https://declassified.library.utoronto.ca/files/original/ac4a9efe050fdf59c68e5482e043c476.pdf 6544a2d63de7df8507a25560c812969f PDF Text Text ,, • < r'- \ \'-_) }_- c/fl) ' CTION , .((:. <.( - FM NATOPARIS JUL25/63 SECRET TO EXTER!IJAL 1604 PRIORITY REVEALED THAT "·WITH EXCEPTION OF FRANCE THEIR AUTHORITIES- SUPPORT£ THE PROCEDURE SUGGESTED BY THE-SECGEN IN PERMREP,.. MADE CLEAR THAT HIS COUNTRYS POSITION HAD NOt RPT NOT YET BEEN FINALIZED.ALTHOUGH HIS AUTHORITIES WOULD LIKE.VERY MUCH TO SUPPORT THE SECGENS PROPOSALS AND WELCOMED THE OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSED REVIEW ,HE INDICATED THE·Y SHARED SOME OF FRENCH. OBJECT IONS. LIKE SEVERAL OTHER DELS WHO SPOKE AFTER FRENCH,GERMAN PERMREP-CALLED FOR EFFORTS TO RECONCILE FRENCH POSITION WITH SECGENS PROPOSALS. 2.DELS WHICH SPOKE IN FAVOUR OF THE SECGENS PROPOSALS REFLECTED AN AWARENESS OF THE NOVELTY OF THE PROCEDURES SUGGESTED BY THE SECGEN IN WISHING TO SET UP JOINT CIVIL-MILITARY PLANNING GROUP AND AT THE SAME TIME A RECOGNITION THAT NEW PRDCEDURES HAD TO BE ADOPTED IF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STRATEGY,FORCE REQUIREMENTS AND WERE TO BE CLARIFIED TO ENABLE COUNCIL TO GET AWAY FROM UNSATISFACTORY ANNUAL REVIEW PROCEDURES.APART FROM FRENCH IT WAS RECOGNISED THAT THE POSITION OF THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES ·AND OF MAJOR CMDRS WOULD BE FULLY PROTECTED IN THE SECGENS PAPER. 3. SPOKE ALONG THE LINES OF YOUR REFTEL AND OBT A!NED SUBSTANTIAL SUPPORT FOR THE POINTS MADE THERE IN. THE FOLLOvJ ING POINTS WERE t1ADE BY SEVERAL fiELS:CAliT WAS FUNDAMENTAL TO THE SUCCESS OF THE REVIEW OF NATO FORCE PLANNING THAT THERE BE EFFECTIVE COOPERATION BETWEEN CIVIL AND MILITARY STAFFS AND NATIONAL AUTHORITIES. CONCERNED;<Bl • • •2 ••••••••• 000413 \ \ • �PAGE TWO 1604 THERE SHOULD 3E CLOSE A THROUGH NATIONAL LIAISON OFFICERS OR CTTEE AS SUGGESTED BY SECGEN IN HIS INTRODUCTORY REMARKS BETWEEN THE PLANNING TEAM AND NATIONAL AUTHORITIES;CClTHE. STANDING > . GROUP/MILITARY CTTEE SHOULD BE THE SOURCE OF MILITARY ADVlCE<Dl THERE SHOULD BE CLEARER OF THE SUPERVISORY ROLE OF NAC DURING THE FIRST AS WELL AS SECOND PHASES OF THE REVIEW;CElTHE JOINT ,PLANNING TEAM SHOULD BE FREE TO COME UP WITH PROPOSALS FOR THE I - CONSIDERATION OF COUNCIL.THE SECGEN IN HIS CONCLUSION OF THE MOG / CLEAR THAT THE POINTS RAISED ABOVE COULD EASILY 3E INTEGRATED INTO HIS PROPOSALS. • 4.FRENCH PERMREP WHO READ FROM A PREVIOUSLY PREPARED UNDER TIGHT INSTRUCTIONS MADE THREE MAIN POINTS:< AlCOUNC IL HAD N0 RPT N0 ROLE THE PLANNING TEAM HAD COMPLETED ITS WORK.COUNCIL WOULD THEN BE ASKED TO PRONOUNCE ON PLANS WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN:ELAeORATED ' BUREAUCRATICALLY WITHOUT ITS PARTICIPATION;<BlTHE MILITARY AUTHORITIES WOULD BE LOSING THEIR ROLE OF MILITARY ADVISERS AND THAT OF INDICATING FORCE REQUIREMENTS; CClTHE NORMAL PRIORITY WAS_ NOT RPT NOT RESPECTED lN THE PROPOSALS.WHILE THE 9TT"COMMUNIQUE REFER- RED TO THE IDEA OF INTER-DEPENDENCE_ OF STRATEGY ,REQUIREMENTS AND RESOURCES, THE BECGENS PROPOSALS ASSUMED THAT NATO COULD ESTABLISH THE STRATEG.IC CONCEPT AND 'FORCE LEVELS SIMULTANEOUSLY. SECGENS PROOSALS WERE THEREFORE NOT RPT NOT ACCEPTABLE. 9.FIRST PRIORITY SHOULD BE _GIVEN TO THE DEFINITION OF THE- STRAtEGIC CONCEPT BY COUNCIL.AN INVENTORY OF RESOURCES SHOULD BE MADE CONCUR'RENTLY BUT THIS INVENTORY SHOULD NOT RPT NOT BE MADE- AT THE LEVEL OF PLANNERS.IT WAS UNTHINKA3LECUNIMAGINABLElTP FRENCH_AUTHORITIES THAT A PLANNING TEAM AS PROPOSED_BY THE SECGEN WOULD HAVE RIGHT OF INVESTIGATION,THE SECGEN WAS ATTEMPTING TO SUBSTITUTE A TEAM WHICH HAD NO RPT NO POLITICAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR COUNCIL.IF COUNCIL WANTED TO REVIEvJ THE PROCEDURES FOR NATO FORCE PLANNING IT COULD DO THIS BY ••• 3 000414 �, . .. .. ?AGE THREE 1604 •, MEANS OF. COUNCIL WORKING GROUP.THIS WORKING GROUP IN TURN COULD USE THE SERVICES OF A TEAM USING NORMAL PROCEDURES AND METHODS. 6.GERMAN PERMREP SAID .THAT HIS AUTHORITIES HAD NOT RPT NOT ·coME TO A DEfiNITE POSITION ON THE PROCEDURES SUGGESTED BY THE SECGEN IN P0/63/277.HIS AUTHORITIES WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT THE SECGENS PROPOSALS AND BELIEVED THAT AGREED PROCEDURES COULD BE ESTABLISHED.THE PROCEDURES PROPOSED WERE IN MANY WAYS A NOVELTY AND GERMAN AUTHORITIES UNDERSTOOD FRErWH HESITATIONS ABOUT THEM. WHILE NOVELTY WAS NOT RPT NOT NECESSARILY AN OBStACLE TO ACTION IT WAS CAUSE FOR CAUTION. . ' GERHAN AUTHORITIES REALISED THAT TO CONTINUE USING EXISTING PROCEDURES MIGHT LEAD 00 THE SAME FAILURES AS IN THE PI-IST •. ON THE OTHER HAND IN RELYING TOO MUCH ON EXERC1SES.THERE WAS A RISK THAT IT W·OULD LEAD ONLY TO REDUCED NA! IO,NAL EFFORTS BEING · eERMAN PERMREP SUGGESTED THAT EFFORTS BE MAbE TO RECONCILE FRENCH POSITION WITH THE SECGENS ANV THAT 'THE WAY TO DO THlS MIGHT BE TO ESTABLISH A WORKING GROUP OF'COUNCII:_:j 7• THE SECGEN IN CONCLUDING THE MTG STRESSED THE POINT THAT HIS PAPER WAS ONLY A DRAFT AND THAT THE PROPOSALS CONTAINED THERE IN \.JERE QUITE FLEXIBLE.HE REPEATED THAT HIS APPRAISAL OF THE 1962 TRIENNIAL REVIEW HAD SHOWN HOW CONCERNED HE IJJAS ABOUT STRIKING THE RIGHT BALANCE BETWEEN STRAT&GY,FORCE AND AND THAT HE HAD RELUCTANTLY COME TO CONCLUSION THAT THE TRIENNIAL . REVIEW HAD SHOWN THAT AN IMPASSE HAD 3EEN REACHE-D. HE SAID THAT FORCE GOALS REQUIREMENTS AND STRATEGIC CONCEPTS SHOULD NOT RPT NOT iJLL BE REGARDED AS H1i1UTABLE,OTHERWISE NATO STAY IN THE IMPAS- SE.THE TASK OF RELATING FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS TO AVAILABLE RESOURCES COULL> t\lOT RPT NOT 3E LEFT TO THE MILIT?I.RY ALONE.AS A PRACTICAL WAY . OUT HE HAD PROPOSED A JOINT CIVIL-MILITARY PLANNING TEAM WHICH DID NOT RPT NOT DEROGATE IN ANY WAY FROM THE PREROGATIVES OF THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES OR COUNCIL.HE WOULD REPORT REGUWARLY TO COUNCIL ON THE ' ••• 4 000415 (, �\ PAGE FOUR 1604 WORK BY THE TEAM.THE TEAM,HOWEVER,WAS ONLY ONE WAY OF ATTEMPTING TO PERFORM A TASK WHICH HAD NOT RPT NOT BEEN DONE .BEFORE, PE11HAPS WITH THE EXCEPT ION OF THE EFFORTS MADE BY THE TEMPORARY .. COUNCIL CTTEE APPOINTED IN 1951.HOWEVER IT SHOULD BE REALISED THAT AT THE TIME OF THE APPOINTMENT OF THE TCC THE INTERNATIONAL STAFF AND MILITARY· AUTHORITIES DID NOT RPT NOT· HAVE AT THEIR DISPOSAL THI LARGE AMOUNT OF DATA NOW AVAILABLE TO THEM. THE SECGEN CONCLUDED THAT HE \•JOULD LIKE TO REFLECT ON COMMENTS MADE IN COUNCIL TODAY k CIL WERE NOT RPT NOT BE CALLED TO DISCUSS THIS SUBJECT AGAIN NEXT WEEK SECGEN WOULD A PAPER WHICH COULD BE 0ISCUSSED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE AUG RECESS, IE BEGINNING OF SEP_j !GNAT IEF'F' 000416 � 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 CDNW03813 Title A name given to the resource NATOParis to External 1604 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 25-Jul-63 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived "NATO - Nuclear weapons - Policy - NATO long term planning," RG25-A-3-b, vol. 5960, 50219-AL-2-40, part 10, Library and Archives Canada (LAC). Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Department of External Affairs Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Canadian Crown Subject The topic of the resource NATO, nuclear weapons Description An account of the resource NATO Force Planning - Discussion in Council 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