TNAG-0023-FCO40-59-Facilities-for-US-Forces-1968 — Page 28

CONFIDENTIAL

3

14.

(a)

(b)

whether you can accept that the agreements we reach in the present discussions should be set out in the form of a letter from the Commodore to the U.S. Naval Liaison Officer, bringing up to date his letter of 23 February, 1966. We here see no strong objection to that procedure. It would of course be tidier to re-write the Guidelines, the Interpretative Notes and the letter into one up-to-date comprehensive document but if we try to do so we might have some difficulty in persuading the Americans to put the restrictions on nuclear powered vessels into the new main document. It seems to us unnecessary to insist on the tidiest solution;

whether you want to put into writing the understanding we have reached with the Americans on points (c), (f)° and (g) in paragraph 3 of your telegram No. 1346. (c) and (g) could, we think, be included without any trouble. (f) is not so easily included because the rest of the Guidelines and Notes are intended to define what is meant by "undue concentration of ships at any one time"; a general statement seems pointless when

Unless we have more detailed ones already included. you feel strongly on the matter I therefore suggest that we should not propose writing in anything more on (c), (f) and (g) of paragraph 3 of your telegram No. 1346.

When we have your advice on those points we will have another discussion with the Americans here.

15.

There is one point which arises concerning visits in the remaining months of this year. We have had four nuclear visits already. The Americans have formally sought clearance for a visit by LONG BEACH, a nuclear powered guided missile cruiser (CGN) from 22 to 27 October (Hong Kong telegram No. 2045). The 7th Fleet have also scheduled a visit by GUARDFISH, a nuclear powered submarine, from 27 November to 1 December, though they have not yet applied for clearance. On the assumption that you agree to the visit by LONG BEACH, GUARDFISH would be the sixth nuclear vessel this year.

If we can now accept a total

of six visits a year, the visit by GUARDFISH could at least be "considered sympathetically". It is true that there would not be a two-month gap after LONG BEACH, but provided the LONG BEACH visit passes off without incident, we think the point could be stretched. It would be useful to have your preliminary views on GUARDFISH at the same time as your views on the general principles set out in paragraph 3 above.

16.

I am sending a copy of this letter to Percy Cradock in Peking, Michael Wilford in Washington and Reg. Hibbert in Singapore.

Your

eve

Athu

(A.F. Maddocks)

CONFIDENTAL

t