https://declassified.library.utoronto.ca/files/original/03b041bbe9a2f407c35858459aec14b0.pdf e128104b0a5898542da9c9fd3ec2a8f9 PDF Text Text "Si' co%/9-/fl-'Z^ FM NATOPARIS J A N 1 6 / 6 3 SECRET Cd TO EXTERNAL 122 OPIMMED INFO CCOS LDN WASHDC EMBPARIS ROME BC - PRIiiB DM/DND PRIORITY FM CCOS REF MYTEL 100 JAN 1'4 NATO DEFENCE PLANNING-ARRANGEMENTS FOR DISCUSSION AT THE REQUEST OF GERMAAN DEL COUNCIL AGREED JAN 15 TO POSTPONE THE MTG WHICH HAD BEEN SCHEDULED FOR F R I JAN 18 UNTIL WEED JAN23.THISIS TO PERMIT GERMAN PERMREP,WHO I S IN BONN CONSULTING WITH HIS GOVT TO PARTICIPATE.IN ACCEPTING SECGENS SUGGESTION FOR A POSTPONEMENT,SEVERAL DELS INCLUDING CDN RPTD THEIR DESIRE TO POSE CERTAIN QUESTIONS ABOUT TKE SUBSTANCE CF NASSAU AGREEMENT AS QUICKLY AS P O S S I B L E . SECGEN REMINDED THE COUNCIL THAT I T S DECISION HAD BEEN TO CONFINE JAN1S MTG TO PROCEDURAL DISCUSSION .HE SAID IF COUNCIL WISHED TO HASTEN THE PACE OF DISCUSSION OF SU3STANCEE IT WOULD 3E IMPORTANT TO HAVE QUESTIONS SUBMITTED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE P PARTICULARLY THE LIST OF USA QUESTIONS REFD TO BY BALL IN HIS STATEMENT JANIX. 2.THE POSTPONEMENT WILL ALSO PROVIDE MORE «T IKE TO CONSULT ON HOW TO DEAL WITH FRENCH ATT IT I D E . I HAVE LEARNED FROM A NORMALLY WELLINFORMED SOURCE IN FRENCH DEL THAT FRENCH PERMREP CAN EE EXPECTED TO OPPOSE THE CREATION OF ANY SPEECIAL MACHINERY FOR THE DISCUSSION OF NASSAU AGREEMENT,INCLUDING SECGENS PROPOSED SPECIAL CTTEE.FRENCH WOULD APPARENTLY EE PREPARED TO SEE THIS DISCUSSION TAKE PLACE IN THE COUNCIL WHERE ALU COUNTRIES ARE REPRESEWTED WHEREAS THERE WOULD BE OBJECTION TO A SPECIAL CTTEE ON TWO GROUNDS.THE FIRST WOULD BE THAT PARTICIPATION IN A SPECIAL CTTEE AS PROPOSED'BY THE SECGEN WOULD REQUIRE AN INDICATION OF INTEREST OR DESIRE ?N0 RPT NO SUCH ACTION I S REQUIRED FOR PARTICIPATION IM COUNCIL DISCUSSIONS.SECON- DLY, THE SPECIAL CTTEE WOULD HAVE TO "BE EXPLAINED AS A NEW BODYCPRES US ABLY THE DIFFICULTY WOULD BE IN EXPLAINING IT TO GEN DE GAULLE) WHEREAS THE COUNCIL AS AN EXISTING BODY WOULD NOT RPT NOT REQUIRE A0012920 211-000675 �i t - : i*f, / r 7 \ i '• '• r'y-"i - V * ( PAGE TWO 122 EXPLANATIONS SUGGESTION THAT PERHAPS IT COULD BE TKE MATO NUCLEAR CTTEE WHICH WOULD BE THE SPECIAL CTTEE REFD TO IN PARACDOF PG/63/25 DID NOT RPT NOT SEEK TO ALTER T H I S FRENCH ATTITLD'E. 3 . 1 TAKE IT THEREFORE THAT FRENCH DEL IS LIKELY TO EE UNDER FAIRLY EXPLICIT INSTRUCTIONS MOT RPT NOT TO AGREE TO NEW MACHINERY.FROM' GEN DE GAULLES PRESS CONFERENCE I WOULD ALSO TAKE IT THAT FRENCH ATTITUDE TO NASSAU AGREEMENT I S LIKELY TO BE CONSISTENTLY NEGATIVE. THIS RAISES THE QUESTION OF ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURES. 4«FRENCH HAVE BEEN IN THIS SORT OF NEGATIVE POSITION ON OTHER ISSUES BEFORE,AS FOR EXAMPLE IN THE DISCUSSIONS IK THE FALL OF 1961 OVER THE NARROW BAUE AND THE BROAD BASE FOR DISCUSSION WITH USSR OF BERLIN PROBLEM.ON THAT OCCASION FRENCH WERE BASICALLY OPPOSED TO A P O LICY OR PROGRAMME OF SOUNDINGS-OUT OF USSR BUT THEY ALLOWED THE DISCUSSION TO CONTINUE AT THE PACE THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE ALLIANCE DESIRES UNTIL THOSE OTHER MEMBERS HAD REAACHED AGREEMENT .FRENCH-THEN HAD A CLAUSE INSERTED IN THE MEMO OF. AGREEMENT. BY WHICH THEY . DISSOCIATED THEMSELVES FROM IT .THEY DID NOT RPT MOT THEREBY PREVENT THE SERIES OF SOUNDINGS WHICH LASTED THROUGHOUT MOST OF 1 9 6 2 . I S IT POSSIBLE TO ENVISAGE A SOMEWHAT SIMILAR PROCEDURE OVER NASSAU AGREEMENT IN THE SENSE THAT FRENCH WHILE SITTING IN ON THE CONVERSATIONS MIGHT TAKE LITTLE OR NO RPT NO PART AND IN FACT ALLOW THOSE WHO WISHED TO DO SO TO CONTRIBUTE FORCES TO A NATO MULTILATERAL FORCE AND SET UP THE CONTROL MACHINERY THEY DESIRE BUT WITHOUT THEMSELVES PARTICIPATING7ALTERNATIVELY, I F FRENCH BECAME MORE ACTIVELY OBSTRUCTIVE CONSIDERATION MIGHT HAVE TO BE GIVEN TO A TYPE OF NEGOTIATION WHICH WOULD IN EFFECT BE CONFIRMED TO THE POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTORS. - 5.FROM FURTHER CONVERSATIONS WITH SECGEN USA DEL HAVE FORMED THE I M PRESSION THAT STIKKER IS STILL NOT RPT NOT AS THOROUGHLY CONVINCED « « .3 A0012920 212-000676 �PAGE THREE 122 AS USA WOULD WISH HIK TQ BE OF THE NEED TO' 3IVE UMiLOTAKABLE FIRST PRIORITY TO DISCUSSING NASSAU' ARRANGEMENTS,THEY FEAR HE HAY STILL HAVE IN MIND A FORM OF DISCUSSION WHICH WOULD PERMIT HIS VIEWs'oN THE MRBM QUESTION TO CONTSMIE TO RECEIVE ATTENTION, ALT HO UGH I UN- DERSTAND THAT LIMNITZERjTHa NEW SACEUR, WHOK HE H.AS CONSULTED, AD- " VISEDD HIM TO GIVE PRIORITY TO CONSIDERING NASSAU AGREEMENT . T H I S , PLUS THE DIFFICULTIES WITH FRENCH DEL REFERRED TO ABOVE, MAY CAUSE USA IN THE END TO .SUGGEST A VERY GENERALLY WORDED FORMULA AGREEING TO FURTHER DISCUSSIONS OF NASSAU AGREEMENT J OR. IT MAY BE THAT IHE COUNCIL ITSELF VILL SIMPLY CONTINUE THE DISCUSSIOH WITHOUT ANY FORMAL DECISION TO CREATE A HEW CTTEE»NCW THAT WE H .VZ MORE TIME* YOU MAY WISH TO CONSIDER LETTING ME HAVE INSTRUCTIONS WHICH PERMIT US TO INFLUENCE THE DISCUSSION IN THE WAY IM WHICH YOU WISH I I TO GO WHILE USA AND UK VIEWS AT LEAST STILL SEEK RELATIVELY FLEXIBLE IGNATIEFF'-' A0012920 213-000677 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CDNW03237 Title A name given to the resource CDNW03237 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived "NATO - Nuclear weapons - Policy - NATO long term planning," RG25-A-3-b, vol 5959, file 50219-AL-2-40, part 6-2, Library and Archives Canada (LAC). Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Canadian Crown Subject The topic of the resource Nuclear Weapons Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Canada Declassified Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource PDF Language A language of the resource en