154. Memorandum From Michael Guhin of the National Security Council Staff to the President’s Assistant for National Security Affairs (Kissinger)1 2
- Specific Issues and Agency Positions
Your “Talking Points” deal only with Part II (“CW and BW Policy Issues”) of the IPMG report as Part I is background information only. Your “Talking Points” simply (1) re-phrase the specific issue where appropriate; (2) highlight the principal issues in each basic policy consideration while attempting to point out the interrelationships between these issues; (3) emphasize various pro and con points of consideration under each issue; and (4) stress the point that consideration should be focused upon these three broad policy areas:
- Policy on Biological Warfare
- Policy on Chemical Warfare
- Policy on Geneva Protocol and the Use of Tear Gas and/or Herbicides.
There are no substantive differences between the issues highlighted in your “Talking Points” and in the IPMG paper—merely differences in structuring and emphasis.
Your “Talking Points” also mention that OST will raise another issue, (which we agree should be addressed): “Should the use in war of tear gases and herbicides require Presidential authorization?” (This issue can be added to the NSC CW–BW agenda for discussion.)
Attached is a list of the specific issues under the headings as they stand in the IPMG report along with probable agency positions. On most of the specific issues, we do not know CIA’s position. CIA is therefore included only when their position appears obvious.[Page 2]
- Source: National Archives, Nixon Presidential Materials, NSC Files, NSC Institutional Files (H-Files), Box H–40, Review Group Meeting, NSSM 59, CW and BW, 10/30/69. Top Secret. Sent for information.↩
- In this memorandum, Guhin discussed the Talking Points prepared on CBW for Kissinger for the upcoming NSC Review Group meeting. He then attached an outline of probable agency positions on the various policy issues.↩
- Positions based on opinions expressed in IPMG and Working Group sessions.↩
- These three policy options in the IPMG report boil down to the fact that JCS and OSD favor unrestricted use of tear gas in wartime, State’s position is unresolved, and ACDA, USIA and OST do not favor unrestricted use of tear gas.↩