Office of the Historian

221. Letter From the President’s Special Assistant (Rostow) to President Johnson1

Washington, December 5, 1967.

Mr. President:

In a telegram of December 2 (Tab A),2 Amb. McGhee raised a number of important questions about our negotiations on Article III of the NPT. He warned that we may be faced with a choice between the NPT and keeping Germany as an ally. He subsequently reported that the Germans recognize that there are dangers in getting too far out in front in their opposition to the NPT and that Chancellor Kiesinger had turned down a proposal to send you a “stiff letter on the NPT.” In addition, Foreign Minister Brandt publicly described your announcement that the US would place its civilian nuclear program under IAEA controls when the NPT becomes effective as a “significant step” toward resolving the problem of safeguards under an NPT.

The specific points raised by Amb. McGhee are as follows: [Page 540]

1.
Duration. He urged that we give the Germans a draft of the new proposed Duration article. We now plan to do this at the NAC meeting on Wednesday.3 This article, which was given to the Soviets on Saturday,4 provides for a conference after 25 years to determine by a majority vote whether the treaty should continue indefinitely or for another fixed period, and would permit any party to withdraw from the treaty at that time.
2.
IAEA/Euratom Negotiations. He proposed that Euratom begin preliminary discussions with IAEA on the form of a safeguards system while we continue negotiations on the text of Article III. Such informal discussions should pose no problem; however, formal meetings could result in delaying a resolution of Article III.
3.
US Ratification. He believes that we should give the Germans clear assurances that the US would not ratify the NPT if Euratom could not negotiate a satisfactory agreement with IAEA. (Euratom members fear that the NPT might preclude our selling them enriched uranium if they had not worked out an agreement with IAEA.) So far, State and ACDA have not wanted to go beyond stating we would “take into account” the status of IAEA/Euratom negotiations as part of our ratification process.
4.
US-Euratom Consultation. Amb. McGhee believes that we should accept the Dutch and Belgian proposals to work out the language for Article III in a special meeting with representatives of Euratom minus France—so far our negotiations have been either bilateral or in NATO.

With regard to the current status of the consultations on Article III, we are meeting on this problem with NATO on Wednesday (Dec. 6). At that time, we should learn the position of the Germans and the other NATO members on language for Article III that we think will be acceptable to the Soviets. If the Germans are willing to let us negotiate with the Soviets on this language, there should be no problem with the other Euratom countries. If they are not willing, I believe we will have to be ready for high-level consultations with the Germans.

Amb. Cleveland suggested yesterday that the NATO Ministerial Meeting next week5 would provide Sec. Rusk with a unique opportunity to get together with Foreign Minister Brandt and the Foreign Ministers of Belgium, and Netherlands to resolve the Article III issue. There is a question as to whether we should pursue this with Euratom or bilaterally with Germany. In any event, Sec. Rusk will be able to discuss the NPT in his private talks with Brandt.

[Page 541]

I suggest that you may wish to discuss the timing and tactics of this issue with the Secretary at lunch today.

W.W. Rostow 6
  1. Source: Johnson Library, National Security File, Rostow Files, Meetings with the President, July thru December 1967, Box 1. Secret. The typewritten date of December 4 has been corrected by hand to read December 5.↩
  2. The attached telegram, telegram 5839 from Bonn, is dated November 2, not December 2. Another copy is in Department of State, Central Files, DEF 18-6.↩
  3. For instructions to Ambassador Cleveland from Secretary Rusk in preparation for the December 6 NAC meeting, see Document 219.↩
  4. December 2.↩
  5. See footnote 4, Document 219.↩
  6. Printed from a copy that bears this typed signature.↩