132. Aide-Mémoire From the British Embassy to the Department of State1
The latest version of the U.S. draft non-proliferation treaty (incorporating the amendments tabled at Geneva on the 21st of March, 1966)2 still permits the transfer of nuclear weapons into the control of an association of States, provided that [Page 326]
- (a)
- this association includes at least one nuclear-weapon State;
- (b)
- there is no increase in the total number of States and associations of States having control of nuclear weapons.
As the United States Government are aware, Her Majesty’s Government have always considered that a non-proliferation treaty should exclude the possibility of nuclear dissemination to associations of States, whatever their membership and whether or not an existing nuclear power should cease to have control of nuclear weapons.
Her Majesty’s Government understand the considerations which have caused the United States Government to leave open a “European option” in their draft treaty. But it seems to them that the only such option strictly compatible with non-proliferation would be a fully federated European State, which would acquire by succession the nuclear status of either France or the United Kingdom or both. In such a case no transfer of control would be involved and there would be no need for a non-proliferation treaty to be so worded as to provide for it. On the other hand, the idea of transferring control of nuclear weapons to a European association of States, where decisions could be taken by majority vote, is not easy to reconcile with a straightforward statement of non-proliferation requirements.
Her Majesty’s Government believe that their concern on this point is shared by an increasing number of governments and that the need to preserve a “majority vote European option” constitutes an unnecessary weakness in the presentation of the Western case at Geneva. During the last session of the E.N.D.C. Soviet attacks have increasingly concentrated on the possibility of creating mixed associations with numerous non-nuclear members—and these attacks seem to have some success in enlisting the sympathies of the non-aligned countries. If the U.S. draft treaty could be amended so as to close this option, the West would be in a better position to rebut Soviet criticism and to persuade the non-aligned countries, at Geneva and elsewhere, of the sincerity of its support for non-proliferation.
Her Majesty’s Government hope that, if the United States Government agree with the above, they may be ready to support them in raising the matter once again, first with the Canadian and Italian Governments, and afterwards with the Federal German Government. They suggest that, in order to close the “majority vote option” in the U.S. draft treaty, it would be sufficient to omit Clause 3 in Articles I and II as well as the words “non-nuclear-weapon” and “such” where they qualify the words “association of States” in these two Articles.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, DEF 18. Confidential. British Ambassador Sir Patrick Dean transmitted this aide-mémoire to U. Alexis Johnson, Deputy Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, June 1. A cover memorandum of the conversation, June 1, indicates that Ambassador Johnson noted that “the Russians already seem to have heavily discounted the European clause option, and have been leveling their main attacks in the ENDC against any form of multilateral association. Consequently, it would appear doubtful whether a change in our position on the European option would substantially improve our tactical position in Geneva.” A cover memorandum transmitting the British aide-mémoire from Spurgeon Keeny to Walt Rostow, June 8, supported the British proposal for the nonproliferation treaty to exclude the possibility of nuclear dissemination to associations of states, the European option. (Johnson Library, National Security File, Subject File, U.S. Draft on Nonproliferation Treaty, Box 27)↩
- Text in Documents on Disarmament, 1966, pp. 159-160.↩