Skip to content

Results:

1 - 10 of 479

Documents

February 1987

First Assessment of the Military Content of the 24th International Wehrkunde Conference from 31 January to 1 February 1987 in Munich

The report looks into the 24th Internationale Wehrkundetagung in Munich focusing on "Perspectives of NATO" and emphasizing a continued NATO's reliance on nuclear weapons and the strategy of flexible response. NATO policymakers did not endorse Egon Bahr's scheme for the creation of a nuclear- and chemical-weapons free zone in Europe.

December 3, 1956

Middle East (Situation): Debated in the Commons Chamber, Monday, 3 December 1956

In July 1956, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser (1918-1970) nationalized the Suez Canal Company, surprising the world. The government of France, in whose capital of Paris the company was headquartered, and the British government, the company’s plurality shareholder, sought to reverse nationalization in court, but failed—even though they clad their case in the language not of imperial self-interest but, rather, of international public interest. The time in which such language was somewhat acceptable, even at home, was passing, and the Suez Crisis played a big part in this final act.

At the same time, the two governments early on after the canal nationalization decided to remove Nasser by force, for re-compensation was not their central concern. France believed Nasser was enabling the FLN, which in 1954 had started Algeria’s War for Independence, and Britain wanted some say in the canal, which had for decades been its worldwide empire’s “swing-door,” as a member of parliament, Anthony Eden (1897-1977), called it in 1929. In August 1956 France began discussing a joint operation with Israel, which wanted Nasser gone, too, and the Red Sea opened for Israel-bound ships. In early October the two were joined by Britain. On the 29th, Israel invaded the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula. On the 30th, France and Britain gave Israel and Egypt a 12-hour ultimatum to cease hostilities, or they would intervene—and Anglo-French forces bombed Egyptian forces from the 31st and on November 5-6 occupied the canal’s northern tip. Although a power play, “Operation Musketeer,” like the court case, could not be an open imperial move anymore, then, and did not present itself to the world as such. No matter: especially in colonies and postcolonial countries, people were outraged.

More problematically for France and Britain, Washington was incredulous. This Middle Eastern affair triggered the worst crisis of the 1950s between America’s rising international empire and Europe’s descending empires, and indeed clarified and accelerated that descent. President Dwight Eisenhower (1890-1969) fumed that Prime Ministers Anthony Eden and Guy Mollet (1905-1977) had disregarded his administration’s opposition to military action. Worse, they had deceived him about their intentions. And worst, their attack on Egypt undermined the supreme US tenet: Soviet containment. The Americans were by association tainted by their NATO allies’ imperialist move while the Soviets looked good—on November 5 they offered Egypt troops and threatened to nuke London, Paris, and Tel Aviv—and that although they had just repressed an uprising in Hungary.

On the very day of the ultimatum, October 30, Eisenhower washed his hands of that move on live US television, and the US mission at the UN organized a cease-fire resolution vote in the Security Council. France and Britain vetoed it. Although sharing its European allies’ emotions about Nasser, the US administration withheld critical oil and monetary supplies from them to bring them to heel and withdraw from Egypt—after which, it promised, they would be warmly welcomed back. It ceased most bilateral communications and froze almost all everyday social interactions with its two allies, even cancelling a scheduled visit by Eden. And it badgered its allies at the UN, supporting an Afro-Asian resolution that on November 24 called Israel, Britain, and France to withdraw forthwith. On December 3, the British Foreign Secretary Selwyn Lloyd took the floor in the House of Commons.

April 16, 1962

Special Feature No. 271

Translation of Special Feature No. 271, “U.S. Scientists and Public Discuss Nuclear Tests”

March 27, 1962

Memorandum, Catharine Depuy to Howland H. Sargeant, 'Memorandum for the Record, March 20, 1962'

AMCOMLIB policy official Dupuy expresses concern about characterization of her efforts to obtain background materials on U.S. resumption of nuclear testing.

September 4, 1969

Record of Meeting between Minister Aichi and Premier Kosygin

Japanese Foreign Minister Aichi and Soviet Premier Kosygin discuss bilateral relations, disputed territories, the legacies of World War II, China, and the NPT.

February 12, 1994

Cable No. 1459, Ambassador Kuriyama to the Foreign Minister, 'Japan-United States Summit Meeting (Working Lunch, Separate Telegram 2: North Korea)'

This cable, apparently summarizing US-Japan talks on the North Korean nuclear issue, was withheld in its entirety by the Japanese Foreign Ministry.

September 28, 1993

Cable No. 5518, Ambassador Hatano to the Foreign Minister, 'Japan-United States Summit Meeting (Separate Telegram 5)'

The contents of this cable, apparently dealing with the North Korean nuclear issue, were withheld in their entirety by the Japanese Foreign Ministry.

October 28, 1966

The Issue of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in the Conversations of Comrade Gromyko with US Government Officials During the 21st Session of the UN General Assembly (UNGA)

This document includes accounts of several conversations between Soviet officials and US diplomats, including Andrei Gromyko for the Soviets, and Dean Rusk and Arthur Goldberg for the Americans. The most pressing topic discussed during these meetings was figuring out mutually acceptable language to mollify Soviet demands that the NPT contain explicit prohibitions on the transfer of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear countries not just directly but through a military alliance, namely, NATO, remembering previous US attempts to nuclearize NATO through the Multilateral Force (MLF). Some attention is paid to fears not just of the Soviet Union but the US and other NATO allies as well about the FRG acquiring nuclear weapons. In addition to the focus on the semantic differences in the Soviet and American drafts of the NPT, the document emphasizes that one key area of common ground between the Soviets and Americans is the importance that an agreement be reached sooner rather than later before more countries acquire nuclear capabilities.

November 22, 1966

Correspondence Delivered to G. M. Korniyenko by D. E. Boster

This correspondence between Davis Boster and Georgy Kornienko recounts Boster's impressions of where US-Soviet negotiations on the NPT stand after reading Kornienko's report of a conversation with the US chargé. Boster summarizes areas of common ground between the US and the Soviets while also expressing the hope that what he describes as semantic differences over whether to explicitly prohibit transfers of nuclear weapons to a group of countries do not impede the achievement of a nuclear non-proliferation agreement. Boster closes by expressing the hope and willingness to continue negotiations in New York and reach an agreement.

November 22, 1966

Correspondence, 'To Forward to the Members of the CPSU CC Politburo and Candidate Members of the CPSU CC'

A note from D.E. Boster translated into Russian from the English. This correspondence references a previous conversation with the temporary Charge d'Affaires, John Gatry, about the NPT.

Pagination