Office of the Historian

78. Memorandum of Conversation1

Washington, March 22, 1965, 10 a.m.

SUBJECT

  • MLF/ANF
[Page 194]

PARTICIPANTS

  • UK Side
    • Foreign Secretary Michael Stewart2
    • Sir Harold Caccia, Permanent Under Secretary of State, Foreign Office
    • Michael Stewart, Chargé d’Affaires a.i., British Embassy
    • R. S. Crawford, Assistant Under Secretary, Foreign Office
    • Michael Hadow, Counselor, Foreign Office
    • J. N. Henderson, Private Secretary to the Foreign Secretary
    • John Harris, Special Assistant to the Foreign Secretary
  • US Side
    • The Secretary
    • Ambassador Bruce
    • William C. Foster, Director,ACDA
    • William R. Tyler, Assistant Secretary, EUR
    • Harlan Cleveland, Assistant Secretary, IO
    • Richard I. Phillips, Deputy Assistant Secretary, P
    • J. Harold Shullaw, Director, BNA

Foreign Secretary Stewart said that in view of the current German attitude toward the problem, the UK is prepared to propose in the NAC that the Working Group resume its work in Paris and that all those interested be invited to participate (having in mind Canadian interest). Mr. Stewart said that the Working Group should take into account work already done as well as the British ANF proposals. He also referred to the NATO Secretary General’s idea of dealing with the nuclear problem in the NAC. The Secretary expressed doubt that discussion in the full Council would advance the matter. Mr. Tyler said that the Secretary General might make a bland statement simply announcing the meeting of the Working Group but not opening the subject to discussion.

Mr. Stewart said that the Germans are ready for resumed discussions provided that no conclusions are reached before their September election.

Sir Harold said that perhaps at the first meeting officials might attend from those capitals wishing to send them. My Tyler commented that perhaps the Germans would consider this as giving too much prominence to the exercise. The Foreign Secretary said that there did not appear to be much progress as yet in closing the gap between the MLF and ANF. Sir Harold referred to the obvious differences of opinion within the German Government and the absence of a coordinated German position.

[Page 195]

In response to a question from the Secretary, Mr. Henderson said that there had been some modifications in the British ANF proposals since Christmas but no radical changes. He said that these proposed modifications had been given to the Germans and Italians as well as to us.

The Foreign Secretary indicated concern that the Germans would want to have as little discussion of ANF as possible in the Working Group and instead would wish to emphasize the MLF proposals. In reply to Mr. Tyler’s question, he said that in the British view the ANF in effect replaces the MLF.

The Secretary said that we are frankly disappointed in the response to our efforts of the past five years to meet what we understood to be a European need in the nuclear field. We have tried to work something out in the Alliance to satisfy this need but have not had much success in finding a consensus among our allies. There have been complaints about our alleged failure to exercise leadership but the critics generally want us to lead the other fellow. We feel that we were led down the garden path by our friends in Paris. Up to four or five months ago France took the position that while it did not wish to participate it was not opposed to others doing so. Now, however, France has assumed the role of active opposition. We are not disinterested nor resigned but consider that we must know what will meet European requirements. We are prepared to pursue the matter in the Working Group to see if the consensus will emerge. The Foreign Secretary commented that the discussions in the Working Group should be as lively as German reluctance will permit. He reiterated his earlier comment that the Germans should be prevented from pressing the talks back to the MLF concept.

  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, DEF(MLF). Secret; Exdis. Drafted by Shullaw and approved in S on March 31. The conversation was held in Rusk’s conference room. The source text is labeled “Part 4 of 5.”↩
  2. Stewart visited Washington March 21–24 at the suggestion of the British Government, primarily, according to the scope paper for the visit, to defuse left-wing Labour Party criticism of British support for U.S. policy in Vietnam. Memoranda of his conversations at the Department of State, March 22 and 23, and various papers prepared for the visit are ibid., Conference Files: Lot 66 D 347, CF 2481. No memorandum of his conversation with President Johnson on March 22 has been found.↩