DEPARTMENT OF STATE- Memorandum of Conversation
DATE: May 8, 1952
SUBJECT: Suggestions Regarding Possible Meeting of the North Atlantic Council
PARTICIPANTS: The Secretary Mr. Wrong - Canadian Ambassador Mr. Bonbright - EUR
COPIES TO: S/S WE U - Mr. Bruce GER S/A - Mr. Jessup G - Mr. Matthews RA BNA
The Canadian Ambassador called this afternoon at his request and left with me the attached "Oral Message" containing certain views of the Canadian Minister of External Affairs, Mr. L. B. Pearson. These have to do with the suggestions which we conveyed to Mr. Pearson through Mr. Wrong on May 3 on the above subject.
With reference to Mr. Pearson's agreement with our suggestion that Chancellor Adenauer be present for the signing of the NATO Protocol, I told Mr. Wrong that the situation had been somewhat changed by recent developments. I said that the French had not welcomed the idea of having the Chancellor present at a Council meeting since this would raise the old question of German relationship to NATO. I added, however, that the suggestion had been put forward that there be a joint meeting of NATO and EDC Ministers at which the EDC and NATO Protocols would be initialed. I said that if the French would welcome this kind of arrangement we saw no reason to object and would be inclined to go along with it. This would obviate the necessity of extending a special invitation to Adenauer to be present as an observer since he would automatically be present in his EDC capacity. Mr. Wrong thought that this seemed like a pretty good idea and said he would inform Mr. Pearson about it.
- 2 -
With regard to the proposed meeting of the North Atlantic Council to be attended by as many of the Foreign Ministers as are able to be present, I pointed out that this suggestion had not appealed to Lord Ismay. I thought there might be some misunderstanding of our motives. Our suggestion arose from the fact that there seemed to have been general agreement that it would be a good thing for the Ministers to meet three or four times a year. We had no special problems to take up at this time but felt that if periodic meetings were to take place it would be better to hold one in May when many of the Foreign Ministers would be in Paris, rather than at a later date in the summer when it might be inconvenient for the Ministers to be in Europe. We were not pressing for a meeting if others did not want it.
In explanation of the suggestion that the Council discuss the examination procedure to be employed to replace the work performed by the Temporary Council Committee, Mr. Wrong explained that Lord Ismay had recently prepared a rather complicated paper on this subject which gave the Canadians concern. They believed that it would be a mistake to have the part of the work dealing with military requirements handled separately by the Standing Group and in advance of the studies on economic and financial capabilities. I agreed that this was a question which we should look at carefully but pointed out that this was a matter which was of concern to Mr. Harriman and Mr. Lovett as well as myself and suggested that a discussion of this problem would be out of place at a meeting attended only by Foreign Ministers.
Finally I questioned the necessity of having the meeting of the Council attended by the Ministers extend "for three or perhaps four days in all." Although he was not entirely clear on this point, Mr. Wrong seemed to believe that this would include the days devoted to consideration and signature of the NATO Protocol. He did say, however, that Mr. Pearson held the general view that it was wrong to try to cut down the duration of these meetings to the minimum since it was a good thing to give the Ministers as much time as any of them wanted to talk. I expressed my nonconcurrence with this philosophy and said that long rambling discussions usually resulted only in raising a lot of questions.
In conclusion I mentioned to Mr. Wrong our Congressional problem on timing, of which he was fully aware, and said that we were still doing everything we could to hasten final action on the contractual and the EDC.
EUR:JCHBonbright:mt
ORAL MESSAGE
The Canadian Ambassador has received the views of the Hon. L. B. Pearson on the suggestions of the United States Government which had been conveyed to Mr. Wrong on May 3rd concerning the action which might be taken by the North Atlantic Council at the time of the signature of the Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty relating to the European Defense Community.
Mr. Pearson considers that the signature of the Protocol is of quite sufficient importance to justify holding a ministerial meeting of the Council. He is prepared as Chairman to convene such a meeting irrespective of whether he will himself be able to attend. He will, however, do his best to be present in view of the expected presence in Paris at that time of so many Foreign Ministers of the North Atlantic countries, and in view of the possibility that Chancellor Adenauer may be invited to be an observer of the signature of the Protocol. He considers it important that Chancellor Adenauer should be present and will be glad to invite him if, as he hopes, the proposal is acceptable to other governments of the North Atlantic countries.
Mr. Pearson agrees that after the public session of the North Atlantic Council, at which the signature of the Protocol would take place, there should be a regular meeting of the Council attended by as many of the Foreign Ministers as are able to be present. He considers that the agenda should be short, as suggested by the Department of State, consisting of an exchange of views on political questions and a report by the Secretary General on the international staff. In addition he thinks that there should be a discussion of the examination procedure to be employed to replace the work performed by the Temporary Council Committee, as this is an important matter which should be started at once.
In Mr. Pearson's opinion, arrangements should be made which would permit the meeting of the Council attended by Ministers to extend for three or perhaps four days in all. If this is agreed, he considers that there would be no need for another meeting attended by Ministers to take place until the autumn.
Mr. Pearson would be glad to receive information on any developments in this connection. Little time remains if arrangements are completed for the signature of the contractual agreements with Germany and of the treaty establishing the European Defense Community on or about May 20th.
CANADIAN EMBASSY Washington, D.C. May 8th, 1952