E.O 3.3(h)(2) 

PL.86-36/50 USC 3605 

!'OP SEeB'l' - 'tJ. S. EH:S OHLY FINAL 

USCIB: 29.20/15 

Subject: 

Item 3 of the Agenda for the 115th Meeting of USCIB, 

held on 20 May 195;. 

The ACTING CHAIRMAN (General Cabell) introduced this item by 

suggesting that the paper containing recommendations by the Director, 

NSA (USCIB 2.9.20/9) be used as a basis for discussion. He invited 

comments. 

GENERAL CANINE said, with reference to his report, that he is 

unable to explain the British concern about this matter at this 

particular time, and suggested the possibility that the impetus originated within the Foreign Office, rather than in LSIB or the Ministry of 

Defense. In arry event, he said, the action proposed by the British is 

foreign to our basic method of operation and would necessitate a change 

from our "vertical" type of CC!UNT organization. He expressed concern 

that we may be forced into a course of action which we would not choose 

of our own volition. 

The CHAIR explained that the British can, on their own, take the 

action they have outlined if they choose to do so. He said that he 

thought our main effort should be to persuade them not to take such 

action. 

GENERAL CANINE ref erred to the UKUSA Agreement and questioned the 

moral, if not legal, obligation of the U.K. not to deal unilaterally in 

this matter. 

The CHAIR asked Mr. Armstrong if he considers the political 

implications of the problem to be greater than the technical implications. 

MR. ABMSTRONG said that he could not really say because he has not 

been able to get to the bottom of the British thinking on the juridical 

basis for their proposal. He suggested one possible element affecting 

the British that does not affect us, viz, the Brussels Pact, of which 

we are not a signatory. He indicated that it may contain provisions 

concerning forces in Europe which would not apply to us. He stated 

further that under the NATO agreements, with particular reference to the 

resolutions on placing forces under SACEUR adopted at the London 

Conference last October, member nations or forces of member nations must 

be put under the authority of SACEUR or other appropriate NATO Commander 

with the exception of those forces intended for the defense of overseas 

territories and other forces which the NATO organization has recognized 

as being suitab.;Le for retention under national co.mma.nd. He continued by 

USCIB: 29.20/15 - 7 - (Corrected page) 

, 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 05-16-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352\3 

'TOP SECRET 
'fOP SEeR!fl' - tJ. S • EiYElS OHt.Y 

USCIB: 29.20/15 

saying that in view of inability to assess the juridical basis advanced 

by the British, he is not in complete accord with the Executive 

Secretary's proposal, because until a full study of the legal aspects 

is made we are not in a position to recormnend officially that the British 

take, or refrain from taking, certain action. 

The ACTING CHAIRMAN asked if the members were willing to ask the 

Department of State, with assistance from NSA, to take the leadership in 

making representations to the British, leaving it to the discretion of 

the State member as to whether the matter should be handled in political 

or COMINT channels. 

MR. ARMSTRONG, pointing out that the involvement of military forces 

makes this matter of greater concern to the Department of Defense than to 

his Department, suggested that leadership be in the hands of the 

Department of Defense. He offered such assistance as his Department 

might be able to give. 

GENERAL ERSKINE suggested that the solution· of the problem lay in 

the Defense understanding of that portion of the London-Paris Agreement 

which required all forces of NATO member nations in the area of Allied 

Command Europe to be placed under SACEUR except those forces which NATO 

"has recognized or will recognize as suitable to remain under national 

command." He reported that the Defense member of the U.S. element of 

the Nine Power Conference Working Group reveals that there was an understanding in arriving at those words that military forces now in place, 

but not listed in the SHAPE Annual Review of Forces, have already been 

recognized by NATO as suitable to remain under national command. 

GENERAL CANINE expressed some surprise that he has had no word from 

the Director, GCHQ on this subject, since he usually receives informal 

notice in advance of official proposals. He said that this leads him to 

conclude that this matter is being pressed by the Foreign Office rather 

than by LSIB. 

The CHAIR suggested that our first step be to object to the contemplated U.K. action at the USCIB-LSIB level, and proposed that the draft 

message prepared by the ExeCl,ltive Secretary be used as a basis for 

discussion. 

The manbers considered the draft message to LSIB (enclosure with 

USCIB 29.20/10) and after approving paragraphs l and 2, directed the 

Executive Secretary to prepare an alternate paragraph 3 which would 

(1) suggest that LSIB inform USCIB of' its views, with particular reference to the juridical basis, (2) offer to provide USCIB views to LSIB 

after the LSIB position has been studied, (3) suggest the possibility of 

a conference between USCIB and LSIB representatives in London, if deemed 

desirable after the exchange of respective views. 

USCIB: 29.20/15 - s - (Corrected page) 

TOP S£CRE'f 
~Fr-lRriAR027B 

Toi Ji:.c:..n..c. 1. e 

'l'OP SB6R!fl' - tl.B. Eft'i8 ONLY 

USCIB: 29.20/15 

CAPTAIN TAYLOR said that he would circulate such a revised paragraph 3 without delay to all msn.bers for comment. 

GENERAL CANINE's suggestion that the moral, if not legal, prohibition in the UKUSA agreement against unilateral action be brought to 

LSIB1s attention was not concurred in. 

DECISION: (20 May 1955) USCIB, being opposed to the LSIB recommendations contained in USCIB 29.20/7, agreed to forward to LSIB a reply 

consisting of the first two paragraphs of the dra~ message contained in 

USCIB 29.20/10 plus a third paragraph, to be drafted and circulated for 

comment by the Executive Secretary, which will request British views on 

their proposed action, with particular emphasis on the "juridical basis" 

aspect, offer to provide USCIB views in return after the LSIB views have 

been studied, and suggest the possibility of a conference between USCIB 

and LSIB representatives in London, if deemed desirable after the 

exchange of respective views. 

• 

USCIB: 29.20/15 - 9 - (Corrected page) 

TOP Sf:Cftf:T