W mq b I Ziiy I OUIGOING comm Department gotate INDICATE I comeClassification 0m ACTION Amembassy PARIS TOPOL 59 I 0 HE and 1myxinimq l 0n next occasi Irish res is discussed in NAG you should emphasize that US has always been of opinion that para 3 of Irish enema VA res is not not inconsistent with participation of NATO's non- nuclear nations in either present stockpile arrangements or any multilateral arrangements that might be envisaged We have felt 04 NATO is protected on two counts in Irish res language 1 Irish res is directed at preventing increase in number of states inde- pendently disposing of nuclear weapons not at multilateral arrangementsk- 2 Irish res uses word QTE accept UNQTE in para 3 in ambiguous sense we have understood it to mean QTE acquire - 0 ownership UNQTE rather than QTE accept the stationing of nuclear weapons in one's national territory UNQTE Latter interpretation countries is what seems to be giving difficulties We have not felt that amendment of Irish res is necessary to give NATO additional protection on this point While UK suggestion to add QTE control of UNQTE after QTE accept UNQTE in para 3 would be consistent with US disarmament plan Agection I C el7 we fail to see how this would give NATO more protection than it now has Eac- iny concern abwould alleviat xw_uumedw 'h 11 Dull-d hr I'uloguphi Ind ACDA P JEGoodby bgo 10 20 6 V1noan Rakp_K Clunnclu UNP Mr Jonest - in draft a RA Mr Fessehden in draft Sbhb h' I - Owens an dram-we am 35 assesses CONFIDENTIAL UNLESS Ds_322 ClaSSifiC tiO Ages I Jraanterpreting QTE accept UNQTE in para 3 che physical presence of nuclear weapons We as could successfully resist that interpretation rly since Irish themselves do not seem to accept it JEMEIE would be prepared vote for Irish res even if UK amendment not effected We wouldk-of coursey-agree that what we mean by QTE control I UNQTE in US plan is QTE full national control UNQTE There is thereforex no difference in substance between US and others in NATO only difference is how this question should be handled in GA Because of problem of discussing in UN forum meaning of QTE accepting control UNQTE we favored more ambiguous language of 1 Irish res Problem can be more easily handled in negotiating forum where we expect details of US disarmament plan will be discussed Hencex ll difference between language we deem appropriate for negotia ons as in US plan and language acceptable in UNGA as in Irish res Howeverx-in view your assessment that UK amendment will increase NATO support for Irish res we would not object to British approaching Irish to see if Irish will accept it Before doing thisx we want to have in hand are comments of NATO governments which apparently will be forthcoming shortly as result your request at special NAG meeting October 16 l_ ossi cation asuxssv133q_ 4 Amemhassy PARTS TOPOL OI CONFIDENTIAL Classification We do not wish go beyond UK EX amendment as Stikker suggestsj h To do so would probably be unacceptable to Irish and in any case it would hand the Soviets a convenient peg on which to make a case against NATO nuclear arrangements Presume suggestion you made in POLTO 487 now superseded by discussions reported POLTO H98 Believe inent your suggestion would be handled in subsequent negotiation called for by Irish res States voting for res wouldx of be bound to accept agreement eventually negotiated unless they convinced their security adequately protected This would presumably include right of determinigg whether all parties essential to the agreement were going to adhere and whether prohibitions of proposed accord ran counter to intent of states who voted for Irish res In further discussions on Irish resx-we think it would be desirable for you in what we might say in an interpretative statement in UNGA regarding multilateral NATO giggike forces since this subject is under consideration by Alliance Should also be remembered we have not yet decided whether sug ig be made TOPOL 565 Egg gigx esnnarzionglpur inclination would be make less specific statement of interpretation than contained your memorandum and then only if tactical situation seemed require Otherwise we merely invite debate contemplated arrangements Classification 0 bh Classification elieve useful state forcefully that where language Irish res may appear vague important point is that NATO group agree a among themselves on XKXEKEKHHK interpretation In final analysis 1 r' it is this interpretation that counts as practical matter in an issue which touches closely on our vital security arrangements RUSK - it's-s This document is from the holdings of The National Security Archive Suite 701 Gelman Library The George Washington University 2130 H Street NW Washington D C 20037 Phone 202 994-7000 Fax 202 994-7005 nsarchiv@gwu edu