Advertisement

Journal of Transatlantic Studies

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 195–206 | Cite as

France, the North Atlantic Triangle and negotiation of the North Atlantic Treaty, 1948–1949: a Canadian perspective

  • Hector MackenzieEmail author
Article

Abstract

On the basis of a study of American, British and Canadian records, this article examines the relationship of France to the negotiation of the North Atlantic Treaty from the perspective of the ‘ABC’ countries, particularly Canada. How did the perceived vulnerability of France influence the approach of the members of the ‘North Atlantic Triangle’ to the justification, timing and contents of the proposed pact? How did France’s inclusion in Western Union and its exclusion from the preliminary talks in the Pentagon affect American, British and Canadian attitudes to the development of the draft alternatively known as the ‘Pentagon Paper’ or the ‘State Department Draft’? These questions are addressed, as well as the impact on the later ambassadorial talks of France’s priority to immediate rearmament and its determination to include the departments of Algeria within the defensive perimeter of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Finally, the article assesses the extent to which France and its requirements influenced the policies and actions of the Canadian government throughout the negotiation of the North Atlantic Treaty.

Keywords

France NATO Canada Britain United States negotiations security 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Escott Reid, Time of Fear and Hope: The Making of the North Atlantic Treaty, 1947–1949 (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1977)Google Scholar
  2. 1a.
    James Eayrs, In Defence of Canada: Growing Up Allied (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1980)Google Scholar
  3. 1b.
    Cees Wiebes and Bert Zeeman, ‘The Pentagon Negotiations of March 1948: The Launching of the North Atlantic Treaty’, International Affairs 59, no. 3 (1983): 351–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 1c.
    Nicholas Henderson, The Birth of NATO (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1983)Google Scholar
  5. 1d.
    Lawrence S. Kaplan, The United States and NATO: The Formative Years (Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press, 1984)Google Scholar
  6. 1e.
    Martin H. Folly, ‘Breaking the Vicious Circle: Britain, the United States, and the Genesis of the North Atlantic Treaty’, Diplomatic History 12, no. 1 (1988): 59–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 1f.
    Don Cook, Forging the Alliance: NATO, 1945–1950 (New York: Arbor House/William Morrow, 1989)Google Scholar
  8. 1g.
    Hector Mackenzie, ‘Canada, the Cold War and the Negotiation of the North Atlantic Treaty’, in Diplomatic Documents and their Users, ed. John Hilliker and Mary Halloran (Ottawa: Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, 1995), 145–73Google Scholar
  9. 1h.
    Hector Mackenzie, ‘The North Atlantic Triangle and the North Atlantic Treaty: A Canadian Perspective on the ABC Security Conversations of March–April 1948’, London Journal of Canadian Studies 20 (2004/2005): 77–99.Google Scholar
  10. 2.
    Treaty of Alliance and Mutual Assistance between His Majesty in Respect of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the President of the French Republic, Dunkirk, March 4, 1947, British Command Paper 7217, Treaty Series, 73 (1947).Google Scholar
  11. 3.
    Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, vol. 3, Western Europe [FRUS 1948: 3] (Washington: GPO, 1974), 3–8, 18–19.Google Scholar
  12. 4.
    FRUS 1948: 3, 8–9.Google Scholar
  13. 5.
    FRUS 1948: 3, 33–4.Google Scholar
  14. 6.
    Department of External Affairs, Statements and Speeches, 47/2: Louis St. Laurent, ‘The Foundations of Canadian Policy in World Affairs’, in Canada in World Affairs: From UN to NATO 1946–1949, ed. Robert A. Spencer (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1959), 2–13Google Scholar
  15. 6a.
    Hector Mackenzie, ‘Shades of Gray? “The Foundations of Canadian Policy in World Affairs” in Context’, The American Review of Canadian Studies 37, no. 4 (2007): 459–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 7.
    Documents on Canadian External Relations Volume 14 1948 [DCER 14] (Ottawa: Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, 1994), 1754–60.Google Scholar
  17. 8.
    King Diary: 11 March 1948. Library and Archives Canada [LAC], Papers of the Prime Ministers [MG26], W L. M. King, Diary [J13].Google Scholar
  18. 9.
    FRUS 1948: 3, 40–2.Google Scholar
  19. 10.
    United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 19 (New York: UNO, 1948), 51–63. Henderson, Birth of NATO, 1–14.Google Scholar
  20. 11.
    FRUS 1948: 3, 54–5.Google Scholar
  21. 12.
    DCER 14, 434.Google Scholar
  22. 13.
    FRUS 1948: 3, 55–6. There was a follow-up message one month later after the foreign ministers of the Western Union states met to set up a Consultative Council and to begin military talks. Ibid., 91. In early March, the French foreign minister had also proposed consultations involving France, the United Kingdom and the United States.Google Scholar
  23. 14.
    Ibid., 68.Google Scholar
  24. 15.
    Ibid., 59–61. British Delegation to United Nations to UKSSFA, No. 945, 20 March 1948 [from Jebb], United Kingdom National Archives [UKNA], Foreign Office Records [FO] 371, Volume 68067, File AN1239. DCER 14, 442–7. Lord Gladwyn, The Memoirs of Lord Gladwyn (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1972), 215. For analysis of the ABC talks, see Wiebes and Zeeman, ‘Pentagon Negotiations’; Hector Mackenzie, ‘North Atlantic Triangle’.Google Scholar
  25. 16.
    DCER 14, 463–5.Google Scholar
  26. 17.
    Ibid., 502–8.Google Scholar
  27. 18.
    Ibid., 445–7. Justin Massie, ‘L’importance de la France dans la culture stratégique du Canada’ (PhD thesis, University of Ottawa, 2010), 307. Wiebes and Zeeman, ‘Pentagon Negotiations’, 354–6.Google Scholar
  28. 19.
    FRUS 1948: 3, 72–5.Google Scholar
  29. 20.
    Ibid., 92–7, 104–8, 116–19, 135–6.Google Scholar
  30. 21.
    A(US) to UKSSFA, No. 166 Saving, 5 May 1948; Inverchapel to Bevin, No. 813, 13 May 1948, FO371/68014/AN1914.Google Scholar
  31. 22.
    FRUS 1948: 3, 84–5; Henderson, Birth of NATO, 30–1.Google Scholar
  32. 23.
    FRUS 1948: 3, 121 (and n. 1 on same page).Google Scholar
  33. 24.
    FRUS 1948: 3, 122–3.Google Scholar
  34. 25.
    Note of meeting, 7 May 1948, UKNA, Cabinet Office Records [Cab] 127/341.Google Scholar
  35. 26.
    FRUS 1948: 3, 136–9.Google Scholar
  36. 27.
    Bevin to Franks, 3 June 1948, FO371/73070/Z4674.Google Scholar
  37. 28.
    UKSSFA to A(US), No. 6988, 28 June 1948, FO371/73071/Z5174.Google Scholar
  38. 29.
    FRUS 1948: 3, 139; DCER 14, 514-16. Wiebes and Zeeman, ‘Pentagon Negotiations’, 361–3.Google Scholar
  39. 30.
    FRUS 1948: 3, 140–1.Google Scholar
  40. 31.
    Ibid., 148–51.Google Scholar
  41. 32.
    Eayrs, Growing Up Allied, 88–9. On the general need for security, see Memorandum from SSEA to PM, 10 July 1948, DCER 14, 530–2.Google Scholar
  42. 33.
    FRUS 1948: 3, 142–3.Google Scholar
  43. 34.
    Henderson, Birth of NATO, 38–9, 43–6, 52–5.Google Scholar
  44. 35.
    FRUS 1948: 3, 148–51. The Military Assistance Program, whereby the US extended aid to its allies, was introduced in Congress after ratification of the North Atlantic Treaty.Google Scholar
  45. 36.
    FRUS 1948: 3, 152–5.Google Scholar
  46. 37.
    Ibid., 155–60.Google Scholar
  47. 38.
    Ibid., 163–9.Google Scholar
  48. 39.
    Ibid., 169–82.Google Scholar
  49. 40.
    DCER 14, 536–7, 540–1.Google Scholar
  50. 41.
    FRUS 1948: 3, 212–13.Google Scholar
  51. 42.
    DCER 14, 548–50, 558–9, 562, 564–8. In France, Robert Schuman had succeeded Bidault as foreign minister on 26 July.Google Scholar
  52. 43.
    FRUS 1948: 3, 214–21; DCER 14, 577–81.Google Scholar
  53. 44.
    FRUS 1948: 3, 221.Google Scholar
  54. 45.
    Hoyer-Millar to Jebb, 20 August 1948, FO371/73075/Z7002.Google Scholar
  55. 46.
    Hoyer-Millar to Jebb, 21 August 1948, FO371/73075/Z7003.Google Scholar
  56. 47.
    DCER 14, 581–2.Google Scholar
  57. 48.
    Reid, Time of Fear and Hope, 121.Google Scholar
  58. 49.
    FRUS 1948: 3, 228–32; DCER 14, 589–92.Google Scholar
  59. 50.
    FRUS 1948: 3, 237–48.Google Scholar
  60. 51.
    Jebb, Minute, 9 September 1948, FO371/73077/Z7564.Google Scholar
  61. 52.
    FRUS 1948: 3, 249–50.Google Scholar
  62. 53.
    DCER 14, 608–13.Google Scholar
  63. 54.
    FRUS 1948: 3, 270.Google Scholar
  64. 55.
    DCER 14, 714–15.Google Scholar
  65. 56.
    FRUS 1948: 3, 283, 300–10.Google Scholar
  66. 57.
    Ibid., 310–14.Google Scholar
  67. 58.
    Ibid., 315–21; DCER 14, 717–19. Minutes of meetings of the working group from 15 to 23 December 1948, as well as its report of 24 December 1948, may be found in ibid., 721–6, 747–9, 752–4, 757–9, 764–72. Franks to Bevin, 29 December 1948, FO800/454.Google Scholar
  68. 59.
    Italy was a prospective member of the pact in the Pentagon Paper and subsequent discussions with Senator Vandenberg. On the ‘stepping-stone countries’, see Reid, Time of Fear and Hope, 195–97.Google Scholar
  69. 60.
    DCER 15 (1995), 478–91; Eayrs, Growing Up Allied, 117–18.Google Scholar
  70. 61.
    Eayrs, Growing Up Allied, 117–18. Massie, ‘L’importance de la France’, 313–14. Schuman also insisted on the inclusion of Algeria in discussions with Bevin. Alan Bullock, Ernest Bevin, Foreign Secretary 1945–1951 (London: Norton, 1983), 656–7.Google Scholar
  71. 62.
    Jebb, Minute (to UKSSFA), 4 January 1949, FO371/79220/Z224.Google Scholar
  72. 63.
    DCER 15, 491–7.Google Scholar
  73. 64.
    FRUS 1949: 4, 27–34. Eayrs, Growing Up Allied, 118.Google Scholar
  74. 65.
    DCER 15, 502–3.Google Scholar
  75. 66.
    Ibid., 506–8.Google Scholar
  76. 67.
    As quoted in John A. Munro and Alex I. Inglis, eds., Mike, the Memoirs of the Right Honourable Lester B. Pearson, Volume II, 1948–1975: The International Years (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1973), 55.Google Scholar
  77. 68.
    Reid, Time of Fear and Hope, 217–18.Google Scholar
  78. 69.
    DCER 15, 521–4.Google Scholar
  79. 70.
    FRUS 1949: 3, 107–8.Google Scholar
  80. 71.
    Ibid., 126–35; DCER 15, 544–6.Google Scholar
  81. 72.
    FRUS 1949: 4, 281–5.Google Scholar
  82. 73.
    M. Thornton, ‘Ernest Bevin, George C. Marshall and Lester B. Pearson, January 1947 to January 1949: A North Atlantic Triangle?’, in Kith and Kin: Canada, Britain and the United States from the Revolution to the Cold War, ed. C.C. Eldridge (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1997), 205–22.Google Scholar
  83. 74.
    Massie, ‘L’importance de la France’, 309.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Board of Transatlantic Studies 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Foreign Affairs and International TradeCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations