https://declassified.library.utoronto.ca/files/original/1f08c6348cd1b909f3554c501a5c4793.pdf 3590d6f748d4ae95ed50d5f83c971001 PDF Text Text f DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNALTAFFAiRS, CANADA. NUMBERED LETTER * Security: TQ: THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ^ E X T E R N A L AFFAIRS, OTTAWA, CANADA. A ./•.'-.•• FROM1- : .,-.-• CANADIAN EMBASSY, g ...,,.....,„ • • ! * • * * * • » • * • • • * • • « . I Date:..........,Ma3re20 A .l?Aq, ' Enclosures:... Reference; PH^tettW;' 39$. Pf. . ^ p h M,. X&% .and , your telegram DL232 of March 23, 19$9. Subject:.. PP.nftinp.4 .iPp^Qy. PP.Wfct.e?, , SECRET • • * • # * * * • * • » No:...... •,. yy.A-.yijmm ................. T . ^ '....?. ... Air or Surface Mail:. ..QQWteV. fiag ... Post File No: . . ZfrlrA. ........ Ottawa File No ^References You will recall that last year the Combined Policy Committee was reconstituted in order to advance cooperation among the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada in research and development, in military fields 'Where the three countries have mutual defence interests. While the Committee has not met, subordinate groups have been very active. V*"« 2., The State Department has been considering whether, having formally revived the Combined Policy Committee, anything further need be done.' Rutter in the Office of the Special Assistant to the Secretary for Atomic Energy has informed us that the State Department has completed a study which is now being considered by the various departments concerned. In brief, this study has concluded that the existing situation is satisfactory. Rutter said that the idea had been mooted that a pro forma meeting of the Committee might be convened at the level, on the United States side, . 3 bfBefsafcy Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs (Mri Merchant). At this meeting the Committee would consider whether the situation should be allowed to continue as at present with the Combined Policy Committee in existence but inactive and with the subordinate groups operating as they do -now-and reporting to governments through the Subcommittee (see paragraph 7 below). Rutter said that Farley (Special Assistant to the Secretary for Disarmament and Atomic Energy) had conceded that convening a pro forma, meeting of the Committee would consolidate the reconstitution of the Gommittee but he considered that from a practical point of view this was unnecessary. V Internal Circulation Distribution to Posts London 3. Rutter said that it was expected that "within a month or so" the State Department woulfl be handing an aide memoire to the United Kingdom Embassy and ourselves which would review the history of the Combined Policy Committee, with particular reference to the State Department's aide memoire of March 11, 1959 proposing reconstitution, indicate what has been • accomplished in the interim by the subordinate groups, suggest that no guidance or supervision is at this stage necessary and request the views of the United Kingdom and ourselves. The State Department's view, however, was that the framework for consultation^ i.e. the Committee, should be retained in case it is needed in the future. Rutter cautioned that the sense of the aide memoire might be changed as a result of interdepartmental consultation though he thought it unlikely that it would be. o • »£ ixt. 182A (Rev. 2/52) / • 1/ 000024 �T, '-• 2 -A- -:,.":- SECRET ' A"' U. T • The United States Director of Defense Research and Engineering had-expressed his informal view to the Defence Research Attache that a local Washington group of the three countries should be named .to act for • the Combined Policy Committee as might be required. It was understood that the Department of "Defense had proposed this action to the Department ' :of State for consideration. This, no doubt, is what stimulated the T current examination of the question by the State Department. It would appear, howeyer, that upon further consideration the State Department does not see a requirement for constituting a local Washington group which would presumably serve as deputies to the principals. In fact Rutter specifically stated that Farley1s;view was that the local secretariat of the Committee ' (viz., Farley,United States; Wiggin, United Kingdom; and Williamson of this Embassy) could provide the necessary permanent staff of the Committee in Washington. .. 5* We have been in touch with Wiggin of the United Kingdom Embassy to ascertain'whether he had any views concerning the United Kingdom reaction to the State Department's study of the role of the Combined Policy . Gommittee. Wiggin said he had drawn the fact of the study to London's attention suggesting that from a practical point of view the situation appeared to be quite satisfactory as it now was. He had, however, had no official comment from London other .than that they would await the completion of the study and the presentation of the conclusions as forecast by Rutter. 6. For the time being the above may be regarded for information only. ; It may be, however, that you will wish to give some consideration to what role might be desirable for the Combined Policy Committee from the Canadian point.of view. For this purpose a brief summary of what has been established and accomplished under the tripartite technical cooperation programme may be helpful. A 7. Although the agreement under which the Combined Policy Committee was reconstituted provides for certain technical sub-groups to deal with nuclear weapons, nuclear materials and nuclear power sources, Canada has not to our knowledge participated in this portion of the programme. Tripartite activities have been conducted by a' Subcommittee of the Combined Policy Gommittee for Non-Atomic Military Research and Development (NAMRAD), on which the Canadian representative is the Chairman of the Defence Research Board. Under it at present are eleven sub-groups; each dealing with some field of research and development activity. Consideration is presently • being given to increasing this number to thirteen or fourteen by extension .of the programme into additional fields. Most of .the Sub-groups have a number of panels, each of which may meet several times in the course of a year to. exchange information and to plan coordination of programmes. To A provide continuous supervision of the non-atomic sub-groups the Subcommittee V has named deputies resident in Washington. -The Canadian deputy is the Defence Research Attache, Dr. Morton, who, of course, deals with the 'Chairman,' Defence Research Board, on a day-to-day basis on matters concerning the activities of the sub-groups and their panels. The Subcommittee meets annually in March, and the deputies a minimum of four times a year. The Subcommittee approves and issues an annual report which is presumably available to the members of the Combined Policy Committee. On the Canadian side these are the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of National Defence and the President of the Atomic Energy Control Board. -''"" A ''.'.. - ...3 000025 �SECRET 3 - ' 8. gA.;.- We are attaching for your information two papers passed to us by the.Defence Research Attache's office. They provide in concise form an outline of the history of the Tripartite Technical Cooperation Programme (United States, United Kingdom and Canada) and a description of the activities of Sub-Group "G" (Anti-Submarine Defence) as an example of the detailed activities tinder the Programme. We have formed the impression here that this Programme is as a whole going very well. It is not only permitting Canadian defence scientists more rapid and complete access to United States and United Kingdom information which they require, but also enables Canada to contribute more directly and surely to tripartite defence capabilities than would otherwise be the case. A recent example may serve to illustrate the point. Last fall the Defence Research Board produced a report of an experimental project on hydrofoil craft which included a favourable assessment of the possibility of designing a craft of about two hundred tons which would be comparatively inexpensive to-produce and might contribute by virtue of its high speed to the solution of the problem of detecting, tracking and destroying submarines. This report was considered by Sub-Group "G", and its recommendations evidently had a substantial impact on the United States Navy, who are concerned with the necessity of radical improvement in their anti-submarine capability. The Department of Defense has as a result immediately started to plan a substantial development programme for such craft, and have expressed the hope that Canada can undertake complementary and non-duplicating phases of this Programme with a view to ultimate joint production and use. of the products. It is understood that in consequence -fehafc our Department of Defence Production may propose a Canadian design study for a hydrofoil craft which might be one of a family of such ships of different types and dimensions. This example, among others, suggests that in the course of review of the means of implementing Canadian defence policy in the difficult period which may lie ahead consideration perhaps should be given to increased reliance on defence science as .a form of contribution to the defence of the free world. It appears to be a contribution which is particularly welcome in an age when the keenest competition is technological in character. It is obviously also one that may help to retain in Canada scientists and engineers who would otherwise be attracted to the United States, and may serve to strengthen and broaden-the Canadian economy. 9. According to its terms of reference the task of the Combined; Policy.Committee was to "establish broad policies and procedures for 1 scientific and technical cooperation in research'and development for ' military purposes, both nuclear and non-nuclear". In the recommendation to the Cabinet proposing our agreement to reconstitution it is stated, . "Reactivation of the Combined Policy Committee ... would provide an gumbrella for practical forms of cooperation in military research and ' development, in both the nuclear and non-nuclear fields, and appropriate • Ministerial machinery through which the various forms of technical cooperation could be guided and stimulated". This suggests that it was intended to provide for both political and technical direction. The latter is provided by the Subcommittee and the deputies. Against the event that major policy guidance may at some stage be necessary, and to, provide a more convenient alternative to assembling the Combined Policy Committee, you may consider that it might be desirable to establish a local Washington group representing the Committee, with the Ambassador acting as Canadian representative. The sort of questions -which might require guidance at, the Committee level are comprehensive proposals for pooling funds in research and development or proposals for originating common programmes on a larger scale or with a greater sense of urgency than heretofore. I • > 3 * - \ l u The Embassy \. 000026 � 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 CDNW05439 Title A name given to the resource CDNW05439 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived "Combined Policy Committee," RG24-B-1, vol 21439, file CSC 1888:5, part 1, 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