Skip to content

Results:

11 - 20 of 479

Documents

July 10, 1968

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Directorate of Political Affairs, Disarmament, 'Note: The treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons'

This report recounts developments at the UN First Committee from the beginning of the special session, April 24, to the plenary vote on June 12, 1968. Among the interesting observations was how the “most important resistance cell had … surprisingly developed among the Black African states,” who had sought concessions from the United States on apartheid South Africa’s mandate over South West Africa (modern-day Namibia). The report notes the various changes forced on the superpowers by Italy and Mexico on behalf of the non-nuclear-weapon delegations. The aide-memoire concluded that “[a]lthough these concessions [were] more apparent than real, they served as a pretext for a number of delegations, under intense Soviet and American pressure, to go along with the draft resolution thus revised.” The French delegate to the United Nations, Armand Berard, explained to the General Assembly on June 12 the reasons for France’s abstention. In accordance with Francis Perrin’s recommendations, Berard elaborated that although France would not sign the NPT when “the real issue was effective nuclear disarmament,” it would nonetheless pledged to behave “[e]xactly in such a way as those States which opt to adhere to it.”

March 28, 1968

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Directorate of Political Affairs, Disarmament, 'Note: Guarantees for non-nuclear-weapon States, Draft resolution of the Security Council'

 This short research note briefly explores the case for and against vetoing the UNSC resolution. As the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union were serving as co-sponsors, and the Republic of China on Taiwan would welcome any international measure the People’s Republic of China opposed, France was the only state in a position to veto the UNSC resolution and perhaps torpedo the NPT when the UNGA special session met in late April. If France were to abstain, it would be henceforth bound by the resolution. Even so, the report cautioned whether “a negative attitude” should outweigh “the downside of defeating a project whose intention, if not whose content, fulfills the wishes of the vast majority of non-nuclear delegations.”

March 2, 1960

Maurice Couve de Murville, 'Reflections on France’s isolated pursuit of the constitution of an autonomous “deterrent”'

This Foreign Ministry analysis was written for French Foreign Minister Maurice Couve de Murville. It spells out the obstacles facing an independent deterrent two weeks after France’s first nuclear test on February 13, 1960. The author cautions that a “minor deterrent” of a few dozen 100-kilton atom bombs loaded on vulnerable, short-range Mirage IV A fighter-bombers would cost hundreds of billions of francs. Intermediate-range ballistic missiles with which to threaten Moscow would require an additional 8-10 years and a further cost of 500 billion francs (around $100 billion in 1960). In order to match the superpowers’ thermonuclear level, that figure could rise as a high as “several trillion” over more than a decade, during which time the United States and the Soviet Union might well leapfrog the French force de dissuasion.

April 3, 1968

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Directorate of Political Affairs, Disarmament, 'Note: The Question of the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons'

This 18-page memorandum was circulated to French embassies on the eve of the special UNGA session. The report recaps the series of events leading up to the international meeting, including the early history of the treaty, through an article-by-article analysis of the treaty text’s negotiating history. After reviewing the contexts in which the treaty was negotiated, the report concluded by citing three major elements as informing the French attitude. The first was the German question and, specifically, how the NPT would internationalize West Germany’s non-nuclear status, deepening its dependence on France. The second was the positive attitude of most nations—the vast majority of which lacked the wherewithal to build nuclear deterrents—to institutionalize their neighbors’ non-nuclear-weapon status. The third and “most remarkable element” was the U.S.-Soviet joint effort, undeterred by the Vietnam War, “to consolidate the current world balance under their dual control.” French “reservations” therefore boiled down to two critiques of the emerging regime: that it would “consolidate nuclear monopolies,” namely the U.S. and Soviet power blocs, “and legalize discrimination between States.”

May 4, 1992

The Chancellor's [Helmut Kohl's] Meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa in Bonn, 30 April 1992, 11:45 – 12:10 Hours

Kohl and Miyazawa talk about financial aid for Russia and preparations for the 1992 World Economic Summit as well as Kohl's request for additional Japanese economic support for Russia. In contrast, Miyazawa highlights the importance of the unresolved territorial question over the Kuriles.

March 23, 1993

The Chancellor's [Helmut Kohl's] Meetings at Camp David on 21/22 March at Camp David

Kohl and Bush discuss GATT, trade, European integration, NATO and the U.S. miiltary presence in Germany. They look into financial aid for Russia and Yeltsin's  participation in the 1992 World Econmic Summit.

February 28, 1992

The Chancellor's [Helmut Kohl's] Meeting with the President of the EC Commission on Monday, 24 February 1992: Main Issues and Results of Working Lunch

Kohl an Delors look into potential problems on the road with regards to the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty. They discuss GATT, internal EC reforms and the perspectives of Britain's EC Council Presidency.

December 9, 1991

The Chancellor's [Helmut Kohl's] Meeting with Croatian President Franjo Tudjman on Thursday, 6 December 1991

Kohl and Tudman examine the situation in the Yugoslavia War and the state of EC sanctions against Yugoslavia. They discuss Germany's forthcoming recognition of Croatia. In addition, they review the correlation of military forces between Croatia and the Yugoslavian People's Army. 

December 3, 1991

The Chancellor's [Helmut Kohl's] Meeting with the President of Slovenia, Milan Kucan, Bonn, 3 December 1991, 11.00 - 12.10 Hours

Kohl and Kucan debate plans for Germany's recognition of Slovenia prior to Christmas, but not befor the convocation of the EC Ministerial Council in Maastricht in order to avoid public debate within the EC. Kohl reiterates his willingess to bring Mitterrand around on this issue.

October 9, 1991

The Chancellor's [Helmut Kohl's] Meeting with the President of Slovenia, Milan Kucan, on Tuesday, 8 October 1991

Kohl and Kucan discuss the disintegration of Yugoslavia and emphasize the need for minority rights, self determination and the non-use of force. Kohl explains his position arguing that Germany must not be "singularized" in its diplomacy.

Pagination