36. Memorandum of Conversation1 2
SUBJECT:
- US-German NPT Discussions (Fifth and Final Session)
PARTICIPANTS:
- (See Attached List)
Ambassador Roth began by saying that the German delegation appreciated US advice and comments on the draft FRG government statement and Note. Since his government would be doing the actual formulation of these documents over the coming weeks, however, he could do no more at this time than to note the US suggestions and recommend that they be carefully considered in Bonn when the statement and Note were prepared. For this reason, he asked that the US comments on these documents not be included in the agreed minutes of the current talks. Mr. Farley agreed to this request, but cautioned that the US could obviously not be bound by any words in documents which it had not seen prior to being issued. Ambassador Roth thought that both sides understood the position of the other. Mr. Farley made the US comments available to Ambassador Roth as an informal paper.
Mr. Farley referred to the various statements which the US government had been asked to issue in connection with FRG signature of the NPT. He said Secretary Rogers was particularly interested in what commitments were being exchanged, since as the FRG knew, the question of extending US commitments was a very sensitive matter. [Page 2] The Secretary wanted to avoid giving any appearance that the US was “buying” German NPT adherence. Careful coordination was therefore necessary to assure that the statements which were agreed upon would be issued in a way which would avoid creating any false impressions in this regard. The US position on NATO continuity, as well as on the intervention rights question was clearly defined, but we would want to work out the text of any new statements with the above factors in mind.
Mr. Ramisch asked whether it was possible in paragraph 8 of the minutes to indicate US agreement with the substance of the German interpretations of the NPT. Mr. Farley thought that this would create an inconsistency, given the earlier sentence in the same paragraph that the US did not consider it desirable to confirm interpretations made unilaterally by others. Mr. Kratzer agreed and pointed out that the statement in the minutes under Interpretation (f), whereby the US specifically did not endorse the definition of “nuclear explosive devices” contained in the Interpretation. Ambassador Roth said he had instructions to seek some degree of confirmation of the Interpretation. The point was that in case of subsequent dispute over the meaning of the Treaty, the FRG would then be able to turn to others for support.
Later in the same conversation the two sides agreed to rephrase the sentence in question to make clear that the US found the substance of the Interpretations generally acceptable, subject to specific comments elaborated in the minutes.
Minor textual changes were also agreed on for Interpretation (c).
Mr. Ramisch asked whether paragraph 11 of the minutes could not reflect some US agreement in substance with the safeguards criteria introduced by the FRG into internal Euratom safeguards discussions. Mr. Kratzer recalled that he had expressed satisfaction over the recognition in the German criteria of the fact that there should be some degree of physical access into [Page 3] Euratom facilities by IAEA inspectors, but that otherwise he had not commented one way or the other. The US was not prepared to express general approval of the criteria in the minutes.
Prof. Haefele stressed that these criteria constituted an important point of substance for the FRG and were considered the absolute minimum requirements necessary to preserve the position of Euratom as an effective international safeguards system in its own right. Mr. Kratzer said he did not believe it appropriate for the US to make advance judgments regarding Euratom safeguards deliberations until Euratom itself had agreed upon a position. Mr. Farley explained that the problem was less one of substantive difficulty with the interpretations than one of maintaining good relations with all the countries and international bodies involved. After discussing possibilities for changing the text of paragraph 11, both sides finally agreed to delete all references to the criteria.
Mr. Van Doren noted that there was no longer any reference in the agreed minutes to the discussions of the question of safeguarding at strategic points, now that the portion of the minutes dealing with the FRG draft government statement had been deleted. Mr. Kratzer also saw merit in trying to express in words those elements relating to the strategic points concept on which US and FRG views corresponded. Mr. Farley made clear that if the FRG issued the government statement and the US were subsequently asked about the references to the strategic points concept, the US would have to express its own views on the subject in order to dispel any possible misunderstanding that the US and the FRG were in full agreement on the language in the statement.
Mr. Farley then informed the German side that he was authorized by Secretary Rogers to give a formal written assurance of US support for permanent FRG membership on the IAEA Board of Governors. It was agreed to incorporate the text of the US assurance in paragraph 14 of the agreed minutes.
This completed consideration of the agreed minutes, which the US side offered to prepare in final form. The talks then adjourned with expressions on both sides of satisfaction over the successful outcome. It was agreed to deal with press questions in general terms, without getting into matters of substance.
[Page 4]- Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1967–1969, DEF 18–6. Secret. Drafted on November 19 by Malin (ACDA/IR). The meeting took place in the ACDA conference room.↩
- In this fifth and final session of the U.S.-German NPT discussions, participants continued to ferret out problematic phrases and vague statements in the U.S. position and the FRG Statement. Both sides expressed approval with the overall accomplishments of the sessions.↩