https://declassified.library.utoronto.ca/files/original/cf779bee77840ec18c681113e051c8c7.pdf a07bc2ea007d4c760997be5fc7894bb1 PDF Text Text DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRSP CANADA, I (DUPLICATE) DESPATCH TO: THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, OTTAWA, CANADA. Security: asc&ET No:".... FROM: THE' CJ&AblMi"DELBGATKM'TO* W& "fiUfttfA' ATLANTIC COUKCXL, PARIS Air or Surface Mail Reference: Subject: Enclosures: Our Telegram 1837 of September 10 Draft Agreement on Atomic Information Post File Ail- fbt.rfATA. Ottawa File No References CSC/JS 16 2 Ms PH 9 63 mini* J:\±VsPy 3&.L98-/ -)T0 Internal Circulation Distribution to Posts CCOSfj? OM/DKD Ext.l80C (Rev.2/52) Tho first round of discussions of the draft in 0-4-1163)63 took place fro© September 9 to 11 and has now been completed* The United States authorities are to consider the suggestions for changes in the draft proposed in the course of this first round, A second round of discussion has tentatively been scheduled to begin Monday, September 30, The United States delegation wishes to keep to a tight timetable because the Agreement will have to lie before Congress for sixty days. The delegation hopes that agreement can be reached on a text early in October. Our impression is, however, that tho September 30 date may be optimistic in view of the number of changes proposed, 2. nevertheless there is no fundamental opposition to conclude an agreement substantially along the lines of the present draft. The strongest criticism of the draft came from the French delegation. French objections had to do particularly with the position which would be accorded the secretary-General under the terms of this draft. President de Gaulle's objections to enhancing the status of international civil servants and international organisations are, of course, well-known. The objections to the present draft expressed by French representatives In the course of this week's discussions evidently reflected this pro-occupation* French officials are being particularly careful in this case because they know that the President's approval will have to be obtained in person, because of the form of the agreement. Therefore they are anxious to ensure that the language of the Agreement makes plain that the Secretary-General has no Independent authority except what is granted to him by the fifteen sovereign governments acting through the North Atlantic Council, and that *MTG tt is seen in tho Agreement as the croature of the sovereign members of the Alliance rathor than as some supra-national entity existing apart. 3, this attitude encountered difficulties from the United States representatives. Since the United States is in a hurry to get tho Agreement before Congress, the United States representatives defended the present draft rather firmly and seemed to wish to limit changes in it to the minimis. Having decided for practical purposes that an increased flow of atomic information within the Alliance requires an Agreement which gives the SecretaryGeneral certain new responsibilities, the United States // 7 / ° 000359 -*0003 r / �found It Ward to accept French suggestions in the sense described above* Private efforts to work out agreed language wliich would satisfy both sides were not successful and discussions are continuing' with the delegations directly concerned* . .... 4* Apart from this difficulty, however, the suggestions made by ether delegations, although numerous, did not go to the heart of •the draft* We attach a summary of the points made on the text of the draft Agreement itself, and oft the Technical Annex., 'from the: legal .point .of •view* A separate report will be made on the Security Annex, . 5* • this GUramary is-no more than the briefest sort • ef Aide memoirs. It'does not cover some of the minor • points which were made, nor does it convey any sense o f ... • the length at which some of the points mentioned in it were discussed* Ifou will notice* however, that it.records the legal comments which you instructed us te put forward in your Telegram U3U1156 of September 6* The following additional remarks may be helpful? ' Paragraph. 3, line %i The summary notes that • • /Ifi your suggestion about using the '.word ** states* instead of • %ationew was received.with.a question whether we believed a similar change should be made wherever the word "nations" • was used in the. text. Please instruct us v*iether you want us to make such a suggestion in the second rownd of discussions* r •- •. Paragraph to The alternative we suggested of *//*. enlarging this passage to include references to legislation in countries other than the United States was not well received* Sess argued that this would involve prejudging what countries might eventually contribute information under the Agreement; ethers objected on the grounds that an awkwardly long and prosaic list would b© introduced rather inelegantly into the Agreement if this were done. The British suggestion that a more general formula bo found to indicate that countries other than the United States might, in accordance with their legislation, eventually contribute information was more favourably received. Please instruct us whether you wish ue td con* tint** to press your alternatives of deletion or enlargement or whether we may support the British proposal in the next round* Paragraph to Ae, Instructed we raised Under this y/w same paragraph the quest ion of the relationship between this Agreement and the bilateral'agreements, on atomic in* •. format ion, suggesting that you were .not'fully satisfied with the explanation given in paragraphs 3 .&d 10 of the United States explanatory memorandum* We said you had no formula to propose however* The British and Belgian representatives said their authorities too had been pu-aaled on this point* the British representative went m far . as to volunteer to produce a draft article which would attempt to cover this relationship* Subsequently, however, he withdrew this offer*- therefore there is still no specific proposal en this point for the United States to consider. We doubt that the United States authorities themselves will voluntarily insert language to cover this point, fho �-3* reaction of their representative was that paragraphs 3 and 10 of the .explanatory memorandum constituted a satisfactory explanation, ' 11* ' Please instruct us whether'you wish us to pursue this point during the second round of discussions, if you wish us to do so it will be necessary to have your suggestions in the form of treaty, language* .ARTICLE I. .'••'=*••'•'.:'.•'•'"'• ^emmmmmmmmmmmmm^tmmrm;- 12* on this Article you made three suggestions, the ignited States response to -all three was that the wording , Q£ the Article was closely based .en the wording of the" "• //A- • Atomic Energy Act, It would therefore be extremely difficult to obtain changes* 13* Please instruct us •whether you wish us te pursue your Asuggee&ions in the light of this explanation* ; • A m m y z 14* ffar msmmty records that the United States representative said there was a difference 'between the w. phrase win connection 'with their' functions related, te MATO missions" in the draft and the phrase "mutual security and defence purposes1* in our bilateral Agreement, the difference, he'said, was in-the sense that ^mutual** referred only to the defence purposes of Ganada and the United States* •whereas the language of the draft was intended to refer to the defence purposes of MATO. as a whole* AR^IGU; 111 15* You asked us to make two points here:. that the /7A Article duplicated the first sentence ef Article Ij -and that it was ambiguous* fie United States response to the first point was that there was -no duplication* .Article I referred to existing United States legislation,, whereas' • Article III was intended, to apply to possible future legislation, -AS to the-second, point.,. United States representatives disagreed with your suggestion that the Article would be. contrary to international law.*- Their argument was that future changes in United States legislation might limit the- amount - ef ififcreation which the United States could in practice pass on under the Agreement, but that the legal .obligation would remain unaffected, this was because the Agreement left it to the United States in the first place to decide how such information it wished to pass on* This was plain free the words of Article II which said "the United States of America will communicate *•, such atomic information ,as; MJS&^^B^M. &&J&J&&I Statea of America to be necessary ***»*- •• In other words, there "was no obligation on the United States to continue to transmit an agreed body of information at all times under the Agreement j the Agreement left it to the United States to determine exactly what information it should transmit at my particular time in accordance with the four purposes defined in Article III (a){d)* 16* Please instruct us whether you wish us to pursue this point in the light of the'United States explanation*- mmm m 17- Paragraph .5; lour request for a definition of \*/A �*• /i. me "authorized persons" is misrepresented in, the summary as a request for a definition of "unauthorized persons". In any event, the opinion of the NATO Legal Adviser is that Sections I E&F, and II A of the Security Annex, taken together, con*. stltute the ''definition1 required. 10. Please say if you are satisfied with this explanation, ' ARTICLE VI 19. Your suggestion that the first part of the sentence is superfluous was not accepted by the United States representative. The.NATO Legal Adviser also disagreed, maintaining that the possibility of damage to third parties arising from 7/^. : the use of information by a recipient gave an additional significance to the first, clause which was not contained in the second. 20* Please instruct us whether we should pursue your point notwithstanding this explanation. 21. Under this same Article, the question of patents • was raised by several delegations, including our own, in the sense you suggested. You will notice that the summary refers to the possibility of including a reference in the Agreement to the work of the Working Group on Industrial Property, ARTICLE I X tun •'•4ii-nn*ii'i—„ • • ' • . . iiiim * w _ 22. Paragraph li The United States representative explained that, under United States practice, this would be the sort of Executive Agreement which had to lie before a Congressional Committee for sixty days, but that the process involved was not "ratification" in the full sense of the term as used by the United States, Therefore the word "ratification" had not been used in this paragraph. ' y/^j 23. The Chairman explained that there were a number of Other NATO countries who would become parties to the Agreement by a process which, under their practice, was not described as "ratification". A . ' " 24. Paranaph J?: Your suggestion to replace "mutual" by "unanimous" was well received and will probably be accepted. FINAL CLAUSES ' 25. There were several objections to your suggestion that the word "states" should be replaced by the word "governments". , The NATO Legal Adviser explained that, as had been the case with the 1955 Agreement, a question of .differences in constitutional law and practice between NATO countries was ,. Involved. Not all NATO countries itfouid consider this Agreement '/f\ as being between governments. He gave us to understand also that, with certain NATO countries, there was a problem of distinguishing between the Head of State and the Head of Government for the purpose of drawing up full powers to authorizeP signature. The 1955-form had been followed in the ease of this draft. . 26. Please instruct us whether you wish us to pursue this point notwithstanding the explanation given. 27. The question of accessions was also raised. We were unable to obtain a complete explanation of why the 1955 Agreement had been drawn up as it was, and why the present form was different. Since the arrangements for admitting • 0003621 �ei • §. •* Germany to HATO were concluded in 1954* the HATO Legal Adviser doubted whether the Consideration of German membership had determined the 1955 drafting* On the other hand, he pointed out that the final words of the draft do take account of the possibility of accession in that -they refer to ^acceding states" as well as signatories* In mf event,. • there seemed to be general agreesient - that no mora .extensive provision for accession than this -was.required* TECHNICAL jgBOk * * • Y •20* •••• Preamble:" An important point-was raised here by the British' roprosontativc. We draw your attention to references to hie point in tho Summary,..at W of the "General Points" on Page 2, and under -the heading ^Preamble*' in the remarks about the Technical Annex on Page 10* 29* . , - Section, lis As instructed, we' asked for clarification • of the phrase ""other military applications of .atomic mezgY* pointing out that'the phrase - was also used, in • Article II ef the Agreement Itself.* The United States representative said. thati--although-the, words wero...the. same, they should be interpreted according to their particular context in each case*. So far' as Article II was concerned, the words came from the Atomic Energy Act* 30, fife, wa&d appreciate your further instruetione on the specific, points of Ganadian interest, set out above, • and on any of the points raised by other delegations and summarised in the attachment. . • * * « * 3KB The Delegation* � 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 CDNW04927 Title A name given to the resource SSEA to NATOPAris Numbered Letter no. 1166 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 12-Sep-63 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived NATO Agreement for Cooperation Regarding Atomic Information, RG24-B-1, vol. 21471, CSC 2108-1-AC-228, Library and Archives Canada (LAC). Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Department of National Defence 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 Draft Agreement on Atomic Information 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