Copy of Verbatim Transcript of WASHINGTON CONFERENCE WITH REGARD TO REQUEST FOR MILITARY ASSISTANCE FROM WESTERN UNION COUNTRIES (April 4, 1949)
CHAIRMAN (SECRETARY ACHESON): I understand that you have been working hard today and that you have reached a tentative proposal, at any rate, which you have submitted to us and we have gone over a draft of our reply. We have gone over those documents and they are entirely satisfactory to us. I understand that you have suggested some alterations in the reply which we should make and that is also satisfactory to us. These documents are entirely agreeable to us. I also understand that perhaps you would like to have some further talk about these documents and if you would like to do that perhaps we might withdraw while you do it.
MR. BEVIN: There is only one point. I think everyone has done very well in this. But this is just one little worry. It is a question of procedure in the House of Commons that affects me. Will you look at paragraph 6 of the document, please. It is the middle words, Mr. Acheson. It says: "In the event of a favourable reply in relation to the above request, a detailed statement of the specific needs of the signatories of the Brussels Treaty for the year 1949/1950", and then you go on to say "of which the United States has had informal knowledge through its observers in the various defence committees of the Brussels Treaty organizations". Well, I have never owned up that I have given you any treaty. And while the observers agree, I have not said they have and I have not said they have not. Do you desire the observers to be mentioned in this document? Could you take the words "In the event of a favourable reply in relation to the above request, a detailed statement of the specific needs of the signatories of the Brussels Treaty for the year 1949/1950 will be transmitted to the United States Government at the earliest possible date"? And leave that other phrase out?
CHAIRMAN: That is all right.
MR. BEVIN: Could you take that other out?
CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. BEVIN: That suits me. I'm sorry for our present rules. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN: We agree, Mr. Bevin.
MR. BEVIN: Thank you very much. There is one word that is suggested to me by Mr. Jebb in paragraph 2, that is, that the word "situation" should be put in instead of "position". Could you explain what this is, Mr. Jebb?
MR. JEBB: It is just four lines from the end, Sir. We have got it in the English text. In the French text they use the word "situation"; in any case I think "situation" is the word to indicate what is meant. The English text has "position" but I think the word "situation" should be used instead. It means geographical but we thought we better not include it.
MR. BEVIN: The other one is pointed out to me in the paragraph (c) of paragraph 4, the bottom line, which says "Additional local currency costs should be met", not "made", "should be met from non-inflationary sources".
MR. STIKKER: There is only one question I'd like to ask. Do I understand it all right that that is now the redraft and if it is a redraft, what date does it bear? Is it the same date, or is it another date?
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bevin is suggesting it be marked March 16.
MR. JEBB: It refers to the Atlantic Pact.
MR. BEVIN: I think it better to stick to the 16th.
MR. SURREY: If you do that you should put "proposed" down.
CHAIRMAN: Then do I understand, Mr. Bevin, that it's agreeable to have this dated the 16th of March and that requires us to put in "the proposed North Atlantic Pact", "in accordance with the general objectives of Article 3 of the proposed North Atlantic Pact".
MR. STIKKER: Mr. Chairman, do you mind my saying just a small remark that I regret that the words "equality of treatment" are not any more in it. I'm sure that there will be some difficulties in my Parliament during the ratification. But, on the other hand, I appreciate that many other remarks have been put in that are the entire solidarity to the common defence so I hope to be able to succeed and overcome the difficulties, but I can't say definitely.
CHAIRMAN: We appreciate the difficulty, Mr. Stikker. We have done our best. May I just clear up this reply so that we all have the changes on that. In the document that you have before you, "Draft Reply of the United States Government," it has been suggested to us that there be some changes in paragraph 3 that I referred to a moment ago. Just to go over those, "It will be requested" after the word "requested" we would put in "of the Congress." It then reads "It will be requested of the Congress," etc. Then in the last sentence of paragraph 3 it has been suggested that this be changed so it reads as follows: "It will be understood" instead of "It would be understood," "It will be understood that the allocation of this material and financial assistance will be affected by common agreement between the Brussels Treaty Powers and the United States." Are those changes satisfactory?
MR. BEVIN: I can't get this exactly right. Can I take a clause 3 again now?
CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. BEVIN: See if I got it right: "It will be requested of the Congress that such assistance be in the form of military equipment from the United States required by their common defense program and the provision of some financial assistance for increased military efforts on their part required by such program. It will be understood that this material…"
CHAIRMAN: "That the allocation of this material?
MR. BEVIN: "That the allocation of this material and financial assistance will be effected by common agreement between the Brussels Treaty Powers and the United States." Is that right?
CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. BEVIN: Now I have got it right. Thank you, very much.
CHAIRMAN: Now, this problem about the date. I think Mr. Spaak has some problem about the date.
MR. SPAAK: (Translation) Mr. Chairman, why date this document March 16 in London since it's obvious it was written in Washington on April 5? Why should we do that? Wouldn't it be possible to have it dated Washington, April 5?
MR. BEVIN: I thought somebody wanted it March 16. I'm quite indifferent about the date.
CHAIRMAN: It's dated April 5.
MR. WEBB: April 4.
MR. BECH: I think April 4.
MR. SILVERCRUYS: Naturally it's good in this case that the answer should be dated April 6.
MR. BEVIN: I understand the officials discuss this but I want to be clear myself exactly who this is handled. You dated this thing April 5. Have we all got to send it in here in Washington or does one person on behalf of the Brussels Powers send it in and get the answer?
MR. JEBB: It was suggested this morning that, seeing that the Luxembourg Minister in London is now Chairman of the permanent commission it might be in order for the Luxembourg Representative, Mr. Le Gallaia, to transmit this himself in the name of the five governments to the State Department tomorrow morning in the form of a memorandum and equally that there should be two communications. The first one would be a memorandum which has been agreed now, and the second one would be a memorandum which would be labeled "Secret," which would in effect be the old confidential annex and appendix which would not be for publication, but the first document might be published.
MR. BEVIN: And on April 6 because the Department of State gets it the same time with the next day's date on it.
CHAIRMAN: Those arrangements, I think, are entirely satisfactory and I think they meet Mr. Spaak's point also. May I raise one more question please. I think there has been some talk between us about making those documents public. The suggestion was that they be released in all capitals on Friday morning. Is that agreeable to everyone?
MR. BEVIN: That is only this top one?
CHAIRMAN: Not the Secret documents, just the top document and the reply would be released on Friday morning at an hour which our association can work out together. That is agreeable to all? (Agreed) Very well.
MR. STIKKER: What would be the hour of release?
MR. SURREY: At 11 a.m., Washington.
CHAIRMAN: Yes, 11 a.m., Washington. Now, may we say to the press this afternoon that we have met and concluded the discussion we started on Saturday on some matters of interest to the Brussels Treaty Powers, that they wanted to discuss with us? It gives them very little enlightenment but at least it will be something. If that is agreeable I think that concludes the business. Very good.
(The meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m.) (Reported by V. R. Voce)