Foreign Relations of the United States, 1981–1988, Volume X, Eastern Europe

210. Memorandum From Secretary of Defense Weinberger to the President’s Assistant for National Security Affairs (Clark)¹

Washington, May 19, 1983

SUBJECT

• Defense Comments on Proposed NSDD on Yugoslavia (U)

(S) The Department of Defense does not concur with the draft NSDD on Yugoslavia because it fails to ensure adequate safeguards to protect U.S. transfers of sensitive military or civil technology to Yugoslavia will be put in place.

(S) It is not sufficient to make such transfers subject to “appropriate” technology safeguards, as stated in the last paragraph of the draft NSDD. We believe the U.S. Government should require explicit commitments from the Government of Yugoslavia no less credible than we have negotiated with Sweden and Austria, to ensure that future transfers of sensitive U.S. technology, in both military and civil areas, will be sufficiently safeguarded.

(S) Yugoslavia has a long history of close ties to the U.S.S.R. and Warsaw Pact countries, including transfers of Western technology. We have no satisfactory agreement with the Yugoslavs to ensure that future transfers of U.S. civil or military technology will be sufficiently protected.

(S) We believe the CIA evaluation of December 10, 1982 fails to address the real risks of future sensitive technology transfers to Yugoslavia. In particular, that study apparently focuses on a period in which little sensitive military technology had been transferred to Belgrade. Moreover, since 1975 large amounts of sensitive COCOM controlled dual-use technology have been sold to both Yugoslav industry and military facilities with very little review or monitoring. Therefore, there has been no real test of Yugoslav intentions or capabilities to protect such technologies.

(S) We believe the last paragraph of the draft NSDD should be revised to require that two agreements be negotiated with Yugoslavia to assure that sensitive U.S. (1) military and (2) civil technology will be protected, prior to any transfer taking place.

(S) I recommend: (1) the last paragraph of the draft NSDD be revised in accordance with the Defense language, attached, and (2) a SIG or NSC meeting be called to discuss interagency differences, if required.

Cap

Attachment 1

Paper Prepared in the Department of Defense²

Washington, undated

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COMMENTS ON PROPOSED NSDD ON YUGOSLAVIA

Defense recommends the last paragraph be revised as given below.³

— The U.S. will consider,⁴ in accordance with our established arms transfer policy toward Yugoslavia and consistent with the policies established in NSDD–5, facilitating⁵ military cooperation with that country. We will consider⁶ sales of arms and equipment required for Yugoslav defensive needs on a case-by-case basis, subject to appropriate technology safeguards and financial arrangements, to include commitments from the Government of Yugoslavia no less credible than those we have negotiated with Sweden and Austria, to ensure that future transfers of sensitive U.S. technology in both military and civil areas will be sufficiently protected. Specifically, at a minimum:

— The U.S. will negotiate a General Security of Military Information Agreement between the U.S. Government and the Government of Yugoslavia. Further transfer of classified military equipment will be contingent upon Yugoslav adherence and their credible assurance that they will protect our technology, prior to any transfer taking place.

— The U.S. will negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Government and the Government of Yugoslavia, similar to those we have negotiated with Sweden and Austria, which will secure Yugoslav Government commitment that sensitive manufacturing and end-use technologies will be safeguarded.

— The U.S. will encourage Western European Allies to follow similar policies.

1. Source: Reagan Library, Executive Secretariat, NSC: National Security Decision Directives (NSDD) Records, NSDD 133 3/14/1984 (2). Secret. Above the recipient line on the memorandum, Weinberger handwrote, “Bill.”
2. Secret. No drafting information appears on the paper.
3. The italicized words and passages were additions proposed by the Department of Defense.
4. “Consider” replaced the word “seek.”
5. “Facilitating” replaced the words “to expand.”
6. “Consider” replaced the phrase “be forthcoming in considering approval of.”