Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XIII, Western Europe Region

189. Telegram From the Mission to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and European Regional Organizations to the Department of State¹

Paris, July 26, 1966, 2018Z.

1280. Subject: Nuclear Planning Work Group—July 26 meeting. Ref: Dept 11919, Paris 1153.²

1. The third Ministerial Meeting of the Nuclear Planning Working Group was held in Paris July 26 with Secretary McNamara in chair. Ministers agreed to charge the Deputies with preparation of specific proposals for permanent NATO bodies to carry on the work of SPECOM and the NPWG to be considered at next NPWG meeting in Rome September 23 and 24. (For text of agreed minute and communique see septels.)³

2. Although there was agreement on general lines of U.S. approach (State 11919), Ministers were not now prepared to take specific decisions on composition of permanent bodies or commit themselves to submitting final recommendations in December.

3. Topaloglu (Turkey) made strong pitch for membership criteria for Nuclear Planning Group along lines his July 24 talk with Cleveland (Paris 1153) which confirmed that one of most difficult problems we face in establishment of permanent bodies will be that of composition.

4. Healey at breakfast with Secretary McNamara July 25 accepted U.S. draft minute which included in mandate of new nuclear planning group future discussion of joint or collective nuclear weapons systems (para 5C State 11919). However, during meeting he suggested without notice the deletion of this provision with the understanding that its omission did not exclude discussion of hardware in the NPG. Healey said that some (he implied this did not necessarily include him) would maintain that any future discussions of hardware should take place among Fifteen. In addition, some Ministers in UK would argue that creation of NATO restricted group on nuclear planning should be the occasion to abandon discussion of collective hardware. Von Hassel quickly caved and agreed to deletion provided record of meeting showed matter could be raised in new restricted group. When Secretary McNamara pointed out only international record of NPWG was agreed minutes, the wording in para 4B was amended to include “among others,” to make it clear that the three subjects to be considered by the NPG are not exclusive. Our understanding of this legislative history is that “hardware” projects are clearly to be discussable in the new planning group.

5. Brosio made a strong plea that the new bodies be chaired by himself when meeting at Ministerial and PermRep levels and that the staff support be provided by a new unit within NATO International Staff. Brosio argued that to do otherwise would weaken the integrated NATO organization and run the risk of creating the impression of an alliance within the Alliance. Secretary McNamara gave his view that progress in the first instance depended on the development and consideration of national views on these important matters. Later, there could be an effort to see which of these views all allies could share with a view to developing a consensus or common doctrine. Brosio said NATO was an instrument for the expression and reconciliation of national views and saw no contradiction between his proposal and Secretary McNamara’s view. He recognized that nuclear decisions would be taken by heads of government consulting directly rather than in NAC. Healey thought that nuclear matters were better discussed initially in small group but he foresaw a stage at which the views of the Nuclear Planning Group would become the concern of NATO as a whole.

The questions raised by Brosio were among those given to the Deputies for further study.

Cleveland

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, DEF 12 NATO. Confidential; Priority. Repeated to the other NATO capitals.
2. Telegram 11919, July 20, transmitted the draft of a minute on the Nuclear Planning Working Group. (Ibid., DEF 4 NATO) Telegram 1153, June 23, transmitted the substance of a conversation between Turkish Permanent Representative Birgi and Cleveland. (Ibid., DEF 12 NATO)
3. The text of the agreed minute was transmitted in telegram 1290 from Paris, July 26. (Ibid.) For text of the communique, see American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1966, pp. 362–363.