Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XI, Arms Control and Disarmament

216. Telegram From the Department of State to Certain Posts¹

Washington, November 11, 1967, 2257Z.

68052. Subject: Status US-Soviet NPT Safeguards Negotiations. Disto/NATUS/Busec.

1. You should leave following Aide-Mémoire with FonOff on Monday, November 13.

2. For USNATO: You should circulate Aide-Mémoire to PermReps and Brosio.

3. For USEC: You should deliver a copy of Aide-Mémoire to Commission.

Begin Text Aide-Mémoire.

The U.S. wishes to inform its allies of the status of the negotiations with the Soviet Union on Article III of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

1. The U.S. draft of November 2. On November 2, 1967, the U.S. Co-Chairman of the ENDC proposed to the Soviet Co-Chairman the draft Article III which is attached. At the same time, the U.S. Co-Chairman gave the Soviet Co-Chairman the five principles set forth below as well as the text of the interpretations contained in the Aide-Mémoire of October 5, 1967.

2. The U.S. November 2 draft and the five Euratom member principles. We believe this text and these interpretations protect the five principles agreed by Belgium, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands in the following manner:

Principle 1: “Safeguards under the NPT would be applied to source and special fissionable material and not to facilities.”

The November 2 U.S. draft deletes the third sentence of the Soviet compromise text which provided that safeguards procedures “should also extend to facilities …” (Emphasis added). As suggested by some of our allies, the second sentence is retained except for its reference to the IAEA Safeguards System.

Principle 2: “There should be no misunderstanding that as far as EA member states are concerned, safeguards under NPT will be applied on the basis of an agreement to be concluded between EA and IAEA.”

The first sentence of the November 2 U.S. draft adds language stating that safeguards under NPT would be “as set forth in an agreement to be … concluded with the IAEA.” It also makes clear that these safeguards would have to be “in accordance with the statute of the IAEA ….” The fourth paragraph of the text would permit non-nuclear-weapon states to conclude IAEA agreements “either individually or together with other states in accordance with the statute of the IAEA.”

In presenting the revised text to the Soviet Union, the U.S. Representative made clear that the U.S. relies on the provisions of the IAEA Statute dealing both with “bilateral and multilateral arrangements” for safeguards and with “relationship” agreements between IAEA and other international organizations the work of which is related to that of the IAEA. He stated: “The U.S. is of the opinion that this language permits parties to the treaty to negotiate and conclude an agreement with the IAEA through Euratom to carry out their safeguards obligation and that an IAEA-Euratom agreement would result from these negotiations.”

Finally, the U.S. Representative told the Soviet Representative that the U.S. would state the following interpretation to the ENDC and to the IAEA Board of Governors: “The first sentence of paragraph 4 of the draft Article III permits the IAEA to enter into an agreement, concerning the safeguard obligations of the parties, with another international organization, the work of which is related to the IAEA and the membership of which includes the parties concerned.”

Principle 3: “The agreement should be based on the principle of verification of EA safeguards by IAEA: the implementation of this principle shall be negotiated between the two organizations.”

As this principle recognizes, its implementation must occur in the Euratom negotiations with the IAEA. As indicated above, the November 2 U.S. draft would permit such negotiations.

In addition, the November 2 draft continues the earlier language stating that acceptance of NPT safeguards would be for the exclusive purpose of “verification of the fulfillment” of obligations of the treaty. Moreover, the new language avoids calling NPT safeguards “IAEA safeguards.” It makes clear, of course, that they must be in accordance with the IAEA statute and safeguards system. There is considerable flexibility in both.

Interpretive principles dealing with the nature of the IAEA-Euratom Agreement which would be permitted by Article III were also presented to the Soviet Representative. These are the three points set forth in paragraph 5 of the U.S. Aide-Mémoire of October 5. They are as follows:

1. “There should be safeguards for all non-nuclear-weapon parties of such nature that all parties can have confidence in their effectiveness.”

2. “In discharging their obligations under Article III, non-nuclear-weapon parties may negotiate safeguards agreements with the IAEA bilaterally or together with other parties, and specifically, an agreement covering such obligations may be entered into between the IAEA and another international organization the work of which is related to the IAEA and the membership of which includes the parties concerned.”

3. “In order to avoid unnecessary duplication, the IAEA should make appropriate use of existing records and safeguards, provided that under such mutually agreed arrangements the IAEA can satisfy itself that nuclear material is not diverted to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.”

Principle 4: “Pending the conclusion of the agreement between Euratom and IAEA, EA member states concerned wish to stress that there should be no misunderstanding that the obligations with regard to Euratom (or to its member states) entered into by any party to a NPT shall not be affected by provisions of Article III dealing with supply.”

The United States takes this to be more directed toward future action of the U.S. than toward the provision of Article III dealing with supply. This provision is essentially the same as the corresponding provision of the U.S. draft approved in NAC on April 20, 1967.²

Like the April 20 draft, the undertaking concerning safeguarded supply of nuclear materials to non-nuclear-weapon states does not apply until a specified period after the treaty enters into force. This period does not begin to run until a substantial (30-40) number of non-nuclear-weapon states have ratified. These ratifications will probably require substantial time. The U.S., whose ratification is also necessary to entry into force, will obviously have to take into account the status of the IAEA-Euratom negotiations before ratifying. We do not expect any conflict to arise between our NPT obligations and the supply obligations we have to Euratom and its members. We believe the time available for conclusion of an IAEA-Euratom agreement is sufficient, and we do not contemplate failure to achieve agreement in that period.

Principle 5: “Euratom member states concerned, determined to act in common, have to be sure that the position of Euratom when negotiating to arrive at a satisfactory agreement with IAEA will not be prejudiced by any eventual provision of Article III, as for example on a time period.”

Like the U.S. draft approved in NAC on April 20, 1967, the November 2 U.S. draft contains a time period for conclusion of Euratom’s negotiations with IAEA. Unlike the April 20 draft, the November 2 draft makes that period applicable to IAEA negotiations with all states, not just with Euratom members.

Without some time period, we see no way to secure worldwide implementation of NPT safeguards. We believe the time period is adequate if there are good faith negotiations on both sides.

To sum up our views with respect to the five principles, we believe the November 2 U.S. draft protects them to the greatest extent possible under the circumstances. Insofar as this protection appears inadequate to our allies, they may follow procedures available to any sovereign state to insure that a satisfactory agreement with the IAEA is worked out.

3. Other provisions in November 2 draft. There are two other significant changes reflected in the November 2 draft which do not relate to the five principles but are designed to meet the requests of certain Euratom members. The first is to add the word “control” to the last sentence of paragraph 1 so that safeguards would be applicable to nuclear material in a peaceful nuclear activity of a non-nuclear-weapon party “carried out under its control anywhere.” In presenting this change, the U.S. Representative made clear again that Article III would not require the application of safeguards to the French-Belgian or French-German facilities in France.

The second such change is to add a provision to paragraph 3 referring to the preambular principle on instrumented safeguards. The last phrase of paragraph 3 would be amended to make clear that safeguards would be implemented in accordance with “the principle of safeguarding set forth in the Preamble.”

4. Soviet response to U.S. November 2 draft. At first, the Soviets objected to several key points of the U.S. draft and questioned some of the interpretations. Then, at a meeting on November 9, 1967, the Soviet Co-Chairman said that he would recommend to his Government as a package all U.S. proposals of November 2 provided the U.S. agreed to a reformulation of the first sentence. He said he would forego introducing other changes only because of the need to make progress as quickly as possible. He said he would wish to make an ENDC statement to the effect that IAEA safeguards would be generally applicable as the NPT safeguards system. He added that he would not take issue with the interpretive statements planned by the U.S.

The reformulation of the first sentence involves the deletion of the word “negotiation,” which the Soviet Representative said was superfluous, and a rearrangement of two phrases, which he said was very minor. As revised, the first sentence would read: “Each non-nuclear-weapon state party to the treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, in accordance with the statute of the IAEA and the Agency’s safeguards system, as set forth in an agreement to be concluded with the IAEA for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfillment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.”

5. U.S. response to Soviet reformulation. The U.S. Representative said he could not recommend this reformulation to his Government since he believed the Soviet should accept the U.S. formulation. The U.S. is now urging Soviet reconsideration at high levels of the November 2 U.S. draft as the one best designed to ensure wide adherence to a non-proliferation treaty.

End Text Aide-Mémoire proper.

Begin Text of Annex to Aide-Mémoire.

U.S. Draft Article III Submitted to Soviet Union November 2, 1967.

1. Each non-nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the IAEA in accordance with the statute of the IAEA and the Agency’s safeguards system, for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfillment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Procedures for the safeguards required by this Article shall be followed with respect to source or special fissionable material whether it is being produced, processed, or used in any principal nuclear facility or is outside any such facility. The safeguards required by this Article shall be applied on all source or special fissionable material in all peaceful nuclear activities within the territory of such state, under its jurisdiction, or carried out under its control anywhere.

2. Each state party to the treaty undertakes not to provide: (a) source or special fissionable material, or (b) equipment or material especially designed or prepared for the processing, use or production of special fissionable material, to any non-nuclear-weapon state for peaceful purposes, unless the source or special fissionable material shall be subject to the safeguards required by this article.

3. The safeguards required by this article shall be implemented in a manner designed to comply with Article III of this treaty, and to avoid hampering the economic or technological development of the parties or international cooperation in the field of peaceful nuclear activities, including the international exchange of nuclear material and equipment for the processing, use or production of nuclear material for peaceful purposes in accordance with the provisions of this Article and the principle of safeguarding set forth in the preamble.

4. Non-nuclear-weapon states party to the treaty shall conclude agreements with IAEA to meet the requirements of this article either individually or together with other states in accordance with the statute of the IAEA. Negotiation of such agreements shall commence within 180 days from the original entry into force of this treaty. For states depositing their instruments of ratification after the 180-day period, negotiation of such agreements shall commence not later than the date of such deposit. Such agreements shall enter into force not later than eighteen months after the date of initiation of negotiations.

End Text Annex to Aide-Mémoire.

Rusk

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, DEF 18-6. Secret. Drafted by George Bunn (ACDA/GC); cleared by Culver Gleysteen (ACDA/IR), Fisher (ACDA/D), George S. Springsteen (EUR), Vincent Baker (EUR/RPM), Abraham Katz (EUR/RPE), Walsh (S/S), Allan Labowitz (AEC) (informed), and Morton Halperin (DOD) (informed); and approved by Acting Secretary Katzenbach. The telegram was sent to all NATO capitals, Tokyo, Moscow, and to the Mission in Geneva.
2. Not further identified.