https://declassified.library.utoronto.ca/files/original/f83e062e4e71b2b4d86aace388aaf945.pdf 6c2baad159bda026456c1be89833368e PDF Text Text Document disclosed/under the Access to Information Act Document divulguefenlvemrdeieTto/sur I'acces a I'information QCT22/65 SECRET LTD DISTR TO EXTERNAL 4 2 7 0 IMMED INFO NATOPARIS EMBPARIS WASHDC DISARMDELGVA BONN BRU HAGUE ROME PERMISNY IMMED / y / V c - 4 , V~*y ^ REF OURTEL 4178 OCT 1.5 . • . • % i i - k ' NATO.CLEVELANDS V I S I T TO LDN WE CALLED ON BARNES X T 2 1 TO INQUIRE ABOUT DISCUSSIONS WHICH CLEVELAND HAD IN LDN ON 0CT18 AND 1 9 AND TO ASK I F FO HAD ANYTHING TO ADD TO WHAT THEY TOLD US LAST WEEKCOUR REFT EL) CONCERNING FOREIGN SECS NY STATEMENT ON ALLIANCE NUCLEAR ARRANGEMENTS AND NON PROLIFE^ v . . RATION. - * 2.TAKING SECOND SUBJECT FIRST BARNES WAS PARTICULARLY EMPHATIC IN REITERATING THAT UK HAD NOT RPT NOT ABANDONED ANF BUT WAS CONTINUING TO PURSUE TWO OBJECTIVES, IE SATISFACTORY NUCLEAR SHARING IN ' ALLIANCE AND NON PROLIFERATION TREATY.USA ALSO SOUGHT SAME TWO OBJECTIVES. * • • • > 3.QUESTI0N WAS WHETHER THE TWO COULD BE COMBINED AND I F SO HOW. HERE MISSING PIECE IN PUZZLE WAS GERMAN. DESIDERATA.GERMANS. HAVING '* ALREADY A CRISIS WITH FRANCE IN EEC,BARNES THOUGHT IT DOUBTFUL THAT THEY WOULD WANT TO HAVE ANOTHER BY TRYING TO CONSOLIDATE, s THEIR ALLIANCE NUCLEAR POSITION.QUESTION FOR NATO WAS TO DECIDE WHETHER TO HAVE INCREASED NUCLEAR ARMAMENT OR IMPROVED METHOD OF CONSULTATION.MUCH WOULD DEPEND ON AMOUNT OF SUBSTANCE THAT COULD BE • PUT IN SPECIAL CTTEE. TO CLEVELANDS V I S I T BARNES SAID I T S PURPOSE WAS TO ESTABLIB 000125 •4.TURNING •»2 "• �Document disclosed under the Access to Information Act Document divulgue en vertu de la Loi sur I'accesp /'information UgE TWO 4 2 7 0 C O ™ C T . SPECIAL (SELECT) CTTEE HAD BEEN DISCUSSED INCLUDING HOW USA I S THINKING OF HANDLING I T . I T APPEARED THAT USA I S PUTTING A LOT OF EMPHASIS ON CRISIS MANAGEMENT, BUT IN UK VIEW ONE HAS TO GO BEYOND THAT. BARNES EXPLAINED THAT WHAT WAS NEEDED WAS NOT .RPT NOT SO1 MUCH TO IMPROVE MECHANICS OF CONSULTATION DURING A CRISIS BUT TO IMPROVE SUBSTANCE AND METHOD OF CONSULHATION IN NORMAL TIMES. IMPORTANT PROCESS WAS LONG TERM ONE WHICH WOULD LEAD UP TO IMPROVED •*' a •• CONSULTATION IN CRISIS IN THE END. '* . 5 . A QUESTION OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE ACCORDING TO BARNES WAS WHAT CONTINUING ORGANIZATION WOULD SUCCEED SPECIAL CTTEE.FO HAD NO RPT NO FIRM VIEWS, BUT BARNES THOUGHT THAT STUDIES MIGHT BE INSTITUTED WHICH WOULD ENABLE MINISTERIAL MTG IN MAY TO AGREE ON SOME CONTINUING BODY.IN LONG RUN,WHAT SPECIAL CTTEE WOULD DO COUNTED NOT RPT NOT AS MUCH AS NATURE .AND FUNCTION OF BODY WHICH WOULD SUCCEED I T . 6 . BARNES WAS NOT RPT NOT PRECISE ON EXTENT TO WHICH PROBLEM OF NUCLEAR ARRANGEMENTS OF ALLIANCE HAD BEEN DISCUSSED" WITH CLEVELAND. BUT HE RESTATED TO US WELL KNOWN BRIT POSITION THAT THIS WAS A POLITICAL PROBLEM REQUIRING A POLITICAL SOLUTION. REASON WHY UK WAS OPPOSED TO MLF WAS THAT IT PROVIDED MILITARY SOLUTION TO POLITICAL PROBLEM. CONCENTRATING ON A NARROW SPECTRUM OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS.ANF HAD BEEN DESIGNED TO CORRECT THESE SHORT-COMINGS.BUT IN ALL THIS, THERE WERE DIFFERENT EMPHASES NOT RPT NOT ONLY AMONGST VARIOUS GOVTS BUT ALSO AMONGST DEPTS IN GOVTS AND NO RPT NO FINALITY OF VIEWS YET EXISTED. • ...3 ' - . ' ; • . 000126 �PAGE THREE 4 2 7 0 Document disclosed under the Access to Information Act Document divulgue en vertu de la Loi sur. I'acces a /'informatio 7 . IN REPLY TO QUESTION BARNES CONFIRMED THAT QUESTION OF FRANCE AND HAD BEEN TOUCHED ON.THERE WAS AGREEMENT BETWEEN UK AND USA • # • THAT WHATEVER FRANCE DOES NATO MUST,CAN AND WILL GO ON,THAT UK AND. USA WILL DO WHAT IS RIGHT FOR ALLIANCE AND HOPE THAT FRANCE WILL JOIN I N . BARNES WENT ON .TO ADD THAT IF FRANCE SHOULD SEPARATE FROM NATO MORE THAN IT HAS DONE ALREADY, IT WOULD SUFFER MORE THAN NATO, FOR IT WAS NOT RPT NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO REORGANIZE NATO.THIS OF COURSE WAS SOMETHING THAT INTERESTED ALLIES WOULD HAVE TO DISCUSS TOGETHER AND THEY SHOULD DO THIS NOT RPT NOT IN SPIRIT OF PANIC BUT IN CONVICTION'THAT NATO CAN GO ON.IT WAS NOT RPT NOT INTENTION OF UK - • I p.. • -y AND USA TO ASK DEGAULLE WHAT HE WANTED TO DO.THE TWO COUNTRIES SAW. NO RPT NO NATO CRISIS AND IF DEGAULLE DID SEE ONE. IT WAS UP TO HIM TO SAY WHAT IT WAS. 8.TURNING TO CONTINGENCY PLANNING BARNES MENTIONED THAT USA I S PRESSING AHEAD.WHILE BRIT HAVE YET COMPLETED NOTHING IN DETAIL THEY HOPED TO HAVE REACHED BY END OF YEAR STAGE WHERE THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO EXCHANGE IDEAS WITH THEIR ALLIES.BARNES THEN COMMENTED THAT BILATERAL AGREEMENTS AS TO WHAT PEOPLE WILL DO IF WAR BREAKS OUT ARE NO RPT NO SUBSTITUTE FOR INTEGRATION IN PEACETIME AND TOTALLY INADEQUATE TO REPLACE NATO.HE ALSO-ADDED THAT.WHAT USA DOES SAY,AND BRIT THINK IT I S RIGHT,IS THAT IF FRANCE APPROACHES USA BILATERALLY LATTER WOULD CONSULT ITS ALLIES BEFORE REPLYING, 9.ASKED ABOUT PRESS REPORTS OF VON HASSELS VISIT TO LDN NEXT MONTH • ..4 �" » PAGE FOUR 4 2 7 0 BAR A '" " Document disclosed under the Accesstolhjormatlon Act - Document divulgue" en vertu de la Lot sur I'accis a/'Information SAID THIS WAS LONG STANDING ENGAGEMENT WHICH SHOULD BE SEEN OUTSIDE CONTEXT OF CURRENT SPATE OF SPECULATION IN, THE PRESS ABOUT NATO PROBLEMS. ' • • " '. "' ' • * 10.FOREIGN SEC WAS RETURNING TO LDN 0CT21 AND BARNES EXPECTED THAT • .• - - * IF HE TALKS TO PRESS HE WOULD PROBABLY WISH TO DISPEL. MISUNDERSTAN- '' ' ' DINGS WHICH HAVE ARISEN FROM HIS RECENT STATEMENTS IN'NY. 000128 f � 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 CDNW18194 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived "Defence - Conventional and Nuclear Armaments - Nuclear Weapons Policy,” RG25-A-3-c, File number: 27-11-1, File part: 2, Library and Archives Canada (LAC) Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource LAC ATIP A-2017-00249 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Crown Copyright 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 ENG