In the course of the discussion on the establishment of an information policy committee, the Norwegian representative mentioned that he had forwarded to the Secretary-General a confidential letter setting forth the views of the Norwegian Government on the desirability of setting up as soon as possible a political committee, and also on the political topics which now had to be discussed in Council. Ismay has circulated copies of Skaug's²² letter to all delegations for preliminary consideration at the informal meeting to take place tomorrow, June 26. The substantial points in Skaug's letter, which clearly reflect the views of his Foreign Minister, are the following:

(i) The Norwegian Government feels that there is a certain lack of political "face" in the recent work of the Council and that while progress has been made to a certain extent on the military and economic fronts, political problems have been markedly absent from our agendas. At the same time the Norwegian Government has always been a strong proponent of the idea that the Council should be used as a forum for exchanges of views on political problems, which are not necessarily limited in scope to the NAT geographical area.

(ii) The Council to carry out its political tasks needs the assistance of a political working group which in collaboration with the Secretariat can prepare reports based on Council discussions, or itself initiate discussions on political problems, depending on the character and complexity of the problem involved. The Norwegian Government therefore favours the establishment of a political "working group" or "Committee" on which representation may have to change according to the subjects under discussion. Wherever desirable the permanent representatives themselves would participate, and in other cases the political counsellors of delegations.

(iii) The work of the Council Deputies clearly proves the necessity of having a political working group. As the Norwegian representative puts it: "Political problems of major importance should clearly be raised and discussed in the first instance in the Council itself, (although the 'round-the-table' method practised in the Council Deputies should in our opinion not be continued). They should, however, be thrashed out in the political committee with a view to reaching the widest possible agreement among all 14 member countries - and the committee should draft reports for the Council. I would here like to stress that it is not so much the contents of such reports - they can hardly be sensational if they have to represent the agreed views of 14 governments - as the fact that 14 governments can agree to the points made in these reports, which give them their value. I can here refer to the Council Deputies' report on Soviet foreign policy. In other cases the topic may be taken up on the political committee's own initiative, e.g. with a view to bringing earlier reports up-to-date, concerning problems of more technical nature, etc. The chiefs of delegations will of course ensure that their subordinates do not embark or decide on matters which in their opinion should come before the Council."

(iv) Turning to the specific political topics which the Norwegian Government feels should now be discussed in NATO, Skaug's letter makes the following points: "The problem which most urgently needs to be placed on the Council agenda is the German question and the reply to the last Soviet note. The urgency is indicated by the fact that according to recent statements by government spokesmen in the United States and the United Kingdom, the reply to the Soviet note will be delivered at an early date. It is our view that since the signing of the contractual agreements with Western Germany, the EDC treaty and the NATO-EDC protocol, the German problem is now intimately linked with NATO. It is a matter which can no longer be regarded - even formally - as the exclusive concern of the Occupying Powers. Furthermore public opinion in our countries is vitally interested in the handling of this problem. The Norwegian Foreign Minister stated in the Norwegian Parliament on June 16th that it would leave a feeling of disquiet if another attempt were not made by the Western Powers to solve the German problem at the conference table, and he felt that public opinion in Norway would support him when he expressed the hope and desire that everything be done to make the German problem subject of another four-power discussion. Under these circumstances it is obvious that it would make a very favourable impression in Norway if my government were able to state publicly that all NATO members had been consulted on the contents of the reply to the Soviet note before it was finalized and delivered. At our meeting on June 19th I also mentioned that it might be useful to have a discussion in NATO of the situation in Morocco and Tunis. At the last United Nations Assembly the Norwegian delegation - although differing from the French view that United Nations was incompetent to deal with the question - took the position that the discussion on the Moroccan problem be postponed. This standpoint was based on the opinion that a discussion in United Nations at that stage might hamper and harm direct negotiations between the parties concerned. The reaction of public opinion was in my country, however, unfavourable to the position taken by the Norwegian delegation and both the Foreign Policy Committee of the Norwegian Parliament and the Foreign Minister himself in his speech mentioned above have stated that later developments have shown that the delegation was wrong when supporting postponement.

As regards Tunisia, the Norwegian delegation to the United Nations has been instructed eventually to support a motion that the Security Council reconsider its previous decision not to place the item on the agenda.

It seems therefore that there is a serious risk that at the next United Nations General Assembly there may appear a split in the NATO ranks on the Tunisian and Moroccan problems. However, this may be avoided if beforehand there have been confidential frank discussions within NATO. Thus a development which might prove harmful to the NATO cause could be avoided. There is no reason for me to hide the fact that a considerable public opinion in my country feels that NATO to some extent has turned into a 'colonial power-bloc.'

Other political topics which might usefully be discussed in the near future are the situation in Eastern Germany, the satellite countries and Yugoslavia. Reports on the conditions in these countries have already been made by the Council Deputies, but we feel that they should now be brought up-to-date - a process which should be established as continuous."

(v) On the general question of committee structure, the Norwegian representative takes issue with the Council's decision that the approach to the committee structure problem should be completely "empirical", arguing that there is a necessity for a general framework for the committees.

2. We should report to you that at the conclusion of today's meeting the Danish representative drew our attention privately to the fact that in the course of his recent visit to Copenhagen, the Danish Foreign Minister and Mr. Lange of Norway, who was also present, had agreed on the desirability of using the Council without further delay as a forum for consultation on the central questions of Germany and current Soviet tactics. So strong was their feeling on this subject, that, according to the Danish representative, his Foreign Minister and Mr. Lange are thinking very seriously of proposing a ministerial meeting of the Council, and we understand that a letter to this effect is going forward to you on this subject, directly from the Danish Foreign Minister. Steensen-Leth²³ has not yet raised this matter in the Council but he intends to discuss this suggestion informally with Ismay in the next day or two, and is clearly hoping for some support on our side. In indicating that he would endorse the Norwegian viewpoint on the need for political consultation, and particularly on Germany, Steensen-Leth made it abundantly clear however that he feels that Skaug's references to the Tunisian situation are ill-advised.

3. As you well know, we ourselves have continuously stressed the importance of the Council as a forum for political consultation, and I think therefore that we should give general support to the main argument of the Norwegian representative's paper. We should be grateful for guidance on the points which Skaug has raised and would be glad to be kept informed of any exchanges between Ottawa and Copenhagen on the subject of a possible ministerial meeting.