Dear General de Gaulle:1 I am replying further to your letter of June 10, to which I had sent a preliminary comment on June 18, regarding the more effective organization of our tripartite consultations.2
I think we are now in agreement with regard to the method of our consultation in the political field, and our designated representatives should accordingly begin during the summer to plan for the next regular occasion for a tripartite Foreign Ministers’ meeting, which would normally occur in New York during the early fall at the time of the opening of the United Nations General Assembly. Should an emergency arise in the interim, our Foreign Ministers might conceivably need to meet earlier. With regard to tripartite political consultations at the highest level, it is my own concept, with which I know you agree, that these occasional meetings play an important role in the organization of our work and the conduct of our business.
Passing to the question of strategic cooperation which you raise in your letter, I believe that there are means of arranging tripartite military discussions here which would meet the concerns which you mention.3 During some of our previous tripartite talks in 1959, military representatives participated. Discussions were held on African questions in the State Department at which high-ranking military officers of the three countries were present. At that time, the French representative, Ambassador Alphand, who was accompanied by General Gelee, asked for separate military talks.4 Subsequently, it is my understanding, we agreed to holding such separate talks among our military representatives. However, this offer was not followed up subsequently by our partners, and hence I assume the basis then envisaged did not meet your desire. Accordingly, I now suggest a somewhat different approach in the effort to meet your point of view.
I remain ready to hear from you your more precise ideas as to when tripartite conversations on military and strategic questions might profitably be held. I think we should not contemplate formal combined staff planning but I am prepared to have our military representatives engage in talks on subjects of interest to you in various parts of the world, primarily outside the NATO area. I will wait to hear from you on this point at your convenience.
With regard to who would participate in these talks, I would assume that, as was envisaged in the past, these talks would take place here, and I would designate a high-ranking officer. This would not be our Representative on the Standing Group. However, I can understand that you would wish to designate your senior officer in Washington, who is, I understand, your Standing Group Representative.5 I have no objection to this on the understanding that he would be acting in a national capacity, and we would not be thus interfering with the work of a NATO mechanism.
I have informed Prime Minister Macmillan of my views on this subject, and believe that we can coordinate satisfactorily our thoughts so that tripartite consultations in the military field soon occur.6
I would also like to point out, in this general connection, my own view that the soundest basis for developing between us a close European military cooperation, lies in the perfecting of a viable NATO, and that we should take all possible steps to this end. I believe this is a matter of capital importance to us all, and I would greatly appreciate your comments on this particular point.
I shall look forward to hearing from you and take this opportunity to repeat that I, for my part, am prepared to have our military experts enter into discussions with your representatives and our British friends at your mutual convenience on military and strategic questions.7
With warm personal regard, Sincerely
