Cab 195/20 cabine t minute s

Yüklə 1.38 Mb.
ölçüsü1.38 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   15



ACT 2000

Wise to reduce as much as possible occasions on which Queen drives

with Nkrumah.
H. Distasteful tht. Queen shd. have to associate publicly with a man like





ACT 2000

Hail. Pol. disadvantages of cancellation outweigh those of going.

Agreed: inexpedient to cancel.
5. Malaya.
D.S. Greater Malaysia is best hope of containing Singapore – which, if it

became independent on its own, wd. prob. go Communist.

Looks now as if Tunku will come to London. Singapore favour talks.

We must welcome them, while preserving posn of peoples of

Borneo etc., whose wishes wd. need to be taken into a/c.
P.M. Agree – try to get Tunku to come for these talks.
H.W. There will be diffy in H/C. over Singapore base.
H. Avoid commitment to consult peoples of Borneo territories –

referendum etc.

6. B.T.C. Hotels.
E.M. As in memo. Beeching is firm in this opinion:

i) physical diffy of splitting premises.

ii) £150.000 p.a. savings on common purchases & £100.000

on m’tenance.

iii) T.U.’s wd. prefer it – negotiating machinery.

iv) trust Beeching’s judgment.

I wd., however, include safeguards – separate organn, no power to create new separate hotel holdings, power to Minister to direct them to sell, provn for company to sell free-standing hotels.
M. Reasons are compelling for change of policy.

E.B. Ty. agree: reasons for over-riding B. are not strong enough.

R.A.B. Merits transcend Tory philosophy on this.
P.M. Wd like to be sure this doesn’t mean they will continue all the hotels,

good or bad. Some sites of bad hotels cd. be developed for

other purposes.
E.M. Minister will have power to give directions on this.
7. Council of Europe: Social Charter.
E.B. Can’t take Art. 12. But enough to ratify w’out that.

C.C. 56(61). 17th October, 1961.
1. Berlin. [Enter M.R.
H. de G.’s veto on mtg. of F.O. officials. My tel. to Rusk. U.S., tho’

shaken by Fr. attitude, are willing tht. I shd. say we think proving

talks shd. continue & that U.S. agree with that view.

Fear it means tht. de G. does not want negotiations.

President K. wants to bring French along & is delaying Thompson’s

return to Moscow.

Adenauer has accepted Prs. K’s message.
H.W. P.N. Ques. to-day: Opposn will attack on basis of lessons of Opern

Spearpoint: suggesting we rely too much on nuclear & tht. we

are out of line with N.A.T.O. strategy. Unreadiness of B.A.O.R.
I.M. Many P.N.Q.’s are being sought.
2. Common Market: Paris Meeting.
E.H. Re-action to my speech in Paris as good as cd. be expected.

The Six were taken aback by our explicit assurance to E.F.T.A. & by

complexity of C’wealth aspects.

Mtgs. – for early Nov. – officials & Ministers.

They will be long in reachg. agreemt. inter sc.
3. Queen’s Speech: Opening of Parliament. [Enter E.P.
P.M. Add any reference to capital gains tax?
S.Ll. Not quite certain we can do it in advance of Finance Bill. Unwise therefore to mention it. Mght. be able to announce in debate on Address.
P.M. Great moral advantage on wage pause.
Agreed: omit from Speech.
I.M. Weights & Measures. Don’t mention in Speech – but don’t drop it

now from p’mme. Give ourselves room for manoeuvre.

P.M. Also because may be a stormy session: don’t therefore promise too

much – to avoid charge of inability to carry out your promises.

I.M. Endless scope for diffy on this Bill if Oppn want to make trouble.
F.E. Important reform: we shall be criticised if we don’t go on with it, Oppn won’t crab it: helps shoppers.
R.A.B. Bound to be asked about it in Debate on Address.

H.B. Strong appeal to l.g. circles and consumers: hope we shall get it.

M.R. Room for this is Capital Gains doesn’t start at once.

But Party will prefer tht. Speech shd. give appearance tht.

p’mme is lighter.
Agreed: omit from Speech. [Exit E.P., E.H.
4. Army Man-Power.
H.W. As in memo. Combination of two proposals would see us thro’ 62/63.

Volunteer element in Reserve (from A.E.R. or T.A.) who wd.

come up in time of tension – wd. be a valuable start in reform of

P.M. Discussed by Def. Cttee. Recommend adherence to concept of regular

forces. Advise legn to give permissive power to retain N.S. men

for 6 months more & to call back specialists.

H. Commitments unlikely to be lessened in next 2 years. Assent to first

2 proposals. Doubt, however, wtr. 3rd proposal will ensure

adequate balance in forces throughout the world.
S.Ll. Dislike financial cost, but admit need for first two proposals.
D.S. 1957 plan has bn. upset mainly because we have bn. unable to make

the planned redn in B.A.O.R. If we have to keep 55.000 men

there indefinitely, we can’t do it on voluntary system.
H. Both we and U.S. want to reduce our forces in G; but it will have to

be considered wtr. we want G. army to dominate Eur.

R.A.B. First 2 proposals will help me, on civil emergency, by producing more

troops in U.K.

C.S. Army at 160.000 won’t be efficient peace-time force because gaps

in it. You need 180.000 on 1957 deployment. Will take 3 years

to reach that level. We accepted this “gap”. But problem has

bn. aggravated because commitments have not bn. reduced as

assumed. 84 units abroad now & 40 at home: as cpd. with

roughly 50/50 basis of 1957 plan. Will affect regular

recruitment in the end.

1st proposal will give us 180.000 until Oct. ’62; but will then fall


We must therefore decide we shall cut commitments to somethg. like

1957 order of battle plans or we must consider re-introducg. N.S.
P.M. I have bn. working on reduced commitments – partly for this reason

& partly for cost.

H.W. If we are to avoid being driven into N.S., by failure, we must show

determination to succeed in working with all regular forces –

incldg. redn of commitments.
Approved: first & second proposals.
H.W. Reservists. Simplest remedy wd. be to remove requirement of

Proclamation; but satisfied tht. this wd. be breach of faith to

reservists – who have always understood they wd. not be

re-called except for fighting. Ideally therefore need to re-shape

whole reserve. This wd. take so long tht. we propose the

voluntary experiment. You cd. get it into this Bill w’out adding

to controversy. On balance I favour incldg. it because it does not

leave whole burden on the N.S. men.

P.M. Berlin situation wd. warrant Proclamation. But this (in Aug.) wd. have

enhanced tension. Thought to be equivalent (modern) of

J.P. Welcome such a start on reforming reserves. But wrong to support

we shall get v. many volunteers for it.

H.W. We haven’t tested how many men wd. volunteer for period/tension.

Only an instalment. But wd. show we were making a start.

R.A.B. Essential to revise concept of emergency: existg. statutory

definition is not in accord with modern conditions.

P.T. Dangerous public position if v. few enrol.
J.H. Reservists don’t like re-joining & then hanging about – cf. our

experience over Suez.

Agreed: further study of 3rd proposal, includg. drafting,

& further discussion by Cabinet.

W.O. to be responsible for Bill. [Exit J.P.
5. Shipping; Cunard Liners.
E.M. Chairman Cunard doesn’t now wish to cancel, but to p’pone.

Seen him, with Mills. Made it clear tht. ques. of commercial

judgment are for him.

Cunard statement to be made on Thursday. I shall then have to make

a statement in H/C. Also to tell Chandos. Several tenders are

below £30 m. – so he can’t use that excuse.

P.M. New situation: must reserve Govt.’s freedom to consider it on merits.

Formula on this basis to be agreed between E.M., I.M.

and Ty. [Exit H.W., H.and S.Ll.
6. Teachers’ Salaries.
D.E. Teachers have decided to strike on 24/10 and demonstrate in Ldn.

Also to w’draw services of supervision in meal-breaks

from 1/11. L.a.’s have asked if payment to others (for meals)

wd. rank for grant. I said “no”. L.a.’s thus stiffened to make

agreement with teachers. Hold mtg. y’day with both sides,

l.a.’s said they wd. start negotns for new salaries – in mid 1962

to operate from spring of ’63. I didn’t guarantee that. N.U.T.

have decided to propose acceptance of £42 m., calling off strike.

But they want me to p’pone my legn – at least till after Xmas.

I have said I will introduce Bill on 31/10 unless they have given

way before then.
P.M. This seems v. satisfactory.

[Enter J.H.

7. Euston Station.
E.M. H.A. Cttee decision. Announced July. No fuss until now.

Alleged it cd. be rolled elsewhere for £90.000. Raising a fund.

J.H. Has historical & aesthetic interest. Shd we stop others from raising

E.M. They have not raised £1.000.

H.B. No chance of their submitting viable scheme.
Agreed: stand firm.

C.C. 57(61). 19th October, 1961.
1. Teachers’ Salaries. [M.R., J.A. & Godber.
D.E. My only concession was to promise not to introduce legn before Xmas.

Their line: no objn in principle to my proposal (subject to discn)

so long as machinery for comparable wage negotiations is

applied to others. Not too bad.

J.M. Sc. teachers are strongly friendly and helpful. Talks starting to find out

underlying causes of malaise other than salaries & Burnham.

The are not in a hurry. Prs. delaying till they see what happens in

E. & Wales.

2. Aviation Industry.
P.T. Declared our policy recently & in detail. Annex A. para. 4. On basis

of that they have made costly & painful re-organisation. Cost estimated then at £20 m. p.a. – we were ready to pay that price

to have an aircraft industry. Presume we don’t go back on that.

But picture now is sharp run-down in [key-workers & design staff].

Total employment in industry is falling. Ty. figures are 5 mos.

out of date & include many who aren’t making aircraft. Factories

are closing – no. of illustrations. This is right: what we intended.

Larger run-down will follow when peak of old orders is past.

Worry, however, is uncontrolled run-down of [ ]. Must avoid


Immediate need = decisions on sufft. no. of projects to enable future to

be firmly planned. These needed w’in 3 wks.

I favour – a) Helicopters. Rotodyne: delay verging on scandal.

I cd. make a deal betwn. B.O.A.C. & Sabena to operate Vertals

with Br. engines. At cost of £½ m. over 5 yrs. this wd. pave way

for Rotodynes. Held up for 4 months. Also progress with


b) Trident D.H. 121. for export with Medway engine.

c) Beverley replacement. Prs. the Belfast.

d) Freedom to switch betwn. r and d. and developmt.,

so tht. while we wait for order decisions we can get

on with useful research.

This is minimum to enable us to appear to be followg. our policy.

Wd show that something is moving.

S.Ll. Glad this has come to Cab. Commd to a policy. Officials are at odds

over this. Ministers will have to decide. H.B. will handle it for

me. How does it fit with D.R.P.C.?
H.W. O.R. 351 Hastings/Beverley. This & similar projects shd. go thro’

D.R.P.C. – tho’ I will ensure no delay.

P.T. I accept that.
D.S. Services must be more ready for variations of requirements to enable

dual purpose aircraft to be produced – e.g. freighters &

J.A. Freighter possibility is Argosy (which we are using in R.A.F.) not

in Beverley replacement.

H.W. We shan’t be able to give firm decisions on numbers until defence

policy has bn. settled.

J.A. Air Miny view: we can’t afford r. & d. cost unless we make one

aircraft meet 2 or 3 roles. This wd. mean larger orders for

each type.
P.T. Avoid waiting for long-term decisions by concentrating now mainly

on civil (mostly) & shorter-term things.

H.B. Propose a mtg. with Ministers before we tell officials what plans

they are to bring forward.

Hail. We face difficult series of long-term problems. We must protect our

right to participate in technol. advanced industry. But we need

to obtain agreement of U.S. & Europe tht. we can have a share

in world market.

Also problem of priorities. Projects come up in isolation.

Nuclear ship: supersonic airliner etc. No machinery for settling

this sort of thing. Only Ty. scrutiny, limited to economic cost.
E.M. Yes: shipbldg. complain tht. aircraft industry get unfair share of

Govt. aid. Shipping interests support this.

H.B. I could help with this.
P.T. Wd be difficult to go back on announced policy re aircraft industry.
M. Comparison shd. be based on amounts to be spent on industries not

on relative merits of individual projects in each.

R.A.B. 1) Let H.B. examine the 4 specific projects in reln

to existg. inter-departmental machinery – mil. & civil.

2) Take up later (Ty.) the major ques. of scientific priorities.
D.E. I doubt if market is available for civil aircraft on scale we envisage.

U.S. bribe their way in. What card have we against this?

Shd B.E.A./B.O.A.C. continue to be separate? Latter can’t see

future – reluctance to share our C’wealth landing rights with e.g. K.L.M. Unless we do go into partnership with some other

lines we can’t get market for our civil aircraft.
D.S. We are in partnership e.g. with Quantas but it doesn’t prevent latter

from using U.S. aircraft.

C.C. 58(61). 26th October, 1961.
1. Foreign Affairs. [Enter M.R.
a) Berlin.

H. E. Berliners insisted on U.S. personnel showg. passes – wh. they

have never had. U.S. show of strength. Mtg. to-day. U.S. firm

because Gromyko agreed no change of practice while discns

proceed. Our practice is to show passes.

b) Congo.

Tshombe sent 2 junior officials to Adoula. T. not v. f’coming:

but A. responsive because nervous of Gizenga. We are urging

T. therefore tht. this is a moment to do a deal – better terms likely.

c) Laos.

King has agreed to Phonma as P.M., but won’t say so publicly until

all Govt. posts filled & announced.

d) Nuclear Tests.

U.N. have passed resoln of disapproval. Don’t yet know wtr. it was

30 or 50 megatons.
P.M. We shall have to state a posn on resumptn in Debate on Address.

Provisional view: no case for tests in atmosphere merely to out-do R.

If needed to m’tain balance of deterrent (esp. on anti-missile

weapon) we mght. have to do it. This is only tenable moral


Reserve right to make tests: but make foregoing negative point.

H.W. Hope U.S. can get ahead with what they need to do by underground

Hail. No need to hurry one, even for military reasons: lest it appear to be

for mere propaganda purpose.

[Enter J.P.

2. Army Man-Power – Reserves.
J.P. New voluntary reserve w’in T.A. Liability: maximum of 6 months in

any year. As individuals – or prs. in sub-units.

Wd like authy to include provision for this in the new legislation.
P.M. Advantages a) 1st step twds. rationalisation of reserves as a whole.

b) insists long-term element in what wd. otherwise

seem to be stop-gap legislation.
H.B. Ty. will be asked to approve cost at v. short notice.

Permanent expre of £4 m. p.a. Will this be w’in ceiling of defence expre? Cdn’t accept it as permanent addition.

H.W. Hope to satisfy Ty. tht. it can be carried w’in existing total.
S.Ll. Need full detail be included in Bill?
H.W. A month in which to finalise it.
Approved in principle.

Details to be discussed with M/D., W.O., M/L. and Ty.

[Exit J.P.
3. Methane Gas. [Enter R.W.
R.A.B. a) Algeria: money will be spent here on installns which cd. use

supplies from Nigeria if Algerian source dried up.

b) If this denied they wd. import butane – at least as costly in

f. exchange. To ban imports on all gases wd. be inconsistent

with policy on natd industries.
P.M. Butane wd. at least come from Br. companies.

Believe they will lose much money over this.

R.W. to break it to Ld. Robens.

Any need for Parliamentary statement?

R.W. Much interest. Want oral, to give room for explann. Will discuss

with Leader H/C.

[Enter B.C.

4. Coal: Price Policy.

R.W. First: ques. of principle: shd. N.C.B. be free to vary differentials

in prices in various parts of country.

Second: if so, shd. increased costs be covered by genl. increases of

price or variable regional increases? Chairman is v. much

against general increases – reasons given. Main one: frustrates

attempts to increase efficiency.

H.B. Some action needed. Sc. Divn now losing more than total loss of

N.C.B. We are heading for subsidy – as for rlways. – and Party

wd. not accept that.

Increases in some areas wd. not breach any existing principle.

But 15/= p. ton. wd. be heavy blow in Scotland.

Can’t be in interests of economy to go on subsidising miners’

wages at £400 p. head p.a.

Policy on natd indies re prices announced as recently as April.

Quoted from White Paper.

As politician wd. not press for full 15/= from 1st Jan. Sensible time

to increase is summer.

Proposal for increase of 6/= in N.W. What about 6/= all round in the


But economic arguments support M/P. plan.

J.M. 69.000 to 64.000 drop in man-power in Sc. is planned.

New proposal wd. mean another 20.000 jobs wd. disappear

by 1965 – tho’ believed redundancy wd. be only 3.000 or so.

Industry. Increased cost for Colvilles wd. be £1.2 m. or £1 p.ton of

finished steel. Cement 4%. Domestic 12% - 1/= p. wk

for pensioners.

Price differentials are mainly on quality. Coal-field differentials

are historic, but not directly related to costs. Wage structure

in national. This is therefore fundamental change in policy

followed by N.C.B. v. hard to reconcile with our D.I. policy.

Social investment – serious waste.
H.B. Eventual waste of it wd. be even greater, if sitn left to drift.
R.M. Shattering blow to D.I. effort in Scotland. Wd prob. reverse all our

progress on this.

M. A year ago £60 m. increase in coal prices authorised. In spite of this

loss of £1 m. overall is now expected.

Small island: wrong to base price on costs of individual coal-field.

Prefer to follow principle of level prices, subject to only small

I.M. Share this view.

Cab. decn to put new strip-mill in Scotland. Linked with that efforts

to draw other industries to S. All this wd. be stultified by

decision not recommended. And D.I. policy pursued for 20 yrs.

E.M. But failure to follow M/P. line wd. equally stultify recent W. Paper

on natd industries.

M. For rlways. we removed burden of old debt. We may have to do same

for N.C.B.

R.W. Nearly £100 m. accumulated deficit. Even if we wrote if off, there wd.

be similar problem in a few years – unless we adopted policy

now advocated.
H.W. x/ Wiser to close uneconomic pits, more rapidly.
R.W. Then imported coal – even from England it wd. be more expensive.
J.H. This discn causes me to change my view – into support of x/ as

alternative. We have persuaded Rootes to equip new factory

for coal. Press on with x/ and with getting new firms into areas

where pits are to close.

F.E. Support M/P. plan.
R.A.B. i) write off deficits ii)…………..

I myself see no way out w’out increased prices. But more phasing

shd. be made.
R.W. Agreement betwn. N.C.B. & Minister tht. he will consult on prices

& will not act inconsistently with Minister’s expd wish. But

since Wh. Paper Minister wd. have to make public statement

of his reasons in writing.

Hail. If Sc. is not affluent, wrong to allow them to cling to uneconomic

production of uneconomic coal.

J.B-C. This wd. prob. tip scales in favour if increasing assistance rates if

done this winter.

Ch.H. Better to accelerate p’mme for closing high-priced pits.
R.W. Present p’mme will reduce pits in Sc. to 55 by 1965. Diff. to

accelerate it. But only 4 m. of 17½ m. t. of coal in Scotl. is

produced at profit.

Imported Engl. coal wd. be £2 m. p.t. more.

D.E. Must subsidise Sc. in some way in order to prevent drift of labour

to E. But subsidising Sc. miners at £400 p.a. is silly way of

doing it. Better to subsidise if necessary new indies to wh. he

cd. move.

Action which is indefensible economically on one thing makes it

diff. to be sensible in any field.

P.M. Don’t believe you can run natd industry on same lines as private


There are differences already in prices between one area or another.
R.W. Realistic closing of pits cd. not go far enough to cure the financial

S.Ll. Solution: do a bit more of more things. Don’t try to do it all by

price – or so suddenly.
E.H. Why shd. Scots pay less for coal when it costs more to produce it

there? Support S.Ll.’s view tht. combination of methods is

P.T. 1) Consider posn of N.C.B., who want to compete where they can. If we

force him to general increase, he is hampered all across the board.

2) Don’t exaggerate effect of this on d.i. policy in Sc.
R.W. Genl. increase will drive people to oil in England but delay the

conversion to oil in Sc.

H. Cd there be some general & some local increase?
M. He can’t plead principle when he made a genl. increase last year?
P.M. Cd we work for package deal. a) accept differential prices for regions

b) increase Sc. coal by 5/= c) but the other 10/= by other means

& phase it out (?) d) special concession to those who can’t use

hydro-electric power or oil. [add increased pit closure.]

J.M. a) is not really reconcilable with national wage structure.
S.Ll. What view wd. T.U.C. take?
R.W. There is also N. West & anthracite problem.
Agreed: R.W. and H.B. to look at this again, with J.M.

& Mills in light of discussion.

J.M. Cd we include ascertaining T.U.C. view on breaking

down national wage structure.

[Exit R.W., P.T.
5. National Insurance: Family Allowances for Apprentices.
J.B-C. Economy proposal – wd. save over £1 m. – inevitably controversial.

Explained proposal.

T.U.’s wd. oppose this. But socially it is justifiable.

Suggn of taking power only wdn’t get us out of difficulty – for we shd.

have to disclose the figure in debate on the Bill. And to go down

by stages wd. involve much adm. diffy and Parly controversial on

each occasion.

Wd it be disincentive to apprenticeship? Only 8/= difference.

N.A. scale for child of this age is only 32/=.
J.H. Shortage of skilled labour. Campaign for more apprentices. This wd.

frustrate those efforts.

Is this socially justifiable. Income tax allowances are given for these

children. They are foregoing large wages to be apprentices.

H.B. Gap over apprenticeship is not enough openings offered by employers

not shortage of applicants.

How can we expect to get £100 m. savings if we reject this sort of


Figure of 87/6. – new factor introduced by Comms. not us – is not


E.M. B.T.C. have 8.000 apprentices & don’t think this wd. affect them.
Hail. Support J.H.
S.Ll. Our figure, if we fixed it, wd. be 40/=.
H.B. Nothing in I.T. point: this wd. bring them into line . £100 for I.T.
J.B-C. Same amount of row even if a higher figure were proposed.
Memo. approved. [Exit J.B-C.
6. Shipping: Nuclear Propulsion.
P.M. Announce in reply to P.Q. – written Answer.
S.Ll. Don’t let it be assumed tht. this commits us to prototype.
C.S. Para. 2. nuclear re-actor not propulsion. “No re-actor system

for marine purposes offers …….”

7. Wages Policy.
S.Ll. We are hanging on.

But to avoid Jan. 1. assumption as end of pause, we need some

other dates.
J.H. Last of pre-announcement commitments are related to Jan. 1.

Now faced with awards w’out prior commitment: & propose

to relate these to April 2.

  1. Euston Station: Doric Arch.

P.M. Have now received influential deputation. We shall be called

Hail. Bogus black Parthenon.
Earlier decision confirmed.

C.C. 59(61). 2nd November, 1961.
1. Parliament. [Enter M.R.
I.M. Business for next week.
2. Germany – Berlin.
H.M. Developing Allied discussions on contingencies – we have bn. led

along. U.S. have to be reminded continuously that with us

Parliament is sovereign, and all these plans must be subject to

Cab. decision at the time. This adds to H.’s difficulties.

H. (a) Immediate ques. of Friedrikstrasse crossing. Narrative in memo.

16 yrs. U.S. have not shown passes: Br. have shown if asked,

but v. rarely asked. U.S. having taken a stand on this, can’t

give way. Latest plan: Allies to require R. civilians similarly

to show passes on entering W. Berlin. U.S. willing to conform

with that solution. Best way out in present circs. (“Civilians”

for this purpose means or includes military personnel in

civilian clothes.) Also reduce no. of our points of entry into

W. Berlin to one – to conform with one crossing into E. Berlin.
Hail. Uneasy about U.S. re-actions on the spot – e.g. Clay.
K. Tel. 1147 from Berlin. Any hope of getting pressure on Clay? – via


M. You can assume (H: you can’t) tht. Clay keeps in close touch with

W’ton. (P.M. But Pentagon.)

H. Solution now in view emphasises 2 Berlins – but that is a fact.
(b) Corridors – air and land.

H. Clear directive worked out with Norstad re air corridors – on re-action

to any interference with civil aircraft in corridors.

Suppose plane shot at from ground, N. wants fighter escort to be free

to shoot at ground target outside built-up area w’out risk to

civilian life. Either i) authorise immediate retaliation or

ii) leave opportunity to warn R. and then mount such an attack

on any second occasion. Second wd. give scope for a political

H.W. Prefer (ii).

C.S. Won’t arise: for if civil aircraft is attacked by S.A.G.W. it will be

destroyed (sitting duck) & therefore can’t make a second trip.

H. Land corridor. N. wants re-action v. any block: force to remove it &

provoke R. to fire first – after which it wd. w’draw.

H.W. Cassel has worked out plan for a small force to do this.
H. May have to be larger than a company.
Agreed: subject to H.W. vetting that the plan is realistic and safe.
S.Ll. Shd be a small force, to avoid a situation in which loss of

face arises.

H.W. Under Cassel’s control: can tell him to warn us before he acts.
(c) Economic Counter Measures.

H. Allies consider these will help to avert ultimate crisis - & tht. our

attitude in N.A.T.O. has bn. unhelpful. Mr K. himself favours

this as alternative to mil. re-action. Hence tel. in Annex B. In

N.A. Council y’day it emerged tht. many are nervous of total

embargo – Canada, in particular, reservg. this for pol. decision

at the time. Others taking similar view on lesser sanctions. We

are no longer alone: but U.S. still think we have brought this

feeling about.
S.Ll. Why can’t U.S. see tht. measures v. D.D.R. alone wd. be preferable,

at the earlier stages?

H. They still insist tht. all measures shd. be taken v. whole bloc.

Our repve in N.A. Council was asked y’day to circulate his

arguments for action v. D.D.R. & on this too we may bring

European Allies round to our view.

I.M. We are thinking of what will bite: they are thinking of a gesture.

V. different tests.

H. Real danger here is, not tht. we will get committed, but tht. U.S. will

conclude we are faint-hearted over the whole affair.

Shd we therefore try for a resolution in N.A. Council wh. will go some

way to satisfy U.S. while reserving decision for Govts.

P.M. Ty. & B/T. to advise F.O. which of these measures are tolerable, if

required as gestures. M/T. to send F.O. a note on shipping.

And use to U.S. D.E.’s argument tht. it wd. force neutrals to depart

from neutrality & choose wtr. they are to trade or not. They

will mostly choose to continue to trade.
F.O. shd. also consider what guidance to give on cultural etc. contacts

with R. – in the light of latest test explosions.

(d) Negotiations.

H. U.S./U.K. agreed there shd. be negotiations & also on substance of

our aims in such negotns.

Thompson probe – hampered because Fr. won’t be associated with it.

[Negotiation leading to concession is worse than none. Wait

until D.D.R. begin to interfere & then negotiate in hot blood.

This is Fr. attitude. We don’t share it, but can’t move them.]

Therefore, if Thompson seeks search for basis, he must do so on

behalf of U.K./U.S. alone. Diff. in these circs. to see how we

shall get negotn on substance going.

Ingredients of a settlement i) Niesser/Oder line ii) acceptce of

D.D.R. iii) No manuf. of nucl. weapons by Germany. iv) Some U.N. presence in Berlin. In return K. wd. guarantee access &

embody that in a Treaty deposited with U.N.

But latest speeches by K. & Grom. are not encouraging.

Time-table. New G. Govt. New Chancellor to go to W’ton & be told

what he must accept. Then pressure on France to accept that.

S.Ll. K. will want also i) admn tht. W. Berlin isn’t part of W. Germany &

prs ii) some assurance on espionage & propaganda from

W. Berlin.
H. But time is running out – for pol. deadlock in Bonn and intransigence

in Paris.

Hail. Fr. will blame us for any concession made. Shd we lose therefore by

going on w’out them.

H.W. We have broken Fr. intransigence before by demonstrating in N.A.T.O.

tht. they are in minority of one.

K. Thompson mght. get further if we cd. stop U.S. playing tin soldiers

in Berlin (Kutznetzar).

H. German Amb. W’ton has put fwd. formula which amounts to

de facto recognition of D.D.R. This wd. be crucial to K. Sole

encouraging sign.

Gromyko is showing interest in wider issues – Eur. security.

This is v. frightening to Fr. & G. - & on account of their

anxieties we have reverted to a narrow agenda (Berlin only).

Time-table. K. may want to see a new G. President.
P.M. What are long-term interests of U.K.? M’tenance of N.A.T.O. – viz.

European Alliance with U.S. involvement. K.’s objective is to

divide that: Hence de G.’s posn: any concession must weaken

attachment of G. to W. Europe: may even reveal to W. Germans

the failure of their basic hope for unity, for A. has built himself

on this – cling to U.S. & G. will be re-united. de G: if this must

happen, I will not be party to it: let odium fall elsewhere,

& preferably on (non-European) Anglo-Saxons. [We want to

get in to Europe.] Better, if concessions have to be made, to

make them when it really is plain tht. alternative is war. My own

belief is tht. at that stage we shd. be in weaker negotiating posn

near panic.

We have gained respite because pol. deadlock in Bonn. In 10 days or

so, we shall be under pressure here to negotiate: our own opinion

will press.

Best solution: G. themselves to take an initiative twds. concessions

which are inevitable. Wd avert growth of myth tht. Anglo-

Saxons sold them.

Next: Western initiative in agreement (our present plan).

Next best: U.S. initiative. Less involved with Europe. Also stronger.

They ought to do so. The have nil. to lose.

Anglo-U.S. initiative. Dangerous. Will clinch myth tht. Anglo-Saxons

are trying to destroy power of Europe. From that pt. of view Br.

initiative mght. be safer.

Failing all of these French policy will prevail by efflux of time.
H. M’while K. is increasing pressure on Finland & moving troops twds.

3. Nuclear Tests. [Enter E.P.

i) Effect of Russian Tests.

Ch.H. Asked to consider re-assurance to public on fall-out from recent

R. tests.

i) Statements made already by Ministers etc., have steadied

opinion. Public is reasonably re-assured. Mistake to

do more at present.

ii) Need, unobtrusively, to put over a simpler statement of

hazards & measures. Draft prepared – 600 words.

(Larger bomb at great height may be less dangerous

than small one lower.)

Prs. this cd. be released (written Answer) by

L. President. Wd then be followed up, unobtrusively,

by informn agencies.
Hail. Support this.

Had hoped all statements wd. be made by scientists – to ensure we

were seen to be objective. But they won’t make simple

statements – as only politicians can take responsibility for

discretion. Think now I shd. make statement – in H/L. in next

few days.

J.M. Hope this won’t be delayed. Confusion in Scotland – especially over

figures which are averaged.

P.M. Consider wtr. particular Regions shd. have dried milk.

Ch.H. If figure rises to danger point in particular area it will be issued in

that area. Unlikely tht. situation will be reached.
J.M. In subsequent announcements (factual) do utmost to avoid confusion

over “running averages”.

ii) Resumption of U.K. Tests.

P.M. Need to test war-head for Skybolt – improved Br. design.

Want to make this test in U.S. series of underground tests.

Need not announce at present. Can be justified as necessary to

make weapon more effective & safer.

[Exit E.P.

4. Ghana. Queen’s Visit.
P.M. Heavy burden of responsibility on Govt.

All precautions taken. D.S personal enquiries. Assessment by

Security Services. Joint report: no great likelihood of incident.

Greatest risk: drives thro’ country in remote places.

1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   15

Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur © 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə