press, they should he informed that the Council had had a preliminary exchange of views on the Soviet Note, and proposed to continue the discussion at an early date. II. POSSIBLE MEETING OF FOREIGN MINISTERS-AITH\SACEUR ON 2ATH APRIL. 195A ' '. 3. The CHAIRMAN informed the Council that the SCLo', in conformity with the request made hy the Council at Its. last meeting, had discussed with General Gruenther the possibility of his meeting Foreign Ministers on 24th April. General Gruenther had said that he was obviously at the disposal of the Council, but that his immediate reactions were, first,' that the Standing Group we're his chiefs, and that it was for them to authorise him to give any such briefing, and that he should have this authority before proceeding. Secondly, he was rather concerned lest there should be a build-up of this briefing which would give the impression to the Foreign Ministers that they were going to get something rather more than was in fact the case. Thirdly, he pointed out that the essence of the briefing to Permanent Representatives had no doubt already been given to governments by the representatives, and the briefing to Ministers would be the same as that given to members of the Council. 4. The PORTUGUESE REPRESENTATIVE pointed out that the briefing given by General Gruenther had been based on a number of figures and charts and a complete record of it could not be given by representatives to their governments. For that reason, he still thought that the meeting would be of great value. 3. x The UNITED KINGDOM REPRESENTATIVE agreed that it was almost impossible to make a complete and effective report of the briefing. General Gruenther's presentation of the problems was a model of clarity, and he urged that Foreign Ministers. should be given the opportunity of hearing it. i 6. The NORWEGIAN REPRESENTATIVE considered that the completely Informal character of any meeting should be stressed. 7. The FRENCH REPRESENTATIVE hoped that any decision taken by the Council would make it clear that the briefing might take place either at the Palais de Chaillot or at SHAPE. 8. The STANDING GROUP LIAISON OFFICER said that, although he hall received no instructions from the Standing Group, he felt sure that their reaction would be that they would naturally accept whatever decision the Council and Ministers might make. At the same time, he believed that the Standing Group would feel sorry that they could not continue the process at last being established whereby the military authorities kept the Council periodically informed of progress being made, and channelled matters for governments through the Council. ' He thought that the.standing Group felt that they could talk more freely and preserve better continuity by using the Council as their channel.'

4 ' ' /. 9. The COUNCIL: requested the SGLO to inform the Standing Group that - certain Foreign Ministers might 'wish to have a meeting with. General Gruenther on 241 h April, and to invite them to authorise General Gruenther to give them a briefing if they should so desire. IIIy^USSR-NQTE TO THE.NETHERLANDS, AND REPLY BY THE NETHERLANDS 'MINISTER "' 10. The NETHERLANDS REPRESENTATIVE informed the Council that on 18th March, the USSR Ambassador at the Hague had handed a Note to the Netherlands Minister without portfolio, worded as follows: "The Netherlands press recently'published statements by Mr. Staf, Netherlands Minister of Uar, according to which the Netherlands Government had agreed to' the establishment.of -a^united States military air base;and " t'o'^the nocôiiïaedation of US Air Forces or. Netherlands territory. It was 'completely ctesir that the accommodation of US armed forces on Netherlands territory in time of peace.was in no way connected with the defence of the country, since, as was well knovrn, there was no threat of aggression against the Netherlands. Particularly at the present moment,'when every effort was being made to lessen tension in international relations and to strengthen peace, such action on the part of the Netherlands Governraent. could not be justified. The Soviet Govermnent, which attached great importance to the cause of strengthening peace and of ensuring collective security in Europe, felt obliged to draw.the. attention of the Netherlands Government to the fact that, in making available military bases and in accommodating foreign troops on Netherlands territory, no- contribution was being made to the improvement of the international situation and of relations among nations." 11. The Netherlands Minister, as his first reaction, had informed the Ambassador that the Soviet Government was wrong in considering the stationing of a United States aircraft squadron in the Netherlands as proof of a lack of peaceful sentiment in the Netherlands Government. The stationing of this squadron was completely in conformity with military treaties of long standing, which were wholly defensive in character, were not directed against the Soviet Union, and xvere concerned with meeting aggression from whatever source it might come. Further, the attention of the Ambassador was drawn to the fact that the Soviet Union itself had stationed considerable land, and air forces in Poland, for example, one of the powers which had fought, against Germany. He rejected the claim that the Netherlands Government was not entitled to take similar action. The Minister had added that his Government would welcome any initiative on the part of the Soviet Union intended to lessen international tension, and would judge any such initiâtive on its merits. The Netherlands Government would reply in due course 'in writing to the Soviet Note.. took note of the statement by the Netherlands Representative.

5 IV. FUTURE MEETINGS OF THE COUNCIL Restricted. Meeting: Formal Meeting: Monday, 5th April at 5.15 p.m. Wednesday,?th April at a.m,