RESTRICTED
11. PRESIDENCY CONCLUDED AS IN SUMMARY, STRESSING NEED FOR A
IT HOPED A COMMON COMMUNITY POSITION IN NEGOTIATIONS AT THE IAEA. COMMON APPROACH COULD BE AGREED AT THE MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY AMBASSADORS IN VIENNA ON 20 MAY.
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION ON FUSION
12. PRESIDENCY ASKED DELEGATIONS APPROACHED DIRECT BY THE US WHETHER THEY HAD REFINED THEIR POSITIONS FURTHER. THE FRG AND ITALY HAD LITTLE TO ADD, THE FORMER STRESSING THE NEED FOR GREATER CLARITY ON US THINKING AND COUNSELLING AGAINST A HURRIED MEETING WITH THE USSR. THE UK SAID IT WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SETTLE ITS POSITION FOR SOME TIME AND OUTLINED THE TECHNICAL, FINANCIAL, ENERGY POLICY, SECURITY AND POLITICAL FACTORS BEING CONSIDERED: A CLEARER IDEA OF US INTENTIONS WAS ESSENTIAL BEFORE THE COMMUNITY COULD ITSELF FORM A FIRM VIEW. FRANCE SHARED UK CONCERNS, BUT THOUGHT A PRAGMATIC APPROACH WOULD BE NEEDED. DISCUSSION SHOULD CONTINUE ON AN INFORMAL
BASIS.
13. THE COMMISSION ACCEPTED THE FACTORS IDENTIFIED BY THE UK NEEDED PROPER CONSIDERATION: THEY HAD ALREADY BEEN IDENTIFIED IN BILATERAL DISCUSSIONS WITH THE US, BUT IT WAS NOT ALWAYS EASY TO PROVIDE CLEAR ANSWERS. THEY WERE PREPARING THE PROMISED PAPER ON THE PROS AND CONS OF COOPERATION WITH THE USSR AND WOULD VALUE UK ASSISTANCE ON THE SECURITY AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ASPECTS.
14.
THE PRESIDENCY PROPOSED THAT THE COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO THE
US QUESTIONS COULD BE ON THE FOLLOWING LINES:
I THE COMMUNITY HAD AN OPEN ATTITUDE TO MULITLATERAL CCOPERATION, BUT THIS DEPENDED ON CLOSER EXAMINATION (BY THE GROUP) OF A NUMBER OF KEY ISSUES
11 WE COULD AGREE TO FURTHER DISCUSSION WITH US AND JAPAN (WHICH
WOULD HELP TO CLARIFY THEIR THINKING)
111
A MEETING WITH THE USSR BEFORE THE SUMMER BREAK WAS NOT REALISTIC.
-3- RESTRICTED
THIS RESPONCE
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.