In this interview, Willem van Eekelen, Adviser to the Permanent Representation of the Netherlands to the North Atlantic Council from 1966 to 1971, explains the repercussions of the ‘empty chair' policy pursued by France and discusses the perception of Western European Union (WEU) as a ‘competitor' to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).

Diese Karte zeigt die Stationierung der Luft-, See- und Landstreitkräfte der Nordatlantikpakt-Organisation (NATO) in Frankreich im Jahre 1966.

On 10 March 1966, French Foreign Minister Maurice Couve de Murville forwards the content of a letter to Geoffroy Chodron de Courcel, French Ambassador to the United Kingdom, in which French President Charles de Gaulle announces to British Prime Minister Harold Wilson that France intends to withdraw its forces from the integrated command of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).

On 15 March 1966, following France’s announcement that it intends to withdraw its forces from the integrated command of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), French Foreign Minister Maurice Couve de Murville sends a telegram to France’s diplomatic representatives in which he gives instructions on how to reply to any questions from the other NATO Member States, particularly on the fact that the country has chosen to withdraw just as the organisation is planning reforms, that France has presented its allies with a fait accompli or that it is breaching the 1949 treaty, rendering it void and compromising the plan for a united Europe.

On 15 and 16 March 1966, the Council of Ministers of Western European Union (WEU) meets at the organisation’s headquarters in London. British Foreign Secretary Michael Stewart (on the right, at the far end of the table) chairs the meeting. The WEU Secretary-General, Maurice Iweins d’Eeckhoutte from Belgium, sits next to him. Items on the agenda particularly include France’s decision to withdraw from the NATO integrated command structure and the repercussions of this decision on the Atlantic Alliance.

The meetings of the Council of Western European Union (WEU), held in London on 15 and 16 March 1966, are chaired by British Foreign Secretary Michael Stewart. Before discussing East–West relations, the chairman raises the question of the situation in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), particularly in view of France’s decision to withdraw from NATO’s command structure. Michael Stewart believes that this decision calls into question France’s commitments under the modified Brussels Treaty and expresses doubts as to the legality of the French decision, which undermines the very basis of NATO’s existence. Jean de Broglie, French State Secretary for Foreign Affairs, reassures those present that France remains committed to the European integration process and that it wishes to change the NATO of 1949, which it believes is no longer in line with current realities.

On 21 March 1966, the WEU Secretary-General communicates a draft reply prepared by the United Kingdom delegation to written question 97 put to the Council by Lord Grantchester, a member of the WEU Assembly Committee on Defence Questions and Armaments. This draft reply particularly looks at the role played by the United Kingdom in maintaining stability in the areas east of Suez, a matter which the Council believes is of concern to WEU as a whole. The Council also notes that a copy of question 97 and of the reply to this question is being forwarded to the North Atlantic Council.

On 6 April 1966, the Permanent Council of Western European Union (WEU) meets to discuss the reply to written question 97 put to the Council by Lord Grantchester, a member of the Assembly Committee on Defence Questions and Armaments. French Ambassador Geoffroy Chodron de Courcel confirms that his government can accept document WPM(525) submitted by the working group, but not document C(66)42 by the United Kingdom delegation, since it is inappropriate for WEU to deal with a matter that is currently being examined by the North Atlantic Council. Even if the British representative, Lord Samuel Hood, feels that there is no fundamental difference between the two texts and that agreement should be possible, the French representative believes that it is impossible to make progress because there are basic differences between the delegations. The Council asks the Secretary-General to inform the Assembly that it is unable to reply to the written question.

On 16 June 1966, following the French Government’s decision to withdraw its forces from the military structure of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), the Assembly of Western European Union (WEU) adopts Recommendation 137 on the state of European security, France and NATO, in which it particularly asks the WEU Council to seek assurance from France that the French forces currently stationed in Western Germany would be placed under the command of SACEUR in the event of aggression. The Assembly also asks whether all the WEU Member States still regard themselves as unreservedly committed to fulfil the obligation contained in Article V of the modified Brussels Treaty, namely the principle of mutual assistance in the event of aggression.

On 28 June 1966, in the light of France’s decision to withdraw from the military structure of the Atlantic Alliance, the British newspaper The Guardian reports on a statement by Jean de Broglie, French representative to the Council of Western European Union (WEU) and Junior Foreign Minister, reaffirming France’s intention to remain loyal to the commitments in Articles 4 and 5 of the WEU Treaty.

On 29 June 1966, the French Foreign Ministry publishes a note in which it analyses the reactions of the British Government, as set out in three documents, to France’s decision to withdraw its forces from the integrated command of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). The note gives details of Franco-British relations and the United Kingdom’s activities within the Atlantic Alliance.

The minutes of the 304th meeting of the Council of Western European Union (WEU), held on 26 October 1966, provide details of the debates between the delegations, particularly the French and British delegations, concerning the reply that should be given to Recommendation 137 of the WEU Parliamentary Assembly on the state of European security, France and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). French Ambassador de Courcel is opposed to the first version of the reply as advocated by the United Kingdom. France therefore puts forward another wording which confirms that no WEU member countries have the intention of going back on their commitments under the Modified Brussels Treaty. If this suggestion is rejected, he does not appear to be willing to compromise.

Die Ankündigung Frankreichs vom 10. März 1966, die integrierte militärische Kommandostruktur der Atlantischen Allianz zu verlassen, führt im März 1967 zur Verlegung des Hauptquartiers der Alliierten Mächte Europa (SHAPE für Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe) vom Stützpunkt in Marly-le-Roi (Frankreich), wo es sich seit 1951 befindet, nach Brüssel und Casteau (Belgien).

On 14 March 1967, the American General Lyman Lemnitzer, who holds joint command of SHAPE (Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe) and the US forces stationed in Europe, presides over the departure of US troops from the Saint-Germain-en-Laye base. At 4 p.m., the French and American flags are lowered before detachments of soldiers from both countries, and a group of US soldiers folds the Stars and Stripes which flew over the base.

In preparation for the drafting of a note by the Council of Western European Union (WEU) on WEU–NATO relations, the French Ambassador to the United Kingdom, Geoffroy Chodron de Courcel, requests instructions from French Foreign Minister Maurice Couve de Murville. Since the other members of the WEU Council are speculating on the potential consequences that France’s withdrawal from the integrated command structure of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) might have for WEU, Geoffroy Chodron de Courcel asks for further clarification of France’s position on force level controls, the controls carried out by the Agency for the Control of Armaments (ACA) and the joint Agency/SHAPE inspections.

On 31 March 1967, the new Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) is officially opened in Casteau, near Mons, Belgium.

Am 10. März 1966 kündigt General de Gaulle offiziell die Absicht Frankreichs an, sich aus der integrierten militärischen Kommandostruktur der Atlantischen Allianz zurückzuziehen. Da sie das Hauptquartier an ihrem bisherigen Standort in Marly-le-Roi (Frankreich) verlassen muss, verlegt die Allianz ihre Einrichtungen nach Brüssel und Casteau (Belgien). Der Umzug erfolgt gemäß einem Abkommen, das der belgische Außenminister Pierre Harmel und der Oberste Alliierte Befehlshaber Europa (SACEUR), der amerikanische General Lyman Lemnitzer, am 13. Mai 1967 in Brüssel unterzeichnet haben.

On 8 June 1967, as discussions are held concerning a draft report drawn up by the Secretariat-General of Western European Union (WEU) and reviewed in the WEU Council on relations between the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and WEU, the French Ambassador to the United Kingdom, Geoffroy Chodron de Courcel, informs the French Foreign Minister, Maurice Couve de Murville, of the progress of the discussions. He particularly mentions the statements by the United Kingdom delegate, Lord Hood, on the question of the limitation of France’s common defence forces after the country’s withdrawal from the NATO integrated command structure. Geoffroy Chodron de Courcel draws the minister’s attention to the difficulty for France of maintaining its current position.

On 20 July 1967, as discussions are held concerning a draft report drawn up by the Secretariat-General of Western European Union (WEU) and reviewed in the WEU Council on relations between the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and WEU, the French Ambassador to the United Kingdom, Geoffroy Chodron de Courcel, informs the French Foreign Ministry of the progress of the discussions. The Ambassador explains that he has rejected the conclusions by the British delegate, Lord Hood, on the need to adapt the Council’s role in the control procedure for armaments levels and also the British arguments about how the French withdrawal from the NATO integrated command structure has led to a weakening of WEU and NATO. Geoffroy Chodron de Courcel notes that he has suggested that France might make a unilateral statement confirming that it will continue to comply with the ceilings of French units stationed in Germany. This contribution to the discussion was well received by the delegations.

On 12 September 1967, as discussions are held concerning a draft report drawn up by the Secretariat-General of Western European Union (WEU) and reviewed in the WEU Council on relations between the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and WEU, the French Foreign Ministry notifies the French Ambassador to the United Kingdom, Geoffroy Chodron de Courcel, of the statements that he can make in the forthcoming debates. The ministry informs the Ambassador that the French Government will abide by the ceilings of French troops stationed in Germany, while noting that this statement, made in a spirit of conciliation, does not entail any changes to the applicable legislation.

In preparation for the 329th meeting of the Council of Western European Union (WEU) to be held at ministerial level in London on 12 and 13 October 1967, the Foreign Office expresses its views on the draft report drawn up by the WEU Secretariat-General and reviewed in the WEU Council on relations between the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and WEU. The British are particularly concerned about the consequences of France's withdrawal from the NATO military structure.

On 26 October 1967, Baron Diederic Wolter van Lynden, Minister Plenipotentiary at the Dutch Embassy in London, sends a letter to Viscount Hood, Deputy Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign Office and Permanent Representative to Western European Union (WEU), in which he outlines the Dutch proposal to resolve the problems caused by France's withdrawal from the military structure of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). He especially refers to the impact that France’s withdrawal will have on the examination of force levels of WEU Member States under NATO command.

At the 324th meeting of the Council of Western European Union (WEU), held at ministerial level on 4 and 5 July 1967 in The Hague, the delegations continue their discussions on a draft report drawn up by the WEU Secretariat-General and reviewed in the WEU Council on relations between the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and WEU. The French minister delegate, André Bettencourt, states that the French Government has no objections to the text and hopes that the report can be submitted to the ministers as soon as possible. However, the Secretary-General points out that some passages of the document as it stands have elicited reservations, particularly with regard to issues surrounding France’s withdrawal from the NATO integrated command structure.

On 13 March 1968, Sir E. John W. Barnes, head of the Western Organisations and Coordination Department in the British Foreign Office, sends a working paper prepared by the British delegation for the study on relations between the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and Western European Union (WEU) to Lord Hood, Deputy Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign Office and Permanent Representative to WEU. The text focuses on the outstanding issues caused by France’s withdrawal from the NATO integrated command and highlights the particular situation of France with regard to the WEU armaments control system, given that the procedures differ depending on whether forces and armaments are under national command or under NATO command.

On 31 May 1968, the British delegation submits its draft for the note on relations between the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and Western European Union (WEU). The text focuses on the consequences of France’s withdrawal from the NATO integrated command arrangements and the possible solutions to the potential problems raised by this decision. It highlights the close relations between the two organisations, as made clear in Article IV of the modified Brussels Treaty, and the particular situation of France with regard to the WEU armaments control system given that the procedures differ depending on whether forces and armaments are under national command or under NATO command. On this matter, the British delegation relates the new procedure devised by the Permanent Council in which the WEU Council would become a forum for exchanging information supplied by the six Member States in the integrated command on compliance with the limits set in Articles I and II of Protocol No II and the information from the French delegation on this matter, which it is no longer able to communicate directly within the North Atlantic Council. Finally, on the question of mutual defence obligations, the draft note explains that France’s withdrawal from the NATO integrated military command means that there are no longer any arrangements agreed between the seven members of WEU for the fulfilment of their obligations.

On 31 May 1968, the French delegation submits a draft note on relations between the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and Western European Union (WEU) covering various aspects relating to France’s withdrawal from the NATO command, particularly the ceilings for forces, levels of armaments and controls carried out by the Agency for the Control of Armaments (ACA). Finally, the French Government reaffirms its allegiance to the commitments laid down in Article V of the Brussels Treaty, even noting that there may be greater flexibility in the assignment of French forces than was previously the case. This latter observation is taken up in the final text of the Working Party on NATO–WEU relations (WPM (68) 31).

On 14 June 1968, as discussions are held concerning a draft report drawn up by the Secretariat-General of Western European Union (WEU) and reviewed in the WEU Council on relations between the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and WEU, the French Ambassador to the United Kingdom, Geoffroy Chodron de Courcel, informs the French Foreign Minister, Maurice Couve de Murville, of the progress of the discussions. He particularly mentions the passages in the report on which reservations have been expressed and asks for instructions from the ministry on France’s position (see the ‘Study of three documents concerning NATO–WEU relations’ dated 15 June 1968).

In the light of France’s withdrawal from the integrated command of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the consequences of this decision, on 15 June 1968 the Agency for the Control of Armaments (ACA) of Western European Union (WEU) draws up a study of three documents on NATO–WEU relations.

On 22 February 1969, commenting on the meeting held on 4 February between Christopher Soames, British Ambassador to Paris, and French President Charles de Gaulle, the British daily newspaper The Guardian harshly criticises the French proposal to open bilateral discussions between the two countries. The article reports the reactions of British Foreign Secretary Michael Stewart, for whom General de Gaulle’s proposal to abolish the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the European Economic Community (EEC) is unacceptable and threatens to endanger the United Kingdom’s close links with the United States, its NATO allies and the other members of Western European Union (WEU).

At the meeting of the Council of Western European Union (WEU) held at ministerial level in London on 1 July 1971, the British Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, emphasises the progress towards European economic unity. However, with regard to security, he notes that the Atlantic Alliance remains the basis of any defence arrangements, even if the WEU countries have a distinct shared interest based on geography and on European economic integration, and that the organisation constitutes a forum for the examination of global issues.

On 2 July 1971, Lord Thomas Bridges, head of the Western Organisations Department in the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, sends a letter to Sir Christopher Audland, Counsellor and Head of Chancery at the British Embassy in Bonn, in which he outlines the debate within the British Government over the future of Western European Union (WEU). Lord Thomas Bridges emphasises that as a forum for political consultation, WEU could lose its ‘raison d’être’ once the United Kingdom joins the European Economic Community (EEC). The letter also covers other WEU activities in the area of standardisation and control of armaments. In this context, Lord Thomas Bridges raises the issue of a potential conflict with the French, who see WEU as vital to maintaining the aspects of the Brussels Treaty that deal with control over German rearmament.

On 25 August 1971, Sir Arthur Michael Palliser, Minister at the British Embassy in Paris, sends a letter to Lord Thomas Bridges, head of the Western Organisations Department in the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in which he outlines the debate within the British Government over the role that should be given to Western European Union (WEU) once the United Kingdom joins the European Economic Community (EEC). Sir Arthur Michael Palliser believes that the new European defence should be built on the fledgling political organisation of the enlarged Community. But because of a potential conflict with the French, who see WEU as vital to maintaining the aspects of the Brussels Treaty that deal with control over Western Germany rearmament, he suggests that it would be unwise to try to replace WEU for the time being.

On 10 September 1971, Sir Arthur Michael Palliser, Minister at the British Embassy in Paris, sends a letter to Lord Thomas Bridges, head of the Western Organisations Department in the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in which he speculates on the future of Western European Union (WEU) once the United Kingdom joins the European Economic Community (EEC). He suggests that any examination of a new European defence organisation should include WEU as one of the alternatives.

On 5 October 1971, Lord Gladwyn Jebb, Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party in the House of Lords and spokesman on foreign affairs and defence, sends a letter to Sir Thomas Brimelow, Permanent Under-Secretary at the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), and Lord Peter Carrington, Secretary of State for Defence, in which he summarises a discussion with French Defence Minister Michel Debré on Western European Union (WEU). The letter emphasises the different positions of the British and French authorities on the future of WEU and the issue of a concerted Western defensive effort. The Foreign Office seems to be of the view that in practice the various Member States will make very little move as regards WEU during the coming year.

On 19 June 1974, the British daily newspaper The Guardian reports on the initiative in British diplomatic circles to encourage France to return to a European defence system and suggests using Western European Union (WEU) as a forum for consultation and discussion to reconcile the views of France and its European partners on the question.

On 6 September 1974, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates the draft reply prepared by the Belgian delegation and amended by the French and United Kingdom delegations to question 146 put to the WEU Council by Sir John Rodgers, a member of the Assembly. The member asks whether the Council considers it desirable to establish permanent political consultations between Western Europe and the United States. The French emphasise that the question of consultations is an important point which has been discussed by the nine Member States of the European Communities in connection with their foreign policy cooperation. They refer to paragraph 11 of the Declaration on Atlantic Relations (the Ottawa Declaration), signed in June 1974 by the Member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), which lays down the scope and spirit of these consultations. The British note that there are other existing multilateral channels for this type of consultation, for example the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). They therefore do not see the need to establish additional permanent political consultations.

On 29 November 1976, the Assembly of Western European Union (WEU) adopts Recommendation 293 on European union and WEU, asking the WEU Council to examine the new tasks of the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC) and to oversee the coordination and transmission of information between the SAC and the independent European Programme Group (IEPG), an ad hoc group set up in 1976 by the European countries in the Atlantic Alliance.

On 11 January 1977, the Secretariat-General circulates a note containing the draft drawn up by the French delegation for the reply to Recommendation 293 of the Western European Union (WEU) Assembly on European union and WEU. The reply notes that the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC) has been instructed to draft a study on the armaments industry (see C(77)144), working in coordination with the independent European Programme Group (IEPG), a body within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). The Assembly will be kept informed of the results of the study and, in accordance with Article 10 of the Council decision of 7 May 1955 establishing the SAC, other allies can also take part in the arrangements drawn up within this framework.

On 5 July 1977, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates the draft reply to question 146 put to the WEU Council by Sir Frederic Bennett, a member of the Assembly. The member asks about the measures that have been taken by the WEU member countries to improve their own defensive military forces in accordance with the decisions taken by the members of the Atlantic Alliance in December 1969. The draft reply, which outlines the various programmes that have been launched to enable the forces of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) to meet changing defence needs, incorporates several French amendments. The French delegation wants to emphasise that this question does not concern all the NATO member countries but only those belonging to the military command structure (which France left in 1966).

In the 1980s, soldiers from the British Army of the Rhine (BAOR) taking part in a military exercise in West Germany wait to board a Chinook helicopter of the No 18 Squadron of the Royal Air Force. The aim of the BAOR, stationed in West Germany, was to defend the North German Plain against the possibly of Soviet invasion.

On 2 December 1980, the Assembly of Western European Union (WEU) adopts Recommendation 358 on the future of European security. Considering that Europe is currently facing a threat because of the Soviet Union’s superiority in many fields, the Assembly recommends that the WEU Council set up a working group to examine measures to be taken to adapt WEU to the present requirements of European defence. The Assembly also calls for the convening of meetings of the WEU Council before those of the North Atlantic Council.

On 23 January 1981, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates a draft reply from the WEU Council, prepared by the French delegation, to Assembly Recommendation 358 on the future of European security. The French emphasise that the coordination of WEU member countries’ policies is one of the reasons for the Council’s existence. Furthermore, they do not see the need for the systematic convening of meetings of the WEU Council before those of the North Atlantic Council (NAC). Finally, the French delegation rejects the Assembly’s request to set up a working group to examine the measures to be taken to adapt WEU to the present requirements of European defence. This French draft reply is taken up almost in its entirety in the final reply by the Council (C (81) 74).

In this interview excerpt, Francis Gutmann, an official in the French Foreign Ministry from 1951 to 1957 and Secretary-General of the External Relations Ministry from 1981 to 1985, stresses that France’s withdrawal from the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) did not represent a true breakdown in relations, since the Ailleret-Lemnitzer agreements concluded on 22 August 1967 laid down new arrangements for France’s cooperation with NATO forces. But the Ambassador mentions the deep-seated disagreements between France and the United States with regard to NATO’s missions and scope of action. He also emphasises France’s determination to keep control of its own nuclear deterrent force, particularly in international disarmament agreements such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) signed in 1968 and the SALT (Strategic Arms Limitation Talks) I and II agreements signed in 1972 and 1979.

In this interview excerpt, Francis Gutmann, an official in the French Foreign Ministry from 1951 to 1957 and Secretary-General of the External Relations Ministry from 1981 to 1985, emphasises the reasons for France’s withdrawal from the integrated command of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the impact of this decision on the importance of Western European Union (WEU) as a political forum for defence matters.

On 16 April 1959, Maurice Couve de Murville, President-in-Office of the Council of Western European Union (WEU) and French Foreign Minister, replies to questions put by the WEU Assembly’s Committee on Defence Questions. He confirms that the general plan for the integration of air defence in the WEU countries drawn up by military authorities has been discussed in the North Atlantic Council but has not yet been formally and finally approved. The equipping of NATO forces stationed in Western Germany with missiles capable of carrying tactical nuclear warheads is planned no earlier than the early 1960s. Maurice Couve de Murville also raises the question of the reorganisation of national defence in France and emphasises that there have been no consultations on this subject between the French Government and the governments of the WEU member countries, pointing out that the ongoing changes contribute to the effective defence of Western Europe as a whole.

In June 1966, during its 12th ordinary session in Paris, the Assembly of Western European Union (WEU) considers a report submitted by Duncan Sandys, rapporteur for the Committee on issues relating to defence and arms, on the implications of the withdrawal of French troops from the integrated military command of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

On 29 September 1966, the Agency for the Control of Armaments (ACA) of Western European Union (WEU) issues a note which sets out the consequences that France’s withdrawal from the integrated military structure of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) may have for WEU with regard to armaments control by the Agency. The note mentions France’s commitments under the Modified Brussels Treaty, confirmed by the State Secretary for Foreign Affairs during the 296th meeting of the Council on 27 and 28 June 1966, and refers to the applicable provisions in the various fields of control, including the special case of atomic, biological and chemical (ABC) weapons.

Note from the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) on 18 November 1966 to communicate the Council’s final reply to Recommendation 137 of the WEU Parliamentary Assembly on the state of European security, France and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). The Council replies in the affirmative to the fact that the Member States are still bound by the obligations of Article V of the modified Brussels Treaty. The Council also notes that the question of the assurance that, in the event of aggression, the French troops deployed in West Germany would be placed under the command of SACEUR is already being studied by the North Atlantic Council.

At the meeting of the Council of Western European Union (WEU) held on 23 November 1966, the British delegation suggests that the opportunity afforded by the ministerial meeting in Bonn should be used to discuss the consequences that the recent developments in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) might have on WEU. French Ambassador Geoffroy de Courcel expresses the reservations of the French delegation regarding this proposal, which he considers premature; he believes that the question should first be discussed by the Permanent Council before being referred to the Ministers.

On 19 and 20 December 1966, the Council of Western European Union (WEU), chaired by Willy Brandt, meets at ministerial level in Bonn. The chairman invites his colleagues to consider the question of WEU’s future. Jean de Broglie, the French delegate, expresses reservations as to whether the consequences for WEU of France’s withdrawal from the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) should be discussed in the Ministerial Council. British delegate George Thomson also notes the Assembly’s concern at the marginalisation of WEU in the decision-making process for the United Kingdom’s accession to the European Economic Community, while emphasising that NATO should remain the focal point for discussions on defence matters.

On 14 March 1967, the Secretary-General circulates a note on relations between the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and Western European Union (WEU) which aims to examine how the action taken by France with regard to NATO will affect the obligations and tasks undertaken by the seven Member States of the modified Brussels Treaty. The note particularly focuses on the limitation of forces and armaments, quantitative control of levels of armaments, the definition of armaments subject to control and the operation of the Standing Armaments Committee. The note also incorporates two French memoranda concerning NATO, sent to the other 14 NATO countries, which set out the measures France intends to take after withdrawing from the integrated military command.

The minutes of the meeting of the Council of Western European Union (WEU), held on 21 March 1967, outline the discussions on relations between the WEU and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). At the meeting, French Ambassador Geoffroy de Courcel notes that his country considers that the modified Brussels Treaty has a separate existence and is distinct from the North Atlantic Treaty, and that France’s withdrawal from the integrated military command only affects the Protocols that lay down the cooperation arrangements between the two organisations. British representative Lord Hood, however, believes that this withdrawal also has an impact on the ability of the WEU Member States to fulfil their mutual commitments arising from the Brussels Treaty. De Courcel also states that the French representative will no longer take part in the discussions on proposals submitted by SHAPE, but that there is no reason why France should not take part in the decision-making process within the WEU Council. On the matter of French forces for common defence, in reply to a question by Lord Hood, Geoffroy de Courcel states that France does not wish to change existing texts or previous practices, and that consequently it will provide the necessary information to the NATO Council, which in turn will pass it on to the WEU Council.

On 14 June 1967, the Agency for the Control of Armaments (ACA) of Western European Union (WEU) issues a note on the question of relations between the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and WEU with regard to French forces. It appears that all the WEU Member States agree that the political principle of establishing a ceiling for operational ground forces within WEU and the Atlantic Alliance should remain applicable after the forces in question are moved from NATO command to national command. The ceiling laid down in the Special Agreement for French operational forces would be applied to national forces that are now considered as forces for common defence. France’s acceptance of this principle could be followed by acceptance of the principle by the other countries with regard to all their operational forces. Article III of Protocol II would still make it possible for the WEU Council to approve a recommended increase beyond the agreed limits.

At its meeting on 12 July 1967, the Permanent Council of Western European Union (WEU) discusses the continued examination of the question of relations between WEU and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), which it was asked to consider by the Council meeting at ministerial level on 4 and 5 July. During the discussions, French Ambassador Geoffroy de Courcel states that his government is prepared to continue to supply the tables on France’s forces for common defence through the North Atlantic Council, and that its operational forces under national command can be considered for common defence, although France cannot enter into any further undertakings. While Lord Hood considers that the authorised limits should apply to all the forces maintained by the Member States for common defence, the French Ambassador states that there is an exception for forces recognised by NATO as being under national command. Lord Hood also mentions that France’s withdrawal from the NATO integrated command structure is making it more difficult for the Council to pursue the aims of the modified Brussels Treaty.

The meeting of the Council of Western European Union (WEU), held on 20 July 1967, continues the discussions held in previous meetings (documents CR (67) 6 and CR (67) 16) on relations between the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and WEU. British representative Lord Hood notes that, for his government, the withdrawal of French forces from the NATO integrated command arrangements has weakened NATO and, indirectly, the resources available to WEU to fulfil its obligations. It has also revealed a difference of philosophy that challenges the utility of an integrated military organisation in guaranteeing mutual defence in peacetime. Lord Hood also refers to the impact that France’s withdrawal will have on reviewing force levels, on documentary controls and on the joint inspections performed by the Agency for the Control of Armaments (ACA). French Ambassador Geoffroy de Courcel replies that France’s decision means that the aims of Article V of the Brussels Treaty can no longer be applied through a body to which France does not belong without calling into question the commitments entered into under Article V. He says that France is happy to agree to the continuance of existing limitations on levels of forces, as well as those laid down for levels of armaments of forces for common defence, and to the procedures for inspection by the ACA of French installations, with the exception of atomic weapons.

On 2 November 1967, the Council of Western European Union (WEU) meets to discuss the level of forces of WEU Member States placed under the command of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). The problem lies in the definition of new procedures for examining the level of forces after France’s withdrawal from the NATO integrated military command. British representative Lord Samuel Hood affirms that it is vital for the WEU Member States to continue to carry out their duties. French Ambassador Geoffroy Chodron de Courcel is largely in agreement with the proposals made by Dutch Ambassador Herman van Roijen. He says that the assurance given by the six other Member States regarding force levels is sufficient, but a report must be submitted to the WEU Council and any final decision must be taken unanimously by the Seven. With regard to the practical arrangements for the procedure, Lord Hood suggests that a meeting between France and the Six should be held in Brussels, and the real discussion would then take place in the WEU Council, where questions could be put to France. The French Ambassador is not opposed to this idea. After securing the agreement of the other representatives, Lord Hood says that he will ask his NATO representative to implement the procedure so that a report can be prepared by the end of the quarter.

At the joint meeting held in London on 13 November 1967, the Council of Western European Union (WEU) replies to the various questions put by the Assembly’s General Affairs Committee, in particular on relations between WEU and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), and expresses the common desire and intention to preserve WEU’s institutions and working procedures.

On 14 June 1968, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates a note on relations with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), based to a large extent on the British proposals of 31 May 1968. On the matter of the limitation of forces and armaments, the document explains the new working procedure between WEU and NATO, proposed by the Council and outlined by the British in their document. However, France cannot accept that the discussions between the Seven in the WEU Council should focus on the level of forces, or that the Agency for the Control of Armaments should submit an annual report other than that presented to the Council by the SACEUR officer on the verification of French land and air forces. The French delegation expresses other reservations but affirms its commitment to its mutual defence obligations and agrees that the new NATO procedures should be used, by agreement between the Seven, to implement Article V of the Brussels Treaty.

On 20 November 1968, the Council of Western European Union (WEU) meets in London to discuss the level of forces of WEU Member States placed under the command of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). Given the special situation of France within NATO, the Netherlands delegation expresses doubts as to whether the current procedure for the unanimous approval of force levels can continue to be applied.

At its meeting on 20 January 1971, the Council of Western European Union (WEU) discusses the procedure established by Protocol No II on the level of forces of WEU Member States under the command of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). Discussions focus on the question of the special procedure from 1967 (see CR (67) 21), and French Ambassador Geoffroy Chodron de Courcel makes a statement in which he notes that, despite a lack of instructions from his government, he believes it would be in favour of the procedure being maintained. He points out that when France withdrew from the Council, its delegation was already not in agreement on the introduction of a new procedure. He is therefore not sure that the French Government will be able to accept the British proposal submitted in December 1968.

In a note dated 28 June 1971 and circulated on 7 July, the French Embassy notifies the Council of Western European Union (WEU) that the French General Secretariat of National Defence has informed the Embassy that it is not customary in France to give Members of Parliament permits to access classified information and that there is no authority with the power to do so. However, although defence secrets result in special arrangements between the executive and the legislative, solutions have been found for sovereign assemblies so there is no reason why a solution should not also be found for a consultative assembly.

At its 477th meeting on 24 April 1974, in the section on questions concerning the Assembly, the WEU Council notes that the working group instructed with drafting a reply to Recommendation 243 of the Assembly on the state of European security and relations with the United States has not been able to reach an agreement. British representative Sir John Killick, Deputy to the Permanent Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, emphasises that the aim is not just to give a precise definition of the role of the Nuclear Planning Group of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) but also to avoiding giving the impression that the establishment of a nuclear planning committee, as recommended by the Assembly, is something that will be pursued. He also understands France’s difficulty in agreeing that reference should be made to the NATO Nuclear Planning Group in a WEU document in the name of all the members. Jacques Delarue Caron de Beaumarchais, French Ambassador to the United Kingdom, does not see why the WEU Council should deal with questions concerning the NATO members in a reply to the Assembly. The question will be considered further at the next meeting.

On 19 June 1974, the Assembly of Western European Union (WEU) adopts Recommendation 252 on consultation and decisions in the Atlantic Alliance. The Assembly recommends that the WEU Council improve consultation in the North Atlantic Council and that it invite the Nine to hold consultations with the United States, without making any concessions that would be contrary to the vital interest of Europe, particularly in the area of force reductions.

The Council of Western European Union (WEU) agrees to mention that common defence is ‘one and indivisible’ and that the presence of Canadian and United States armed forces in Europe plays an irreplaceable role in the defence of North America as well as that of Europe. Moreover, European military forces also defend both Europe and the North American continent. Consequently, the Council rejects any notion of ‘compensation’.

On 27 September 1974, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates the final reply by the WEU Council to question 146 put by John Rodgers, a member of the Assembly, to the WEU Council. The member asks whether the Council considers it desirable to establish permanent political consultations between Western Europe and the United States. The document incorporates most of the French and British proposals made in the draft reply (WPM(74)21/1). The Council emphasises that the question of consultations is an important point which has been discussed by the nine Member States of the European Communities in connection with their foreign policy cooperation. It refers to paragraph 11 of the Declaration on Atlantic Relations (the Ottawa Declaration), signed in June 1974 by the Member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which lays down the scope and spirit of these consultations. The Council also notes that there are other existing multilateral channels for this type of consultation, for example the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). It therefore does not see the need to introduce other permanent political consultations between the United States and Western Europe.

On 24 October 1974, the Secretariat-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates the final reply by the Council to Assembly Recommendation 252 on consultation and decisions in the Atlantic Alliance. The Council informs the Assembly that informal arrangements have been introduced for consultation between the Nine and the United States, while assuring the Assembly that close consultations are also being held between the Allies taking part in the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE). Furthermore, the US Administration keeps its European Allies informed, within the North Atlantic Council, of any developments in the strategic arms limitation talks.

On 29 November 1976, the Assembly of Western European Union (WEU) adopts Recommendation 292 on the role of the Atlantic Alliance in the world today, particularly emphasising the decisive role played by the Alliance in maintaining peace in Europe. The Assembly recommends that the WEU Council carry out a fair assessment of the difficulties and dangers facing the Atlantic Alliance and that it invite the members of the Council to offer their support, in the appropriate frameworks, for policies in the areas of security, disarmament, defence, promotion of parliamentary democracy and respect for human rights.

In a note dated 1 April 1977, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates the final reply by the WEU Council to Recommendation 293 of the Parliamentary Assembly on European union and WEU. The text reproduces the main lines of the French proposal (document WPM (77) 2).

On 14 June 1977, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates the reply by the WEU Council to Assembly Recommendation 292 on the role of the Atlantic Alliance in the world today. Despite the economic crisis affecting the Western world, the Council emphasises the vigilance that must be exercised in order to ensure balance and stability in Europe, noting the importance of the Helsinki Final Act and the vital role of effective joint defence in view of the growing threat of the Warsaw Pact. The Council particularly mentions the action taken by WEU Member States in the various international bodies (CSCE, NATO, etc.) on issues relating to disarmament, defence, the promotion of parliamentary democracy and respect for human rights.

On 2 August 1977, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates the Council’s reply to written question 175 put by Sir Frederic Bennett, who is keen to know whether the WEU Member States have taken the necessary measures to ‘improve their own defensive military forces’ in accordance with the decisions adopted by the members of the Atlantic Alliance. In its reply, the Council emphasises that, following the ministerial meetings held in December 1976 by the North Atlantic Council and the Defence Planning Committee, appropriate steps have been taken by the Member States to achieve the agreed goals concerning forces and to improve conventional defences. Furthermore, in accordance with the 1977 ministerial directive and with a view to establishing a long-term defence programme, the governments have asked the Defence Planning Committee to draw up an action plan based on a limited number of areas where collective action is urgently required.

In this note, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates the text of the report for 1979, adopted at the meeting on 25 February 1980 in Brussels and signed by the permanent representatives of the WEU Member States in the North Atlantic Council, with the exception of France. This document is an example of the ad hoc procedure that was first established in 1967 (document CR (67) 21) and applied for subsequent years concerning the examination of force levels of WEU Member States under NATO command. The document indicates that these forces fall within the limits previously established in accordance with Protocol No II of the modified Brussels Treaty and that a declaration on the French forces will be made by the French representative in the WEU Council when the annual examination of force levels takes place. The annex refers to a request by the German authorities to increase the number of naval operational aircraft to 125 so as to enable Germany to carry out the defensive missions assigned to it by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).

On 27 October 1982, the WEU Council replies to written question 230 from the Assembly on possible consultations between the European members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) concerning the negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union for limiting nuclear weapons, and on whether consultations should be held within WEU. The Council emphasises that close consultations have been held with the NATO Member States on this matter via a Special Consultative Group (SCG), which associates these countries with the negotiations. The Council therefore considers that there is no need for recourse to other bodies for such consultations.

On 8 May 1981, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates the WEU Council’s final reply to Assembly Recommendation 358 on the future of European security. The document incorporates most of the French proposals made in the draft reply (WPM(81)7). The Council emphasises that the coordination of WEU member countries’ policies is one of the reasons for the Council’s existence. Furthermore, it does not see the need for the systematic convening of meetings of the WEU Council before those of the North Atlantic Council. Finally, it rejects the Assembly’s request to set up a working group to examine the measures to be taken to adapt WEU to the present requirements of European defence.