CAB129-37 — Page 664

9

Page 664

prejudice to, the work of other economic organisations in which the High Contracting Parties are or may be represented, but shall on the contrary assist the work of these organisations". The object of the Belgians in placing this on the agenda had undoubtedly been originally to suggest that His Majesty's Government in their devaluation of sterling and in their dis- crimination against Belgium in the matter of trade liberalisa- tion, had not been fulfilling their obligations under the Brussels Treaty. As, however, this question had in the mean- time been thoroughly thrashed out at the 0. E. E. C. meetings in Paris the week before, there was in fact little tendency to press it.

The Dutch and Belgian Representatives were content to take the line that although the Brussels Treaty machinery should not be used for discussing economic matters more properly handled elsewhere, it was nevertheless essential that the spirit of Article 1 of the Brussels Treaty should inspire the five powers in their action within the wider organisations such as the O.E. E. C. The Belgian Representative mentioned "discrimi-

nation" as something which should if possible be avoided. M. Schuman supported this line generally and the conclusion was reached that the Ministers of Finance, when they meet to discuss the financing of the military programmes (probably early in December) should take note of the views expressed in the Consultative Council and bear in mind the obligations implicit in Article 1 of the Treaty. I regarded this as a quite harm- less conclusion and I think we can be satisfied that there is no intention to put His Majesty's Government in the pillory or to use the Brussels Treaty as a forum for the discussion of economic questions generally.

6.

The Ministers received an oral statement of recent developments in the work of the Defence Committee, and on this the Netherlands Foreign Minister raised the question of the heavy expenditure involved. He produced figures suggesting that the Netherlands were devoting more money to military expenditure in proportion to their national income than any of the other powers, and he called for a thorough review of the commitments on Western Union defence. There was some disposal to dispute his figures, but general agreement that a clear picture must be prepared of the nature of the Western Union commitments and their costs, and it was agreed that this should be done by the Ministers of Defence and the Ministers of Finance at their next meetings, which should be followed by a joint meeting on the official level under the Permanent Commission in London.

7.

The Committee discussed also the question of the relationship between the Brussels Treaty and the Atlantic Fact and reached the single conclusion that the military part of the Brussels Treaty Defence Organisation should continue unaltered. For the rest it was agreed that the question what function the Brussels Treaty Military Organisation should perform within the Atlantic Pact should be studied by the Ministers of Defence at their next meeting (on 22nd November).

8.

Finally the Council discussed the question of co operation between the Brussels Treaty and the Council of Europe. They agreed with me in rejecting the proposal that members of Committees or Sub-Committees of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe should be permitted to attend meetings of Brussels Treaty Committees. This would mean allowing independent Members of Parliament to attend meetings of Civil Servants who were under orders from their Governments and would be unacceptable in princiRage 664 of 1097 agreed, however, thPage 664061097 contact

-2-