Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-sv6ng Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-08T21:29:17.371Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Détente versus Alliance: France, the United States and the politics of the Harmel report (1964–1968)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 September 2008

Frédéric Bozo
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Thirty years after its adoption in December 1967, the Harmel report can be seen as a turning point in the history of the Alliance. By postulating NATO's compatibility with the changing nature of international relations, the report's conceptual framework provided an answer to the political dimension of the Alliance's mid-1960s crisis – which, fundamentally, was a crisis of legitimacy. From then on, NATO's increasingly active role in East–West relations would complement its original rationale – the defence of its members in the narrow sense – with a new one – the management of European security writ large, thus enhancing, for at least two decades, the Alliance's raison d'être as a whole. With the benefit of hindsight, the long-term significance of the Harmel report is, in fact, indisputable: how could NATO have survived the disappearance of the Soviet threat and the end of East–West conflict had it not been for the post-Cold War expansion of its ‘new tasks’ along the lines of the Harmel report?

Type
Articles
Information
Contemporary European History , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , November 1998 , pp. 343 - 360
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Schmidt, Gustav, ‘Divided Europe – Divided Germany (1950–1963)’, Contemporary European History, Vol. III, No. 2 (1994), 156.Google Scholar

2 For an excellent analysis and a detailed account of the Harmel report and its origins, see Haftendorn, Helga, NATO and the Nuclear Revolution: A Crisis of Credibility, 1966–1967 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 320 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 On de Gaulle's policy toward the Atlantic Alliance, see Bozo, Frédéric, Deux Stratégies pour l'Europe. De Gaulle, les Etats-Unis et l'Alliance atlantique 1958–1969 (Paris: Plon, 1996)Google Scholar; Vaïsse, Maurice, Melandri, Pierre and Bozo, Frédéric, eds., La France et l'OTAN 1949–1996 (Brussels: Complexe, 1996), and Haftendorn, NATO, 1–24.Google Scholar

4 On the memorandum of September 17, 1958, see Vaïsse, Maurice, ‘Aux origines du mémorandum de 1958’, Relations internationales, Vol. LVIII (1989), 253–68Google Scholar; and Bozo, , Deux Stratégies, 31–43.Google Scholar

5 On the European and Franco-German phase of de Gaulle's Atlantic policies, see Soutou, Georges-Henri, L'Alliance incertaine. Les rapports politiques et stratégiques franco-allemands 1954–1996 (Paris: Fayard, 1996), 149 ff.Google Scholar; and Bozo, , Deux Stratégies, 61 ff.Google Scholar

6 Quoted in Peyrefitte, Alain, C'était de Gaulle, Vol. 2 (Paris: de Fallois-Fayard, 1997), 62.Google Scholar

7 On de Gaulle's specific approach to detente, see Puaux, François, ‘L'originalité de la politique française de détente’, in Institut de Gaulle, Charles, De Gaulle en son siècle, Vol. 5, ‘L'Europe’ (Paris: Plon, 1992)Google Scholar; see also Soutou, , L'Alliance incertaine, 282 ff.Google Scholar, and Bozo, , Deux Stratégies, 134 ff.Google Scholar

8 Memorandum of conversation between de Gaulle and Erhard, 14 February 1964, Ministère des Affaires étrangères (MAE), Archives diplomatiques, série Cabinet du Ministre, Maurice Couve de Murville (1958–1968), Box 328.

9 See Bozo, , Deux Stratégies, 110–19 and 137–51.Google Scholar

10 Projet de circulaire (undated, March 1966), MAE, série Pactes 1961–1970, Box 261.

11 Pompidou's speech in the National Assembly, April 13, 1966, quoted in Revue de Défense nationale, June 1966.

12 Quoted in Peyrefitte, , C'était de Gaulle, 26.Google Scholar

13 Scope Paper, NATO Ministerial Meeting, The Hague,11–14 May 1964,Lyndon B. Johnson Library (LBJL), National Security File (NSF), International Meetings and Travels File (IMTF), Box 34.Google Scholar

14 Foreign Relations of the United States 1964–1968, Vol. XIII, Western Europe Region, Washington DC, 1995, 11.Google Scholar

15 FRUS 1964–1968, 33.

16 See Kaplan, Lawrence, NATO and the United States: The Enduring Alliance (Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1988) 86–7.Google Scholar

17 Scope Paper, NATO Ministerial Meeting, The Hague,11–14 May 1964,LBJL, NSF, IMTF, Box 34.Google Scholar

18 FRUS 1964–1968, 123.

19 ibid., 84.

20 EMBTEL Paris # 3060, December 2, 1965, LBJL, NSF, France, Box 172.

21 FRUS 1964–1968, 84.

22 EMBTEL Paris # 3060, December 2, 1965, LBJL, NSF, France, Box 172.

23 ibid.

24 FRUS 1964–1968, 285.

25 See Bozo, , Deux Stratégies, 138–9 and 144–5.Google Scholar

26 On the constructive LBJ response to de Gaulle, see Schwartz, Thomas A., ‘Lyndon Johnson and Europe: Alliance Politics, Political Economy, and “Growing out of the Cold War”’, in Brands, H. W., ed., Lyndon Johnson Confronts the World (to be published)Google Scholar; and Bozo, , Deux Stratégies, in particular 17–19, 158–92.Google Scholar

27 FRUS 1964–1968, 337.

28 ibid., 371.

29 ibid., 392–3.

30 ibid., 396.

31 ibid., 399.

32 ibid., 407.

33 See Schwartz, , ‘Lyndon Johnson and Europe’.Google Scholar

34 Quoted in Schwartz, , ‘Lyndon Johnson and Europe’. On the Johnson administration's effort at East-West bridge-buildingGoogle Scholar, see also Costigliola, Frank, ‘Lyndon B. Johnson, Germany, and “the End of the Cold War”’, in Cohen, Warren I. and Tucker, Nancy Bernkoff, eds., Lyndon Johnson Confronts the World (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994).Google Scholar

35 Costigliola, , ‘Lyndon B. Johnson’, 175.Google Scholar

36 Haftendom, , NATO, 321.Google Scholar

37 FRUS 1964–1968, 501.

38 ibid., 502.

39 ibid., 505.

40 Position Paper, ‘Belgian Proposal for Study on Future of NATO’, December 6, 1966, LBJL, IMTF, Box 35; Haftendorn, NATO, 322.

41 FRUS 1964–1968, 524–5.

42 EMBTEL Paris # 9451, December 20, 1966, ‘Quai View on Kissinger Declaration and GOFFRG Relations’, LBJL, NSF, France, Box 173–4.

43 de Murville, Maurice Couve, Une Politique étrangère 1958–1969. (Paris: Plon, 1971) 227.Google Scholar

44 FRUS 1964–1968, 532.

45 ibid., 531. See also Schwartz, , ‘Lyndon Johnson and Europe’.Google Scholar

46 FRUS 1964–1968, 573.

47 LBJL, Administrative Histories, DOS, Vol. 1, ch. 3, ‘Europe’, ‘NATO Political Consultations – The Harmel Exercise’.

48 FRUS 1964–1968, 533.

49 Telegrams REPAN # 105, 159, 178 and 208, MAE, Pactes 1961–1970, Box 276.

50 Position Paper, ‘The Study on the Future of the Alliance’, 5 June 1967, LBJL, IMTF, Box 35.

51 ibid.

52 Haftendorn, , NATO, 355–7.Google Scholar

53 FRUS 1964–1968, 609.

54 Note, ‘Plan Harmel’ (October 4, 1967), MAE, Pactes 1961–1970, Box 276.

55 Haftendorn, , NATO, 343–6 and 352–4.Google Scholar

56 ‘Rapport Spaak (sous-groupe II du comité d'études Harmel)’, 27 September 1967; Telegram REPAN # 296, 26 September 1967, MAE, Pactes 1961–1970, Box 276.

57 Telegram REPAN # 286, 15 September 1967; Note, ‘Plan Harmel’, October 4, 1967, MAE, Pactes 1961–1970, Box 276.

58 Note, ‘Plan Harmel pour les “tâches futures de l'Alliance atlantique”’, 10 October 1967, MAE, Pactes 1961–1970, Box 276.

59 Note en vue du Conseil des Ministres, ‘Conseil Atlantique: comité spécial sur l'avenir de l'Alliance’, 28 November 1967, MAE, Pactes 1961–1970, Box 277.

60 Haftendorn, , NATO, 362.Google Scholar

61 Note pour le service des Pactes, Délégation française au Conseil atlantique, ‘Tâches futures de l'Alliance. “Plan Harmel”’, 9 October 1967, MAE, Pactes 1961–1970, Box 276.

62 Telegram REPAN # 294, 25 September 1967, MAE, Pactes 1961–1970, Box 259.

63 FRUS 1964–1968, 618.

64 Haftendom, , NATO, 362–3.Google Scholar

65 FRUS 1964–1968, 638.

66 Note, ‘Plan Harmel’, November 14, 1967, MAE, Pactes 1961–1970, Box 277.

67 Haftendorn, , NATO, 364.Google Scholar

68 LBJL, Administrative histories, DOS, vol. 1, ch. 3, ‘Europe’, ‘NATO Political Consultations – The Harmel Exercise’. See also FRUS 1964–1968, 634–41.

69 FRUS 1964–1968, 641–3.

70 Telegram REPAN # 673/75, 24 November 1967, MAE, Pactes 1961–1970, Box 277.

71 FRUS 1964–1968, 646.

72 ibid., 651.

73 Cleveland, Harlan, NATO: The Transatlantic Bargain (New York: Harper & Row, 1970) 145.Google Scholar

74 FRUS 1964–1968, 651–2.

75 LBJL, Administrative histories, DOS, Vol. 1, ch. 3, ‘Europe’, ‘NATO Political Consultations – The Harmel Exercise’.

76 Costigliola, , ‘Lyndon B. Johnson’, 202.Google Scholar

77 Telegram REPAN # 673/75 (November 24, 1967), MAE, Pactes 1961–1970, Box 277.

78 On the institutional and operational aspects of the new France–NATO relationship, see Bozo, Frédéric ‘Chronique d'une décision annoncée: le retrait de l'organisation militaire (1965–1967)’, in Vaïsse, , Melandri, and Bozo, , La France et l'OTAN.Google Scholar

79 Haftendorn, , NATO, 400.Google Scholar

80 In parallel, US negotiators were also successful in dealing with the French in the Kennedy Round negotiations in May–June and in the international money talks in August-September 1967; see Schwartz, , ‘Lyndon Johnson and Europe’Google Scholar; Bozo, , Deux Stratégies, 185–6Google Scholar; and Haftendorn, , NATO, 383 ff.Google Scholar

81 See Bozo, , Deux Stratégies, 17–20 and 167 ff.Google Scholar

82 LBJL, Administrative histories, DOS, vol. 1, ch. 3, ‘Europe’, ‘NATO Political Consultations – The Harmel Exercise’.

83 FRUS 1964–1968, 652.

84 ibid., 670–1.

85 ibid., 708–9.

86 See Klein, Jean, Sécurité et désarmement en Europe (Paris: Economica, 1987), 57 ff.Google Scholar

87 FRUS 1964–1968, 724–5.

88 Lacouture, Jean, De Gaulle, , Le Souverain, Vol. 3 (Paris: Le Seuil, 1986), 541.Google Scholar

89 Quoted in Newhouse, John, De Gaulle and the Anglo-Saxons (New York: Viking Press, 1970), 323.Google Scholar

90 FRUS 1964–1968, 740.

91 ‘Note pour le dîner OTAN du 7 octobre, “La crise tchécoslovaque et l'Alliance atlantique”’, 30 September 1968, MAE, Pactes 1961–1970, Box 277.

92 See Bozo, Frédéric, ‘France’, in Brenner, Michael, ed., NATO and Collective Security after the Cold War (London: Macmillan, 1998).Google Scholar