5 INFOMlfflfTELEGRAM --1 36 I DEC LASSIFIED Department of Stat PERMA l Autho ityJ%jD qt j o COlWlDENrIAL ion- ' ' Rec'd Paris FROM Info SS - TO Secretary of State NO POLTO circular 34 October 25 9 p ooo SEClION ONE OF TWO G SP L SB EUR ACTlOlt DEPARTMENT DlFoWTION NEA 10 ' US1JR SAE DEPARTMENT PX lOP I C IA 16295 Oeeober 26 1961 12 39 p lI ' _If ' ASS DtFERSE UfTAWA DUBLIR 0 -- '- ' o POUCHED ALL fIBER NATO CAPITALS -I n C oo - Meeting October 25--Irish resolution on diss tDatioa nuclear weapons N OSD ARMY NAVY AIR AEC WHB RMR ' - ' C NSA ' w '- V- r - - SUllmary Despite strong US appeal for support IrisH reso1ution as amended by US TOPOL 519 lI jority NATO members in eluding all NATO ilon-nuc1ear countries with nuclear '- delivery capable forces firmly rejected support for re solution in its present form They ade clear that aecep tance resolution with present iguity re Peba three would I constitute mental reservation to what would be interpreted J J as ara1 commitment and would cause difficulties in UNGA in relations with non-NATO countries and especially in pUblie l opinion at hoae re NATO defense efforts run serious risk of being impaded by favorable vote On other hand all RATO members appeared ready albeit re1uceant1y to accept Irish resolution with insertion of control of after traccept ' in paragraph three as proposed by U with exception of Portugua1 and France who indicated their intention to abstain in UHGA vote on Irish resolution in any f arid of US ich e tered reservation pending referral to WaahinltoR StikLr expressed hie agreeaent wifh major ty in stronS e teras With due note US re ervation cba D indicated agreeaent to UK approaching Irish re introducins proposed amendmeat CONFl DTIAL S ' EPROOUCTION FROM THIS COpy IS PROliIBITED UNLESS UNCLASSIFIED o This copy must be returned to RM R central files with notation of action taken ACT ION ASSIGNEO TO NAJIIII Oil' O I ICGBP O IC' SYMBOL J ric P G aJ I ACTION ' DECLASSIFIEJ _ UlhO ilY D '- qYL lI'tO CONFIDENTIAL 2- FOLTO circular 34 October 25 9 p m fr Paris SECTION ONE OF TWO amendment in paragraph three and further consideration in Council if this approach failed End Summary US Permanent Representative opened discussion by indicat ing revisions in paragraph three proposed by U and Stikker POLTO 498 had been considered by his authorities who con tinued to feel that even without these changes Irish re solution is not inconsistent with participatton in present stockpile arrangements or other multilateral arrangements that might be envisaged US Government believed that important point in this matter is what NATO members think is proper interpretation Suggested Council might agree on internal resolution which would state its interpretation that Irish resolution is consistent with any agreements re stockpiling or any future developments as regards a multilateral NA O force Felt this would be sufficient for NATO purposes and any member would be free to make public views in this re lution if it eemed necessary Drew on TOPOL 596 to emphasize US view no amendment of Irish resolution necessary to give added protection NATO interests which appeared to be object of U and Stikker proposed changes Emphasized again important thing as Council's interpretation of re solution and that would be sufficient to permit support for Irish resolution Q took flexible position indicating it did not have difficulties which other NATO governments seemed to feel with Irish resolution and was prepared to vote for it as it stands Felt however its proposed revision so paragraph three might be desirable to point up distinction between stationing U CONFIDENTIAL DECLASSIFIED Autho ilyJ' INl Q4t u'fO -- --------_-1 CONFIDENTIAL -3- POLTO circular 34 October 25 9 p D from Paris SECTION ONE OF TWO - stationing of weapons on national territory and ''button pressing procedure thereby quieting apprehensions that had been voiced in Council Considered Stikker proposal for insertion of full national control went too far and would be resisted by Irish as well as unfriendly states in UNGA Belgium which with Stikker led opposition to Irish resolution in present form stated us presentation while admirablt subtle still did not present good argument 'elt acceptance of Irish resolution would give rise to serious difficulties icularly in Bel ian Parliament and in any event would be dangerous path fofWeiit to follow Belgiua 'could agree with proposed UK change but was cClllpUled firmly to 88Y no to us proposal for acceptance of resolutlorl as ls FINLBT'l'IR SGC CORJ'IIZITUL ' ' o Department of StatepERMANE CONFIDE Action ' __ DECLASSIFIED - h itY l qll' -o IAL --- C - o n tro O l 16291 Rec'd October 26 1961 12 39 p m Info FROM Paris 55 G TO Secretary of State NO POLTO circular 34 October 25 9 p m SECTION TWO OF TWO SP L 5B EUR NEA AcrION DEPARTMENT INFORMATION LONDON ctrTAWA DUBLIN U5UN 10 5AE DEPARTMENT PASS DEFENSE PX lOP INR POUCHED TO ALL NATO CAPITALS CIA After Turkey had expressed position mid ay between US and Belgian positions but with obvious preference for latter 05D Netherlands made strong statement advising NATO membets to ARMY look at Irish resolution more closely from point of view NAVY what Irish attempting to achieve Felt that Irish resolution AIR constituted fPna of arms limitation with pro ganda basis and AEC would be ' interpreted by large number o non-NATO countries WHB as divergent even with ollective arrangements existing or envisaged for NATO In these circumstances Council could RMR eit r accept Irish resolution with mental reservation suggested by US or have some courage to propose amendme to the resolution Even if amendment defeated would haveeffect of clarifying issue in public opinion and would make it possible for NATO government to defend position in Parliament Recalling last year's US statement in UNGA e Irish resolution that it undersirable to implied moral CODDDitments of this kind stated tl fs continued be true since others would interpret vote for Irish resolution as moral commitment from which might be able to extricate ourselyes to our own satisfaction but not to satisfaction of others NSA Greece Italy Iceland ACT ION A S IGNED TO NAME 0' O 'CEft o o 'cr SVM OL O CTIONS ACTION TO AIR CONFIDENTIAL -2- POLTO circular 34 October 25 9 p m from Paris SECTION OF TWO Belgian and Netherlands point of view with indication they were prepared to support resolution with UK amendment France although stating it would abstain on Irish resolution in any circumstance expressed firm eement with general line taken by BelgiPm and the Netherlands Felt Irish resolution could serve no useful purpose and was prepared however to accept limitations on dissemination of nuclear weapons within framework of disarmament agreement Denmark stated that although without instructions it could go along with Irish resolution in spirit expressed b US Pointed out however that if UK amendment were offered in UNGA and voted down by majority it would be difficult stick with interpretation placed on resolution by US Urged UK therefore to try to get Irish acceptance of revised paragraph three before resolution tabled UK explained this was its intention and according to word from their delegation in New York would not be difficult to get Iri sh to accept it Canada commented it generally agreed with substance of Irish resolution as it stOod but could also support UK change Did not believe Council resolution on interpretation would be useful Norway took position similar to Denmark stating it did not believe resolution would inter fer with NATO policy and that Norwegian delegation at New York had been instructed to vote in favor Stikker said he thought supporting Irish resolution in its present form would be very bad from NATO point of view It was not right to force a decision in UN with moral implications that would CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL -3- FOLTO circular 34 October 25 9 p m from Paris SECTION TWO OY TWO that would have effect among out peoples and at same time have mental reservation Accepting ambiguity in Irish resolution would be worst of all policies Summing up he said consensus was UK should approach Irish to secure proposed amendment to paragraph three but said Stikker given great Unportance of this issue to alliance Council must give matter further consideration if approach to Irish unsuccessful US reserved posit1bn pending further consultation with Washington Comment I am sincerely disturbed at Unplications this consultation We have now been officially put on warning by representatives of our allies that voting for Irish resolution in its present form ou1d result in public opinion in Unportant NATO countries which would seriously UnpaJr contribution to NATO defense effort In view thereof I r commend that before instructions are sent to USUN or to us approving Irish text as is matter be brought to Secretary personal attention FINLETTER _ SGC OONFIDENTIAL - I - DECLASSIFIED Authority - ---- IND 9Y91 'iO ' This document is from the holdings of The National Security Archive Suite 701 Gelman Library The George Washington University 2130 H Street NW Washington D C 20037 Phone 202 994-7000 Fax 202 994-7005 nsarchiv@gwu edu