CONFIDENTIAL
2
6.
Martin then said he had been instructed to make certain counter-proposals. He handed over the draft enclosed at Annex 'A'. It may be that you and the other recipients of this letter do not hold a copy of the letter dated 23 February, 1966 from the Commodore to the U.S. Naval Liaison Officer which formed the basis for this American re-draft. I therefore attach at Annex 'B' a copy of the original Annex of 23 February, 1966.
7.
You will see that the only differences between the original Annex and the American re-draft are paragraphs 3 and 9(c) and (d). I think there is no dispute about paragraph 3. Since you agreed in Commonwealth Office telegram No. 1412 to drop "helicopter or troop carrier", this draft of paragraph 3 is a correct expression of our original instruction (paragraph 249) 3(b) in Commonwealth Office telegram No. 1346).
1257
8.
What the Americans have done in paragraph 9 is to apply our limit of four visits a year to nuclear powered surface ships in paragraph (c), which is all right so far as it goes, but then to add in paragraph (d) a provision for further almost unlimited visits by nuclear submarines.
9.
We teased the Americans about opening their mouths so wide in paragraph (d) and discussed the controversial nature of submarine visits.
10.
Bearing in mind the authority you had given us in paragraph 3 of Commonwealth Office telegram No. 1412, we then suggested that we might recommend to you a provision that nuclear powered vessels of all kinds should be limited to a maximum of six a year and that within that total no more than four should be nuclear powered surface ships. There are in fact no nuclear powered frigates. With the exception of one aircraft carrier, one cruiser and two destroyers, nuclear powered vessels in the U.S. Navy are all submarines.
11.
The Americans more or less admitted that such a provision would cause them no serious practical difficulties, at least in the next year or so. We accepted that if circumstances change, e.g. in the composition of the U.S. fleet, we would be willing to have further discussions.
12.
Martin then made a further effort to argue that it was inadvisable to make distinctions between nuclear powered vessels and other vessels, but I think the Americans recognise in practice that some such distinction will have to be accepted.
judge that the purpose of his emphasis upon this theme was to justify his request that anything we agree on nuclear powered vessels should not be inserted into the Guidelines or even into the Interpretative Notes but in the Annex to the Commodore's letter as proposed in the American draft.
13.
We know from your telegram No. 1412 that you can accept the '6 and 4' proposal made in paragraph 10 above. only questions remaining for decision therefore seem to be:-
The
CONFIDENTIAL
/contd.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.