On 29 September 1972, the 108th meeting of the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC) is held in Paris. A few weeks later, on 19 October 1972, the minutes of the meeting present the discussions between the French and British delegations on the situation created by the forthcoming accession of the United Kingdom to FINABEL, whose initial mission is to harmonise the doctrines of the European land forces. The discussions focus on issues including the dissolution of the ad hoc group set up to serve as a link between the United Kingdom and FINABEL.
In a note dated 29 January 1981, the Secretary-General circulates the draft reply from the French delegation to the Council of Western European Union to Recommendation 362 on international industrial consortia and collaborative arrangements for the production of high technology military equipment. The Council shares the WEU Assembly’s concern, and the Member States intend to pursue their cooperation efforts in the field of armaments. But the Council considers that it is difficult to entrust the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC) with the task of monitoring the progress made in the Atlantic Alliance in the area of interoperability and standardisation of defence equipment. Given that not all members of the independent European Programme Group (IEPG) are members of the SAC, information on the IEPG’s activities can only be supplied to the Assembly members in a national framework and insofar as their governments participate in IEPG. In order to establish a ‘transatlantic dialogue’, there must be close European cooperation and the problem of harmonising the standards in force on both sides of the Atlantic must be resolved.
At the 496th meeting of the Council of Western European Union (WEU), held on 10 June 1975, the permanent representatives continue the discussions that the ministers began on 20 May (CR(75)8) on the activities of the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC) and the problems of arms standardisation in Europe. Sir John Killick notes that, in accordance with the line taken in the Belgian memorandum, British minister John Callaghan has requested that the governments should decide exactly what they want the SAC to do before allocating it new responsibilities. French Ambassador Jacques de Beaumarchais then expresses his government’s disappointment at the decision taken by two Member States concerning the replacement of their military aircraft, noting a contradiction between this decision and the Belgian proposals. These events clearly highlight the importance of leaving no stone unturned in developing cooperation in the field of armaments. He reaffirms France’s support for the Belgian document, while noting that his government will confirm its position on some points at a later date. Sir John Killick emphasises that the British minister did not think WEU was the appropriate forum for addressing the question of European arms production and purchases, but explains that his government is willing to study the proposals in a positive spirit, not wishing to delay the action taken by the WEU Council. Replying to the French representative on the matter of the replacement of the F104 aircraft, the British representative regrets that it has not been possible to find a European solution but says that it could now be argued that the United States has an obligation to make purchases in Europe. He says that this should be seen as a lesson for the European countries, which should perhaps have developed a European project in anticipation of this replacement. Finally, the French representative expresses his agreement with the Belgian Ambassador’s remarks on the importance of political will for achieving a competitive production capacity in Europe, since economic considerations, although important, cannot be the determining factor.
On 27 September 1965, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates a draft reply by the British delegation to the WEU Assembly Recommendation on the joint production of armaments. The Council considers that industrial collaboration should be encouraged and promoted where possible. The introduction of a financial compensation system to indemnify countries or industries that might suffer losses through the adoption of common weapons is deemed impracticable, and such situations should therefore be avoided.
On 21 March 1962, the minutes of the 200th meeting of the Council of Western European Union set out the discussions on written question 51 of the Assembly. British representative Sir Evelyn Shuckburgh says in his proposed reply that the importance of standardising small weapons and their ammunition is well understood. Moreover, the Armaments Committee of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) has recently set up a working group to review national requirements for 20 mm weapons and the standardisation or operational interchangeability of their ammunition. It is agreed that the Council’s draft reply to the WEU Assembly will only be sent after it has secured the agreement of NATO.
In its note dated 29 October 1979, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates the final reply by the Council to Assembly Recommendation 335. The text reproduces the draft by the French delegation (WPM(79)22) except for the last paragraph, in which the French had emphasised the impossibility of dealing with the question of trade in arms in a purely European framework and noted that this could even be counterproductive since it would oppose the national interests of European countries as they are seeking to cooperate.
On 21 November 1979, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates the Council’s final reply to Assembly Recommendation 329 on the industrial bases of European security. Most of the amendments proposed by the French delegation (WPM(79)25/1) have been included in the final version. The Conference of National Armaments Directors (CNAD) is a body that aims to improve the opportunities for standardisation and interoperability of the equipment used by the countries in the Atlantic Alliance. The independent European Programme Group (IEPG) is responsible for identifying opportunities for collaboration between European members of the Alliance in the design and production of defence equipment. The two organisations have worked on the harmonisation of procurement procedures wherever this has been found possible or desirable. The Council believes that both the framework necessary to encourage cooperation and the structure required for decision-making already exist. The priority is therefore to set up specific projects rather than to devise new structures.
In April 1966, the Agency for the Control of Armaments (ACA) of Western European Union (WEU) issues a summary note on the question of controls of the quantitative limitation of nuclear weapon stockpiles in the WEU Member States on the European mainland and the ban on manufacturing these weapons in the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG). The note particularly mentions the statement made on 15 February 1961 by French Ambassador Jean Chauvel on the changes that have been made in the area of nuclear weapon stockpiles, which affect the notion of maximum levels provided for in the Treaty. It also emphasises the role of questions and recommendations by the WEU Assembly in furthering the debate, noting that the political scope of this matter goes beyond the framework of WEU.
In its note dated 22 June 1961, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates the observations raised by the French Government concerning the memorandum by the United Kingdom delegation on Article III of Protocol III of the revised Brussels Treaty. The French Government refers to three aspects of the British memorandum (C(61)62) that confirm the merits of the statements made by French Ambassador Jean Chauvel at the WEU Council on 15 February 1961. The first is the fact that the United States have stocks of atomic weapons on the European continent that are beyond WEU’s control. The second is that the levels of stocks should only be set and controls only carried out for the countries ‘concerned’, and that therefore the situation will remain the same since the only levels established for WEU Member States would be for the stocks held by France. Finally, contrary to what is stated in the British memorandum, the Council is not able to verify stocks of nuclear weapons.
On 12 August 1963, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates a draft reply from the French delegation to the Council to paragraph 1 b) of Recommendation 93 by the WEU Assembly. The Council emphasises the importance it places on the entry into force of the Convention of 14 December 1957 making provision for due process of law so that the Agency for the Control of Armaments (ACA) can effectively fulfil the duties assigned to it. The French delegation confirms that the control of stocks of atomic weapons raises various legal and technical problems but that the ACA has always been in a position to report that no unauthorised production has taken place. The Council does not consider it opportune to make the changes to the modified Brussels Treaty that would be entailed by the WEU Assembly’s recommendation.