In 1954, the London Working Group circulates a draft letter from the French Government to the other governments signatory to Protocol No I. The French Government informs the other governments that it interprets paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article VIII of the modified Brussels Treaty as empowering the Council of Western European Union (WEU) to set up a working group to study any papers relating to armaments production and standardisation. France also asks for confirmation that the other member governments agree with this interpretation and for this exchange of letters to be considered as an Annex to Protocol No I modifying and completing the Brussels Treaty (Article I, paragraph 2 and Article IV, paragraph 1).

On 9 January 1955, the French daily newspaper Le Monde comments on the plan by Pierre Mendès France, Head of the French Government and French Foreign Minister, to set up a Western European Union (WEU) agency for the production of armaments, and outlines the hesitations of the British Government with regard to the French plan.

On 16 January 1955, British Labour MP Denis Healey comments in the British Sunday newspaper The Observer on the implications of the plan to set up an armaments agency within Western European Union (WEU). He deplores the weaknesses of the French plan, which will not be supported by the United Kingdom, Germany or the United States, but argues that this should not be a reason to shelve the idea.

On 17 January 1955, the Secretary-General of the Interim Commission of Western European Union (WEU) circulates the memorandum by the French Government on armaments production and standardisation dated 3 January 1955. The French Government sets out its view on armaments production and standardisation and presents its plan to set up an armaments agency within Western European Union (WEU). The role of this agency would be to organise the joint production of the armaments needed to equip the forces of WEU placed at the disposal of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). In order to function smoothly, it would require the support of governments inspired with the same purpose and determination to achieve the economic and rational organisation of arms production. The aim of these proposals is to prepare for the meeting of 17 January 1955 of the WEU working party responsible for examining these matters.

At the meeting on 17 January 1955, the French and British delegations present their memorandum on standardisation and the satisfaction of armaments requirements with a view to incorporating their proposals in the report on this theme published on 5 May 1955 by the working party on production and standardisation of armaments of the Interim Commission of Western European Union (WEU). The French delegation identifies the operational, logistical and industrial considerations that should be taken into account in the choice of equipment to be standardised. They conclude that an additional, more detailed study than that of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), drawn up by a smaller group, would not really serve any purpose unless NATO-wide standardisation proves to be impossible. The British representative sets out his personal conclusions as a member of the committee of experts. He focuses on the question of the usefulness of WEU for equipment standardisation, concluding that a more useful role for the organisation would be to undertake and promote the standardisation of constituent elements and adapters.

On 21 January 1955, the Secretary-General of the Interim Commission of Western European Union (WEU) circulates the statements made on 17 and 18 January by the delegations at the first and second sessions of the working party on production and standardisation of armaments. The French delegate, Alexandre Parodi, mentions that the memorandum on the question of the standardisation and production of armaments (PWG/A/2) has already been distributed to all the delegations. He therefore limits himself to making some general remarks of an introductory nature, particularly concerning the armaments agency. The French Government believes that an analysis of the questions of standardisation and production should be undertaken as soon as possible within the framework of the new WEU. The British delegate, Sir Christopher Steel, discusses the question of the United Kingdom’s participation and emphasises the British objections to any notion of supranationality.

On 21 January 1955, at the third plenary meeting of the working party on production and standardisation of armaments, held at the Palais Chaillot, the French delegate Alexandre Parodi responds to the objections formulated on the French memorandum (see PWG/A/) proposing the creation of an armaments agency within Western European Union. The memorandum was generally poorly received by all except the Italian delegation. Alexandre Parodi sets out the context in which the document was drawn up and explains that the idea is to bring about an adequate standardisation of armaments and an organisation of production aimed at large-scale manufacture. He also explains that his government’s proposals do not call into question the duties carried out by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and outlines the reasons why the Agency would be able to go further than NATO in terms of standardisation. He particularly examines the observations made by the German and Netherlands delegations. Not only highlighting the points on which the German Government is in agreement — namely, the actual aims of the memorandum — but also responding to the concerns raised, he notes that the main difference ultimately lies in the importance given to the principle of competition. Alexandre Parodi closes by noting that the plan for an Agency also applies to the United Kingdom, although it may require special arrangements to take into account the particular position of the British armaments industry.

On 2 February 1955, the Secretary-General of the Interim Commission of Western European Union circulates a note from the United Kingdom delegation on the establishment of a Western European Armaments Committee, whose aims will be to improve to the greatest extent possible the standardisation of armaments and to promote the common production of agreed items between the Member States. The note particularly emphasises the links that the organisation will establish with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), including the possibility for other NATO member countries to participate in the activities and projects of the Armaments Committee.

On 4 February 1955, the French daily newspaper Le Monde analyses the work of the group of experts from Western European Union (WEU) that has been instructed to study a plan by the European Armaments Agency, and particularly focuses on the British memorandum — which was preceded by a French memorandum — setting out the methods intended to improve European arms cooperation.

On 2 March 1955, the Secretary-General of the Interim Commission of Western European Union circulates a memorandum from the United Kingdom delegation on United Kingdom methods of procurement of defence equipment. The document outlines the essential role of the Ministry of Supply and the Admiralty in procuring virtually all the country’s defence equipment, as well as the close link between these and the Service Departments to enable the rapid framing of decisions. The text also mentions that all the United Kingdom’s defence equipment is produced by private industry and that considerable attention is paid to standardisation between the three Services and with allied countries. The memorandum raises the question of the selection of foreign equipment and concludes that this is the exception rather than the rule, since the United Kingdom’s industry is in a position to meet the requirements of the armed forces.

On 17 March 1955, the Secretary-General of the Interim Commission of Western European Union circulates a paper from the French delegation on the standardisation of armaments within FINBEL. The paper has been drawn up in agreement with the other member countries of FINBEL with the aim of outlining the origin and aims of the organisation and explaining its working methods and development.

On 29 March 1955, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates a note from the French delegation analysing the economic and financial conditions for an armaments market in Western Europe.

On 15 April 1955, the Secretary-General of the Interim Commission of Western European Union (WEU) circulates a note from the United Kingdom representative on equipment to be standardised. The British representative starts by emphasising that the note represents his personal conclusions as a member of the committee of experts. The document focuses on the question ‘What is the useful scope for WEU in the field of equipment standardisation?’ The British representative believes that the most useful activity for WEU in this field would be to explore the possibilities of developing standard components on behalf of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) as a whole.

On 26 September 1955, Francis John Stephens, Higher Executive Officer at the British Ministry of Defence, sends a note to John Wyndham, Private Secretary at the Foreign Office, in order to brief the delegation working on the French proposals for the creation of a European armaments pool. The British consider the French proposal too restrictive, also stating that the remaining Western European Union (WEU) members are unlikely to support a proposal that does not include the United Kingdom, whereas the French had assumed that the United Kingdom would not participate given its reluctance to join a supranational authority. The British Government therefore proposes a more flexible organisation, which leads to a recommendation from the WEU working group to set up a Standing Armaments Committee.

On 31 January 1956, the Pacts Department of the French Foreign Ministry gives an overview of the activities of Western European Union (WEU). It regrets that, despite the efforts made by the French delegation, the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC) has achieved only a modest record. While the Germans appear to be interested in various French proposals to equip the organisation, the British do not seem to want to take part in the work of the SAC. The Pacts Department therefore proposes establishing Franco-German cooperation in the field of arms production, on which basis more extensive agreements could be developed within the framework of WEU.

On 3 August 1956, the Secretariat of the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC) circulates the record of the 10th meeting of the SAC, held on 26 July 1956 in Paris. The discussions focus on various subjects including the French Government proposal to study certain aircraft equipment. The French delegate, Engineer-General Bron, confirms that France is about to propose another machine, the Nord 2506 assault transport. In response to the French proposal, the Assistant Secretary-General, Charles Cristofini, states that it is difficult to achieve cooperation on equipment which has already been the object of a national choice and that it is therefore preferable to concentrate on equipment in the study stage. The report also notes that the SAC is studying the United Kingdom’s proposals on equipment which is still in its earliest stages of study and which thus does not fall within the remit of FINABEL. The aim of these proposals is to lighten the burden of research and development for the member countries while improving the results of studies.

On 12 July 1957, the British Ministry of Defence circulates for information purposes the copies of the records of the first meeting of the Anglo/French Steering Committee on Collaboration on Research and Development held on 19 March 1957 in Paris. The document outlines which arms systems and military equipment will be examined in joint working groups between the two countries. The United Kingdom representative emphasises that, while this collaboration is under the aegis of NATO and WEU, the current exchanges are taking place on a bilateral basis.

On 20 December 1957, the British Ministry of Defence issues a memorandum of understanding on the arrangements for collaboration between the United Kingdom and France on research and development. The aim of the arrangements described in the memorandum is to coordinate the design and production of arms by sharing experience and knowledge, providing facilities, and ensuring the full exchange of technical information between the two governments on specific projects.

On 24 January 1958, the French daily newspaper Le Monde describes the British authorities' dissatisfaction at the agreement between France, Germany and Italy on arms production, which they believe undermines the credibility of Western European Union (WEU). Indeed, WEU, which has an Agency for the Control of Armaments, was not informed of this agreement.

In a note dated 16 January 1958, the Assistant Secretary-General of the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC) circulates a note from the United Kingdom delegation on the relationship between bilateral discussions between the Member States of Western European Union (WEU) and multilateral discussions in the SAC. Given that the main objective of the European countries is to provide for their armed forces at the right time and in the right quantities, the United Kingdom observes that it is vital to coordinate military requirements in order to establish the nature of the equipment required, to share the scientific effort needed to develop the equipment and to coordinate production orders so that production can be planned on the right scale. The note explains the different processes and the most suitable format — multilateral or bilateral — to carry them out successfully. The United Kingdom delegation also hopes that the United States will be involved in all these processes.

On 29 January 1958, given the difficulties of the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC) in drafting a formal report, the Deputy Secretary-General of Western European Union issues a note summarising for the Secretary-General the positions expressed by various delegations so as to help the Council draft a reply to the Committee on Defence and Armaments concerning Assembly Recommendation 10. The issue at hand is the question of devices for ground forces in connection with air defence. The note particularly examines the British proposal on this matter. The delegations of the member countries are unanimous in recognising that a final reply can only be made in the light of the decisions that are due to be taken within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) so as to avoid any duplication of effort.

Following the meeting of the Council of Western European Union (WEU) on 12 February 1958, Jean Chauvel, French Ambassador to London, sends a telegram to French Foreign Minister Christian Pineau in which he informs him of the discussions on cooperation between France, Germany and Italy in the field of arms production. He particularly mentions the questions put by the British representative, Sir Anthony Rumbold, who was keen to know whether there had been other official agreements signed by the three governments, which arms were covered by the tripartite agreement and how other countries might become involved in this cooperation. Sir Anthony Rumbold also suggests that copies of all bilateral agreements should be sent to WEU.

On 11 April 1958, the Assistant Secretary-General of the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC) circulates a note from the United Kingdom delegate on interdependence in research, development and production. The United Kingdom representative emphasises, however, that this policy statement, drawn up by officials in the Ministry of Defence, does not represent formal proposals by the British Government. The note sets out the principles that should govern cooperation between Member States: they should aim to increase the European production base through research and development, conclude agreements on cooperation over specific items of equipment, consult other Member States concerned before funding any developments that compete with the cooperation project in which they are involved and, finally, pay any other Member States for facilities, design information or finished products transferred.

This internal note from the British Foreign Office dated 16 February 1959 describes the recent initiatives taken by West Germany to amend Protocol III of the Revised Brussels Treaty, which limits arms production in the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG). In this context, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) asks the Western European Union (WEU) Member States if they have any objection to his supporting the German request for an amendment to the Treaty which would permit the FRG to undertake the joint production of surface-to-air guided missiles. The Foreign Office recommends that no objection be raised to SACEUR's supporting this German request.

In March 1959, a series of internal notes from the British Foreign Office address the question of the request from the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) to amend Protocol III of the Revised Brussels Treaty, which limits German arms production. The British originally delayed sending a reply because they did not want to jeopardise their bilateral discussions with the Soviet Union. But circumstances have now changed and the Foreign Office sees no further reason to resist the German request; it recommends that no objection be raised to SACEUR's proposal that it support this request for an amendment to the Treaty. This amendment would permit the FRG to undertake the joint production of surface-to-air guided missiles.

On 20 April 1959, A. Desmond F. Pemberton-Pigott of the British Foreign Office drafts a report on British policy with regard to the German request to produce certain types of weapons for which they are subject to restrictions under the Revised Brussels Treaty, in this case the joint production of surface-to-air guided missiles. Pemberton-Pigott agrees to support the German request, explaining that the amendment does not contravene the spirit of the Brussels Treaty because the weapons which the Federal Republic of Germany will be permitted to manufacture are strictly defensive, and that the joint production of suitable air defence systems is of vital importance to Allied Command Europe.

On 1 June 1961, the Assembly of Western European Union (WEU) adopts Recommendation 68 on the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC) and the joint production of armaments. The Assembly recommends to the WEU Council that the policy of Member States should be directed to securing the joint production of the majority of military equipment throughout the NATO and WEU alliances, with a selection of projects and distribution of production among the countries. The text encourages the establishment of close cooperation between the two organisations and calls for joint production agreements. The Assembly also speculates on the real activities of the SAC and asks for an investigation to be undertaken to discover whether in fact the staff of the SAC is fully occupied.

On 16 October 1961, the draft record of the 50th meeting of the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC) sets out the discussions between the delegates on various proposals concerning the future activities of the SAC and the framework in which they should take place. The discussions also focus on the production of weapons to overcome the problem of low-level defence in the European theatre. The United Kingdom representative expresses his government’s interest in the British ‘PT.428’ project for low-altitude surface-to-air guided weapons, as opposed to the American solution, which the United Kingdom does not believe meets operational requirements. The British experts suggest that, in addition to the UK/US bilateral talks currently being held, consultations could also take place within Western European Union under the aegis of the SAC with the aim of formulating a joint plan for European cooperation in this area. The British authorities do not believe that the other subjects suggested by General Brisac, Head of the International Secretariat of the SAC, can usefully be studied in WEU without duplicating the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) activities. The French believe that these proposals should be studied by the military authorities so as to establish military requirements and that if any omissions are revealed they can be usefully studied at a European level. The German representative considers that these studies cannot be accomplished in WEU since they have already been started in NATO.

In a note dated 21 November 1961, the Secretary-General circulates the draft reply by the United Kingdom delegation to the Council of Western European Union (WEU) to Assembly Recommendation No 68 on the Standing Armaments Committee and the joint production of armaments. The Council supports the principle of interdependence in the production of armaments as a means of making savings in costs and manpower and increasing military efficiency. All the WEU Member States are in favour of strengthening cooperation in armaments production, both in WEU and in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). The Council is in agreement with the paragraphs, although it expresses some reservations since joint production is not a universal panacea. When it comes to selecting projects and distributing production between the Member States of WEU and NATO, this should be done rationally so as to avoid unnecessary duplication and to make sure that joint production is only pursued when it is the quickest and cheapest option for securing new arms for Western defence. The Council also recognises the difficulties experienced by the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC); the national representatives are currently in consultation with the Director and Secretariat to ascertain whether any additional work can be undertaken by the SAC.

The reply by the Council of Western European Union (WEU) to Recommendation 68 on the Standing Armaments Committee and the joint production of armaments reproduces the entire British proposal (C(61)182) except for paragraph 4, for which the proposal by French representative Jean Chauvel was chosen at the Council of 6 December 1961 (CR(61)25). The Council supports the principle of interdependence in the production of armaments as a means of making savings in costs and manpower and increasing military efficiency.

On 13 February 1962, the Deputy Secretary-General of the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC) of Western European Union circulates a letter from the United Kingdom delegation dated 8 February 1962 concerning the cancellation of the ‘PT.428’ project for a system of low-altitude anti-aircraft defence weapons. The decision has been taken purely for financial reasons, to make savings on the research budget.

On 4 December 1962, given the economic and military issues surrounding armaments standardisation, the Assembly of Western European Union (WEU) adopts Recommendation 85 on standardisation and interdependence in the production of armaments. The Assembly asks the Council to take measures for the creation of a European armaments production pool in anticipation of the United Kingdom’s accession to the European Economic Community. The Assembly also emphasises that the Member States of the Council should base their forward planning of armaments production on the principle that the manufacture of complicated and costly modern weapons can be carried out economically and efficiently only within an international framework.

In a note dated 14 May 1963, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates the draft reply by the French delegation to the WEU Council to Assembly Recommendation 85 on standardisation and interdependence in the production of armaments. The Council notes that joint armaments production raises many difficulties that can only be overcome by political will both at bilateral level and also at multilateral level, particularly within the framework of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).

In a note dated 15 June 1965, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates question 93 put by German Assembly member Georg Kliesing and the draft reply by the United Kingdom delegation to the WEU Council to this question. The question deals with the possibility of other WEU member states being able to participate in the Franco-British cooperation agreement signed on 17 May 1965 and on the need for common development and production of light strike and trainer aircraft. The reply notes that France and the United Kingdom are willing to extend their cooperation to third countries and are currently considering the arrangements to put in place. The Council welcomes this information and hopes that it will be possible to invite third countries before any decision is taken on production.

In a note dated 23 June 1965, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates question 93 put by German Assembly member Georg Kliesing (see document WPM(481)) and the draft reply by the French delegation to the WEU Council to this question. The reply confirms that the French and British delegations will examine, at the appropriate stage, the conditions for the association of other Member States. Decisions regarding participation or the communication of information will be considered by the steering committee set up by the agreement of 17 May 1965.

In a note dated 25 June 1965, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates the text of question 93 put by Georg Kliesing, a German member of the Assembly Committee on Defence Questions and Armaments, as well as a draft reply drawn up jointly by the British and French delegations. The draft summarises and supersedes the drafts in documents WPM(479) and WPM(481), and also confirms that the two states are keen to consider the participation of third countries in the construction of light strike and trainer aircraft.

In a note dated 26 January 1967, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates written question 100 put to the Council by Étienne de la Vallée Poussin, a Belgian member of the Assembly Committee on Defence Questions and Armaments, together with the draft reply drawn up by the French and British delegations to the WEU and reproduced in the final version (see C(67)23). Etienne de la Vallée Poussin speculates on the possibility of other WEU Member States participating in the proposed Anglo-French project for the development of a variable-geometry aircraft. The Council replies that any governments interested in this project should directly approach the French and British Governments, which are prepared in principle to consider industrial participation by other countries, including members of WEU.

In a note dated 2 February 1967, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates the reply by the WEU Council to written question 100 put by Étienne de la Vallée Poussin concerning the participation of other Member States in the Anglo-French variable-geometry aircraft project. The final text of the reply reproduces the draft reply drawn up by France and the United Kingdom, in which the two countries confirm that they are prepared to consider participation by other countries.

On 5 February 1973, in anticipation of the forthcoming meeting of the Council of Western European Union (WEU), due to be held at ministerial level on 15 February 1973 in Luxembourg City, the Directorate for Political Affairs in the French Foreign Ministry draws up a note for the minister delegate, André Bettencourt, on the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC). The Directorate for Political Affairs focuses on the complexity of the question of armaments standardisation and compares the various organisations (SAC, FINABEL, Eurogroup, NAS, CNAD, etc.) that deal with the same issue. It concludes that attempts must be made to maintain and strengthen the SAC.

At the 453rd meeting of the Council of Western European Union (WEU), held at ministerial level on 15 February 1973 in Luxembourg, the delegations speak about the activities of the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC) and the issues surrounding armaments standardisation in Europe. André Bettencourt, French minister delegate to the Foreign Minister, calls for a revival of the SAC and puts forward several specific proposals to maintain and strengthen the committee. The British Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Anthony Royle, is much more sceptical at the role of the SAC and emphasises its modest record of activities, the governments preferring to give more important tasks to other organisations. He offers to set out the views of the British Government at a forthcoming meeting of the WEU Council after carrying out a detailed analysis of the French proposals.

On 15 February 1973, the 453rd meeting of the Council of Western European Union (WEU) is held at ministerial level in Luxembourg. In the centre, Gaston Thorn, Luxembourg Foreign Minister and President-in-Office of the Council. At the meeting, the delegations discuss the activities of the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC) and the issues related to armaments standardisation in Europe.

On 24 June 1973, the extract from minutes of the 460th meeting of the Council of Western European Union (WEU) contains an examination of the activities of the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC) and sets out the issues relating to the standardisation of armaments in Europe. The French Ambassador to the United Kingdom, Jacques Delarue Caron de Beaumarchais, states his government’s position on the SAC, confirming the proposal made at the last ministerial meeting (CR(73)3) to call a meeting of the national armaments directors of the WEU Member States for September. The meeting should define the part the SAC could play in strengthening European cooperation in the field of armaments and cooperation with other bodies. British Ambassador Thomas Brimelow takes note of the French proposal and undertakes to report it to his government, pointing out that any such meeting would have to be well prepared if it is to be fruitful.

On 8 March 1974, in preparation for the forthcoming meeting of the Council of Western European Union (WEU), held at ministerial level on 11 March 1974 in The Hague, the Directorate for Political Affairs in the French Foreign Ministry draws up speaking notes on the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC). It outlines the efforts made by France since 1972 to reactivate this WEU subsidiary body and particularly emphasises France’s absence from the Eurogroup (a body of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation of which France is not a member) and the fact that the SAC is the appropriate framework for the development of a genuine European policy on armaments. The French Government’s proposals include the introduction of a system for exchanging information between the SAC and the Eurogroup.

On 8 March 1974, the Directorate for Political Affairs in the French Foreign Ministry reviews the modest record of activities carried out by the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC) and outlines the efforts made by France to reactivate this subsidiary body of Western European Union (WEU). The Directorate for Political Affairs regrets that the French proposal to introduce a system for exchanging information between the SAC and the Eurogroup (a body of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to which France does not belong) was supported only by Italy and Luxembourg. Nevertheless, it proposes to emphasise to the Ministerial Council in The Hague that this system for exchanging information is the only way of avoiding overlap between Europeans in armaments production.

On 28 April 1974, the French daily newspaper Le Monde reports on France’s association with the policy decision to develop the standardisation of some military supplies (missiles and artillery pieces) in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and mentions the participation of French representatives in the meetings of Western European Union’s Standing Armaments Committee with the aim of discussing the conditions for cooperation between the seven member countries in the field of arms production.

On 6 March 1974, in anticipation of the forthcoming meeting of the Council of Western European Union (WEU), due to be held at ministerial level on 11 March 1974 in The Hague, the WEU Council publishes a note on the first measures implemented to revitalise the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC). The note sets out the conclusions and recommendations of the various delegations at the meeting of deputy national armaments directors and particularly lays down the French position on the SAC’s role.

On 13 February 1975, the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC) circulates a note on the dissolution of the ad hoc group and the link between the SAC and Finabel, as well as the future prospects for Finabel’s work following the United Kingdom’s accession to it in 1973. The plan for 1975 is to shift Finabel’s focus to long-term studies with the aim of widening the debates on cooperation between weapons-producing countries before these countries undertake individual commitments.

On 6 October 1975, Sir John William Denys Margetson, Head of Chancery at the United Kingdom delegation to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), sends a letter to William J. A. Wilberforce, Head of the Defence Department at the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), concerning the future of the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC) of Western European Union (WEU). Sir John William Denys Margetson outlines three factors that justify the abolition of the SAC: the French are now participating in NATO programmes in the field of armaments procurement and standardisation; the United Kingdom can afford even less than before the costs involved in maintaining the SAC; and the French appear to have given up their efforts to revitalise the SAC.

On 17 October 1975, Adolf C. McCarthy of the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) sends a letter to Sir John William Denys Margetson, Head of Chancery at the United Kingdom delegation to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), concerning the future of Western European Union's Standing Armaments Committee (SAC). The FCO advocates abolishing the SAC, arguing that it serves no useful purpose and is a burden to the Ministry of Defence. However, the FCO advises proceeding cautiously, since although the French appear to be losing interest in maintaining the SAC, too firm an insistence on the part of the British to abolish it could have the opposite effect of what is desired.

On 10 November 1975, Kit Dodds, Assistant Under Secretary in the British Ministry of Defence, writes to Sir Arthur David Saunders Goodall, Head of the Western European Department in the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), in reply to a letter of 6 October 1975 from Sir John William Denys Margetson, Head of Chancery at the United Kingdom delegation to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), on the future of Western European Union's Standing Armaments Committee (SAC). Kit Dodds supports Margetson's position that at present, SAC is a waste of money and manpower. He also states that if the British cannot succeed in having SAC dissolved, then they should at least press to reduce the number of times it meets.

On 24 November 1975, the British daily newspaper The Guardian publishes an article by Conservative MP Julian Critchley, Chairman of the Committee on Defence Questions and Armaments of the Assembly of Western European Union (WEU), in which he outlines the issues involved in the standardisation of armaments, particularly the establishment of a secretariat for European defence markets, and speculates on France’s position on this question. He believes that France will not take part since the idea was mooted by the Eurogroup, a body of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).

This internal note from the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office dated 17 December 1975 describes the recent initiatives in and between Europe and North America in the area of standardisation of armaments and interoperability. The note addresses renewed French participation in North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) initiatives such as the Conference of National Armaments Directors (CNAD) and its subsidiary Armament Groups. It also points out that the French Government has stopped its attempts to revive the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC).

On 14 November 1977, the Secretary-General of the Council of Western European Union (WEU) circulates a draft reply from the French delegation to Recommendation 297 on a European armaments policy. The French draft particularly emphasises the importance of maintaining an armaments industry, which provides many jobs and plays a vital role in common defence, but it notes that safeguarding this industry requires cooperation between European countries, as demonstrated by the Atlantic Alliance’s independent European Programme Group. The interoperability of equipment is essential for military effectiveness. However, general standardisation, which would result in a rationalisation of armaments production between Europe and the United States, would actually endanger the future of the European industries: if the Western armaments industries engage in open competition, it would jeopardise the European defence effort.

On 26 July 1979, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates the draft reply to Recommendation 335 prepared by the French delegation to the Council. The draft mentions that the replies to Recommendations 297 and 325 already outline the reasons why armaments cooperation between European countries is necessary. The Council reaffirms the importance it attaches to the continuation of the work with a view to achieving genuine cooperation on specific programmes, particularly within the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC) and the independent European Programme Group (IEPG). When the SAC’s final report on the armaments industry in Europe is received, the Council will consider how the Assembly might be informed of its content. On the matter of trade in arms in areas where peace is threatened, solutions cannot be sought in the European framework alone, given the different political factors in each country.

On 16 August 1979, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates a draft reply from the United Kingdom delegation to Assembly Recommendation 329 on the industrial bases of European security. The Council recognises the need to determine priority areas for defence equipment cooperation and standardisation. However, this work is already being carried out within NATO’s Conference of National Armaments Directors and the independent European Programme Group (IEPG), which are also working on the harmonisation of procurement procedures wherever this is possible. Joint projects have taken several forms, and the various stakeholders are fully aware of the advantages and disadvantages of different cooperative structures. The establishment of permanent industrial consortia may be an effective means of undertaking collaborative armaments projects. The Council believes that both the framework necessary to encourage cooperation and the structure required for decision-making already exist. The focus should therefore be on developing specific projects rather than devising new structures or methodology.

On 12 September 1979, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates a new draft reply to Assembly Recommendation 329 drawn up by the working group on the basis of the document prepared by the British delegation (WPM(79)25). The French delegation proposes several amendments to the British draft.

On 21 January 1980, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates the draft reply prepared by the United Kingdom delegation to WEU Assembly Recommendation 337 on political conditions for European armaments cooperation. The Council agrees with the Assembly that all efforts should be made to promote cooperation in the field of defence equipment. Studies are drawn up with regard to the supply side within the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC) and the independent European Programme Group (IEPG). The situation is complex, and similar national requirements are considered against production possibilities in participating countries or elsewhere. The Council does not believe, however, that the establishment of an international organisation to collect supply information will advance the cause of armaments cooperation. Given the theoretical and practical difficulties, compromises on national equipment requirements are often necessary to secure agreement in collaborative projects. The Council does not deem it necessary to create further international machinery to supplement the analysis of methods of meeting equipment needs or to introduce specific legislation to facilitate the formation of transnational bodies producing armaments. The Council agrees with the Assembly that every effort should be made to halt the illegal trade in arms.

In a note dated 14 March 1980, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates the revised draft reply by the French delegation to Recommendation 339 on the industrial bases of European security — guidelines drawn from the symposium on 15, 16 and 17 October 1979. On the matter of cooperation between European industries, the Council considers that the most effective use should be made of existing machinery for concerting measures in the armaments field, in particular the independent European Programme Group (IEPG) and the Conference of National Armaments Directors. This cooperation is too complicated for any changes to be made to working practices in the near future. The draft reply mentions cooperation in the three branches of the military and emphasises the satisfactory results of cooperation on missiles and the importance for armaments industries of mastering all telecommunications techniques.

On 29 October 1981, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates the draft reply by the French delegation to the Council to Assembly Recommendation 368 on the European combat aircraft and other aeronautical developments. The text states that the development of cooperative armaments programmes is a complex process. It requires consensus at national level between industrial, economic, military and political interests. In connection with the project to build a specifically European aircraft, the countries concerned are using the existing machinery for concerted action in the sphere of armaments, mainly the independent European Programme Group (IEPG) and the Conference of National Armaments Directors (CNAD). Intense discussions are being held between the French, German and United Kingdom Governments. Other European countries have shown interest, and a project group within the IEPG has been set up to provide a suitable forum for concerted action and exchanges of information. In addition to the future combat aircraft, joint talks have been launched in connection with helicopters and transport aircraft. An exploratory group is examining the long-term requirements of the various European countries in this area.

On 12 November 1981, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates an amended draft reply by the Council working group to Assembly Recommendation 368 on the European combat aircraft and other aeronautical developments. This reply contains various British amendments, all of which are included in the final reply by the Council (C(81)158).

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, describes the problems encountered by the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC) of Western European Union (WEU) in contributing to arms standardisation and joint production, particularly owing to a lack of political commitment. He also discusses France’s particular interest in the SAC.

In 1954, the London Working Group circulates a draft reply from the other governments signatory to Protocol No I to the letter from the French Government (see 25 E) confirming that all the governments agree with the interpretation made by the French Government and that this exchange of letters shall be considered as an Annex to Protocol No I modifying and completing the Brussels Treaty (Article I, paragraph 2 and Article IV, paragraph 1).

Summary record from the meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the Nine Powers (Belgium, Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States), held on 21 October 1954 in Paris, concerning the resolution on the production and standardisation of armaments submitted by the French delegation.

On 21 October 1954, in Paris, the Governments of Belgium, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom decide to convene a working party on 17 January 1955 to be responsible for considering the issue of the production and standardisation of armaments with a view to submitting proposals to the Council of Western European Union when it is established.

The minutes of the fourth plenary meeting of the working party on production and standardisation of armaments of 31 January 1955 set out the continued discussions on the French memorandum (PWG/A/2). United Kingdom representative Sir Christopher Steel agrees with the aims set forth in the preamble, namely to increase efficiency of logistic services in the military sphere, to reduce costs and to harmonise the various interests in the economic sphere. However, the United Kingdom emphasises that it is unable to take part in supranational institutions and does not believe that this solution could lead to successful results. The French plan would enable savings to be made, but at the cost of production efficiency. Furthermore, the British Government identifies two problems — German demand and the reduction of American aid — which affect the countries of Western European Union (WEU). It does not appear to be advisable to duplicate the existing machinery in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) in the field of standardisation and production. In this respect, Sir Christopher Steel believes that it would be possible to establish joint machinery by means of which WEU, using the NATO machinery, should be able to give that machinery the necessary impulse. French representative Alexandre Parodi prefers to restrict his remarks to the general discussion, but notes that without an institution entrusted with the task of organisation, it would be impossible to achieve adequate unification of production methods and efforts would continue to be dissipated.

On 2 February 1955, the working party on production and standardisation of armaments holds its sixth plenary meeting in Paris. At the meeting, Sir Christopher Steel, United Kingdom representative discusses the proposals submitted by his government in document PWG/A/10. He notes that, while the British proposals exclude certain aspects of the French plan which are unacceptable to the United Kingdom and some other delegations, they are based on the existing machinery. French representative Alexandre Parodi observes that agreement seems to have been reached on the aims to be pursued and the methods to be used but that there is still some divergence of views on the scope and powers of the committees on standardisation and production that are to be established. During the discussion on the timetable for future sessions, the French representative points out that the memorandum is only a basis for discussion and hopes that all the parties will continue to work together in a conciliatory atmosphere.

On 11 February 1955, the chairman of the committee of experts of the working party on production and standardisation of armaments drafts an informal note expressing his doubts as to whether the work method of the committee will enable it to complete the task required of it. In his note, the chairman offers a series of suggestions that could improve the results of the studies carried out by the committee of experts, particularly linking the various studies to provide an interconnected summary of the question of standardisation.

On 19 March 1955, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) sends the Committee of Experts a document submitted jointly by the Belgian and French delegations on the desirability of armaments standardisation. The note outlines the operational, logistical and economic factors that influence the choice of equipment to be standardised.

On 22 April 1955, the committee of experts set up by the Interim Commission’s working party on production and standardisation of armaments circulates its report on the standardisation and procurement of armaments. The report outlines various measures taken by the committee during its term. It sets out conclusions concerning the standardisation of armaments, particularly the factors influencing the decision to standardise and to procure equipment from a foreign source. The committee of experts believes that the Standing Committee should further develop the considerations in the report.

On 5 May 1955, the working party on production and standardisation of armaments circulates to the Council of Western European Union (WEU) a note setting out the report by the committee of experts, whose mission is to examine the technical aspects of the issues relating to the draft guidelines prepared by the French Government on the production and standardisation of armaments. The report outlines the various points to be taken into consideration in the field of standardisation, particularly the fundamental importance of national considerations and also WEU’s role in finding common solutions in some areas. The committee of experts provides a summary of the main points in the memoranda submitted by the Member States on their policies for the supply of weapons material and the ways in which they pursue these policies.

On 7 May 1955, in application of Article VIII of the Modified Brussels Treaty, the Council of Western European Union (WEU) approves the establishment in Paris of a Standing Armaments Committee (SAC) to be responsible for seeking joint solutions to the needs of the member States in terms of equipment. The SAC undertakes in particular to promote agreements or arrangements on subjects such as the research and development, standardisation, production and supply of armaments.

The Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates the Council’s replies to questions put by the Committee on Defence Questions and Armaments in a note dated 21 February 1956. The Secretary-General points out that the Council can only reply to questions within its remit and cannot reply to those for which the individual Member States are responsible or those that encroach on the powers of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) in the military field. With regard to the activities of the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC), the Council notes that the SAC acts on a case-by-case basis to improve methods of consultation and coordination in the sphere of armaments. On the matter of the armaments currently under review, production problems and the possibility of a division of labour will be considered as soon as all or some Member States approve the joint adoption of such weapons or some of their elements.

In a note dated 6 June 1956, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates the draft reply from the WEU Council to the preliminary report of the Assembly’s Committee on Defence Questions and Armaments. The Council believes that it is important to give a brief summary of how the question of collective defence in Western Europe has developed before replying to the additional questions, so that the Assembly can clearly understand how tasks are divided between WEU and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). The WEU should be seen only as the depository of the solemn undertaking to afford mutual assistance embodied in Article V of the modified Brussels Treaty and as the guardian of the procedure laid down in Article VIII. Consequently, the Council is not in a position to reply to matters relating to the maintenance and the defence of peace in Western Europe, which are the responsibility of NATO. But the Council is able to reply to any questions relating to its subsidiary bodies, the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC) and the Agency for the Control of Armaments (ACA).

On 28 June 1956, Charles Cristofini, Deputy Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU), sends Louis Goffin, WEU Secretary-General, a summary report on relations between the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC) and the regional groups FINABEL and FINBAIR. This report follows the resolution adopted by the chiefs of staff of the armies of some WEU countries, which had asked their governments to submit the question to the Council of Ministers. The report provides a contextual framework and suggests a range of solutions to govern the SAC’s relations with the regional groups FINABEL and FINBAIR.

On 9 November 1956, Charles Cristofini, Deputy Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU), publishes a report on the role of the WEU Standing Armaments Committee in connection with European cooperation.

This extract form he minutes of the meeting of the Council of Western European Union (WEU) on 6 March 1957 depicts the debates on further steps to stimulate and extend cooperation in the field of research, development and production within the framework of the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC). The Chairman asks the delegations if this matter is ready for examination. The British representative Lord Samuel Hood does not think so, arguing that it would be better to await the outcome of technical consultations before launching a political debate. French representative Jean Chauvel also wonders whether it is a good idea for the Council to take fresh steps at the moment and whether it would not be preferable for the International Secretariat of the SAC to provide the Council with information on progress made so that it can consider any action that should be taken.

On 17 April 1957, the extract from the minutes of the 87th meeting of the Council of Western European Union (WEU) outlines the address by Michael Cary, Chairman of the International Secretariat of the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC), on relations between FINABEL and the SAC, particularly the different views on the procedure for the development of weapons. FINABEL is willing to go ahead without the United Kingdom if the country is not prepared to examine the military characteristics established within FINABEL. British representative Lord Samuel Hood summarises the British position on this matter and affirms that his government is not prepared to join FINABEL, firstly because it does not share the view that the procedure for arms development should separate an examination of the military characteristics from the technical, economic and production considerations, and secondly because FINABEL contributes to the idea of duplication with the military structure of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. The German representative, Ulrich Sahm, agrees with Lord Hood that the method adopted in the SAC of inviting military representatives to take part in the discussions is the best way of achieving closer cooperation between FINABEL and the SAC.

On 8 May 1957, the British daily newspaper The Manchester Guardian leads with the recommendation adopted by the Assembly of Western European Union (WEU) proposing that the Member States begin joint research on the production of guided missiles. It also reports on the lively debates on the question of the reduction of British forces in the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG).

At its meeting on 12 February 1958, the Council of Western European Union (WEU) analyses cooperation between France, Germany and Italy in the field of arms production. A statement is made on behalf of the three governments, and the French representative, Jean Chauvel, sets out France’s position on the European contribution to Atlantic cooperation in the field of armaments. In view of the financial, technical and industrial difficulties, France proposes the introduction of a joint regional programme with the aim of harmonising military concepts concerning the organisation, use and equipment of armed forces with the directives of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), in the interests of common defence.

The minutes of the 110th meeting of the Council of Western European Union (WEU) at ministerial level, held in Rome on 5 March 1958, focus on the debates on cooperation in arms research, development and production. British representative Selwyn Lloyd believes that multilateral consultations on the subject are possible but that most countries are limited by programmes that have already been adopted. In order to establish a definite production programme, the United Kingdom thinks that consultations should begin on a bilateral basis. The British Government has therefore begun discussions with Germany, France and the Netherlands and will shortly hold talks with Italy. The United Kingdom is keen to conclude other bilateral agreements with the Member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and WEU and to keep its WEU partners informed. The end product of this cooperation should be made available to all the members of WEU and NATO. Finally, Selwyn Lloyd refers to a statement made in the House of Commons by the Minister for Supply to the effect that the United Kingdom is seeking to cooperate not only with the Americans but also with the countries of Europe, which share similar industrial and strategic problems. The German representative, Heinrich von Brentano, believes that difficulties particularly arise when attempts are made to solve problems by pursuing several separate lines and that it would be useful for the chairmen of the steering committees set up by the various different arrangements to meet with the members of the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC). He also suggests that the North Atlantic Council should make use of the experience of the SAC. French representative Maurice Faure supports the position of the German representative and confirms that after discussing the matter for so many years, it would be regrettable if the Member States were unable to coordinate their efforts; he believes that success depends on the political determination of the governments to promote effective cooperation. Selwyn Lloyd also agrees with the German proposal and suggests that the North Atlantic Council should refer the matter to NATO before the meeting of the NATO Defence Ministers.

On 6 March 1958, at their joint meeting in Rome, the Council of Western European Union (WEU) and the Assembly Committee on Defence Questions and Armaments address the question of WEU’s contribution to the armaments production of the Atlantic Alliance (the Teitgen report). The discussions also focus on the talks between France, Germany and Italy on armaments research, development and production. The chairman of the session, Giuseppe Pella, reads the statement made by the Italian delegate (see CR(58)6) and informs the Assembly members that the other Member States will have the opportunity to take part in this tripartite cooperation should they so wish. Moreover, the Council is looking into the possibility of keeping all the countries informed of the workings of other restricted arrangements between various Member States. The Standing Armaments Committee (SAC) will serve as a forum for the exchange of information. Any progress and results will be made available to the SAC and to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).

The minutes of the joint meeting between the Council of Western European Union (WEU) and the Committee on Defence Questions of the WEU Assembly on 2 December 1958 in London record the debates held in the morning and afternoon sessions. At this meeting, the first session, chaired by Lord Henry Lansdowne from the United Kingdom, focuses on cooperation in the field of armaments. Lord Lansdowne notes that close cooperation in armaments research, development and production is necessary for financial reasons, in view of the cost and complexity of modern weapons, and also for political reasons, particularly given the role that armaments cooperation can play in achieving closer European unity in the light of the communist threat. Cooperation on a case-by-case basis has been established through various bilateral and trilateral arrangements under the aegis of WEU and between the WEU countries through the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC). Two lists of proposals for cooperation have been put forward, one by the United Kingdom and the other by France, Italy and Germany, and are considered to come within the field of action of WEU. Lord Lansdowne underlines that the security considerations are not the main obstacle to armaments cooperation, that the Council is satisfied with the progress made by the SAC and that there is no need to step up the work at the current time. Finally, he points out that WEU should not take decisions entirely independently of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) unless cooperation with third countries does not yield results.

On 6 December 1961, the Western European Union (WEU) Council meets to discuss Recommendation No 68 (C(61)182) on the Standing Armaments Committee and the joint production of armaments. The Council approves the slightly amended version of paragraph 4 of the British draft reply proposed by French representative Jean Chauvel, as well as various formal amendments to the English text.

On 28 December 1961, the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC) circulates the report of its 50th meeting, which summarises the representatives’ discussions on the SAC’s future activities, specifically the convening of a technico-military group. This group’s task would be to determine whether the solution put forward is in agreement with the military characteristics approved by the continental chiefs of staff and the War Office, which is responsible for the administration of the British army. The German delegate, Colonel Freygang, notes that on 4 November 1959, it was decided that the establishment of NATO’s basic military requirements and the selection of armaments projects should be carried out in cooperation with the military authorities of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). The Federal Republic of Germany infers that it would not be desirable to deal with a weapon system project such as PT. 428 within Western European Union (WEU). Mr Jardine, the British delegate, points out that the aim is to convene European experts to examine the merits of PT. 428 and to formulate a common European viewpoint, without duplicating any work being carried out within NATO. The French representative, Engineer-General Devenne, confirms that the French authorities have already informed their British counterparts that the PT. 428 does not correspond to their needs, and that they are not in favour of a specific meeting on the project. British representative Mr Humphreys concludes that with the agreement of Italy and the Netherlands it will be possible to make a start.

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.

On 10 April 1962, a meeting of the Council of Ministers of Western European Union (WEU) is held in London. On the margins of the meeting, French Foreign Minister Maurice Couve de Murville (centre) talks to Joseph Luns (right), Netherlands Foreign Minister, and Lord Home (left), British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

Group photo of the Council of Ministers of Western European Union (London, 10 April 1962). From left to right: Eugène Schaus, Luxembourg Foreign Minister; Lord Alec Douglas-Home, British Foreign Secretary; Paul-Henri Spaak, Belgian Foreign Minister; Antonio Segni, Italian Foreign Minister; Maurice Couve de Murville, French Foreign Minister; Joseph Luns, Netherlands Foreign Minister; Edward Heath, Lord Privy Seal; and Gerhard Schröder, West German Foreign Minister.

On 10 April 1962, the Council of Western European Union (WEU) meets at ministerial level at the organisation’s headquarters in London. At the end of the table (left to right): Louis Goffin, Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU), Lord Alec Douglas-Home, British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and Edward Heath, Lord Privy Seal.

In June 1962, the French monthly newspaper Le Monde diplomatique emphasises the weak results of Western European Union (WEU) and reports on a European organisation that is gradually being stripped of its functions.

In a note dated 22 May 1963, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates the reply by the WEU Council to Assembly Recommendation 85 on standardisation and interdependence in the production of armaments. The text is identical to the proposal made by the French delegation on 14 May 1963 (C(63)53).

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.

The minutes of the 420th meeting of the WEU Council, held on 26 May 1971, outline the debates on the activities of the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC). The Prefect Mr Roux, Secretary-General of the SAC, raises the problem of the Committee’s inactivity and calls for the activities of some sub-groups to be transferred to the SAC. He suggests that a group of independent experts should examine this question. French Ambassador Geoffroy de Courcel is particularly struck by the problem of relations between the ad hoc group and the SAC. He notes that, given the complexity of the question, he is currently unable to give a reply on the proposal to set up a group of experts. The British Ambassador Sir Thomas Brimelow and the Netherlands representative emphasise that the problem should be dealt with at ministerial level. The British representative is of the view that preparations for the meeting of 1 July should take differences of opinion into account, without losing sight of the possibility of setting up a committee of experts. Following the explanations given by Mr Roux, Geoffroy de Courcel notes the disadvantage of having armaments problems addressed by representatives that do not hold sufficient delegated powers from their military authorities. He confirms that he will ask his government whether the question of the SAC can be included on the agenda for the meeting of the Council of Ministers, though he is not sure that this will be possible.

On 5 July 1972, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates a note with the Council’s reply to question 128 put by Mr Schloesing concerning the United Kingdom’s participation in FINABEL meetings. The member asks whether it would be logical for the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC) to provide the secretariat for the meetings in which the United Kingdom is taking part and whether the chiefs of staff of the naval and air forces of the FINABEL countries should also meet in the same framework. The Council replies that the SAC is studying how the United Kingdom’s admission to FINABEL will affect its own operation and that it will express an opinion only when it is in possession of the full facts related to the issue. The Council also refers to the problems raised by the establishment of similar forums which will have to be considered by member governments.

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.

On 11 December 1973, the Assistant Secretary-General of the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC) circulates a note that sets out the SAC’s activities in the field of armaments cooperation. The conclusions indicate that the SAC has yet to find its true field of action and has lacked initiative alongside the various bodies of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and bi- and trilateral collaboration. The SAC’s activities have not been carried out effectively enough to satisfy the Member States, despite the flexibility of its procedures and the technicality of the problems to be resolved, which could have made it the ideal forum for European consonance on armaments matters.

On 20 May 1975, at the 495th meeting of the Western European Union (WEU) Council at ministerial level in London, the ministers discuss the activities of the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC) and the problems of armaments standardisation in Europe. They particularly consider the proposals set out by Belgian representative Renaat Van Elslande, who believes that standardisation and the maintenance of a viable, competitive armaments industry in Europe for the production of large-scale weapons are essential for European defence. But he notes that the idea of ‘European preference’ is easier to talk about than to achieve. French minister Bernard Destremau and British minister James Callaghan, who chairs the session, agree with the Belgian proposals. They confirm the need for a competitive European industry and better cooperation with the United States. For the French delegate, this cooperation also raises the question of ‘European defence within the Alliance’. He also shares the view of the role the Standing Armaments Committee can adopt in a number of problems relating to standardisation and the cost of operations so that proposals might be submitted to the Council. James Callaghan, on the other hand, believes that WEU is not the appropriate forum at the current time for reviewing the defence industries and suggests that the permanent representatives should start by determining the scope for activity of the SAC in the field of European armaments cooperation and then report back to the Ministerial Council.

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 3 October 1975, the Secretariat-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates to the members of the Council the draft reply to Recommendation 269 on the state of European security. The draft reply by the working group includes a series of amendments from the French, German and British delegations. The Council emphasises the solidarity that characterises relations between the countries in the Alliance, as reaffirmed in the Ottawa Declaration, and outlines the various questions affecting European security, particularly the negotiations on Mutual and Balanced Force Reductions in Europe (MBFR), the situation in Turkey, Greece and Cyprus, and arms standardisation.

In its note dated 11 November 1975, the Secretariat-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates the Council’s reply to WEU Assembly Recommendation 269 on the state of European security. Various points are raised, including the negotiations on mutual and balanced force reductions (MBFR) in Europe, the situation in Turkey, Greece and Cyprus, and the standardisation of armaments. Several French amendments (WPM (75)34/2) are incorporated concerning cooperation on armaments standardisation and the division of tasks between WEU and the Atlantic Alliance.

On 4 December 1975, the Assembly of Western European Union (WEU) adopts Recommendation 281 on European and Atlantic cooperation in the field of armaments. The Assembly outlines to the Council the aims that the Member States are committed to pursuing, including strengthening the defence potential of the Atlantic Alliance so as to maintain the balance of forces which is essential for the security of free Europe. The document also emphasises the vital importance of establishing Atlantic and European cooperation in armaments standardisation and production, and notes that WEU has a specific role to play. The Assembly recommends to the Council that particular attention should be paid to the problem of destandardisation, given the unilateral developments in each country, and that the member governments should give absolute priority at political level to the question of cooperation in the field of armaments.

At the Council meeting on 31 May 1976 in Brussels, the Ministers of Western European Union (WEU) adopt a new mandate for the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC). The new mandate instructs the SAC to submit to the WEU Permanent Council, before the end of 1976, a detailed analysis of the situation of the armaments industry in the Member States, so as to gain a clearer insight into the industrial and economic implications of the standardisation of armaments.

On 10 June 1976, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates the reply by the WEU Council to Assembly Recommendation 281. The Council notes that all the countries in the Atlantic Alliance have a duty to contribute to security in the light of the increasing strength of the Warsaw Pact’s forces, particularly by developing a competitive armaments industry that has sufficient means for research and production. The Council encourages any initiatives that promote cooperation and interoperability in the field of armaments. It welcomes the results obtained by the European Programme Group (IEPG) and points out that avoiding destandardisation is as important as promoting standardisation. These matters are dealt with in WEU, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), the Eurogroup and the IEPG, and there is no need for a new list of armaments programmes to be drawn up. The Council has asked the Standing Armaments Committee to produce a descriptive analysis of the situation of the armaments industries in the WEU Member States so as to provide a clearer insight into the industrial and economic implications of the standardisation of armaments. Despite the difficulties involved in this cooperation, the Member States attach particular importance to these activities and will not let themselves be discouraged.

In its note dated 21 July 1976, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates to the delegations a document prepared by the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC) concerning European cooperation on armaments questions in the WEU Assembly. The document contains extracts from official addresses given at the 22nd ordinary session of the Assembly held in Paris from 14 to 17 June 1976, particularly those by Bernard Destremau, French State Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and Hermann Schmidt, Parliamentary State Secretary for Defence of the Federal Republic of Germany. The former refers to the work that is taking place in other bodies on the standardisation of armaments in Europe. He mentions the new mandate conferred on the SAC at the last Ministerial Council meeting of 31 May 1976, which firstly involves drawing up a study on the situation of the armaments industries in the Member States so as to improve understanding of the industrial and economic implications of armaments standardisation. As State Secretary for Foreign Affairs, he emphasises the need to prepare the conditions for European defence through a European armaments industry. The German representative welcomes the creation of the Rome Programme Group, in connection with the Eurogroup, an initiative that is helping to maintain the technological potential of Europe — which must remain a partner of the United States.

On 21 June 1977, the Assembly of Western European Union (WEU) adopts Recommendation 297 on a European armaments policy. It recommends that the Council urge the member governments, severally and jointly in all appropriate bodies, to pursue the objective of ensuring the maintenance of a viable defence production industry in Europe taking account of the needs of national defence plans and of the Atlantic Alliance. The document also calls for the institutional basis of joint production to be streamlined by concentrating on the independent European Programme Group and ensuring that military characteristics of equipment are determined within NATO.

On 21 November 1977, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates a note containing the reply from the WEU Council to Recommendation 297 on a European armaments policy, which is largely based on the proposal from the French delegation (WPM(77)25/1). The Council notes that it has urged the WEU Member States to make every effort to maintain a viable European armaments industry by ensuring the interoperability of their equipment and standardisation. The Council also refers to the mandate given to the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC) to produce an analysis of the situation of European industry in the armaments sector and to the importance of the work of the independent European Programme Group (IEPG), which will be able to provide the SAC with some of the data it needs for its analysis. Finally, the Council affirms that it has always supported the initiatives of the North Atlantic Council and its dependent bodies in the areas of armaments and the standardisation and interoperability of equipment.

On 15 February 1978, the 533rd meeting of the Western European Union (WEU) Council is held. This extract from the minutes concerns the draft note to the Assembly on the division of work between the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC) and the independent European Programme Group (IEPG), drawn up by Alain Plantey, Head of the International Secretariat of the SAC. British representative Sir A. David S. Goodall says that he can accept the draft note and the amendments proposed by the Netherlands representative, particularly regarding the fact that the Council cannot guarantee that the SAC will be kept informed by a body outside the organisation. The French representative, Ambassador Jean Sauvagnargues, prefers to forward the note as it stands, since a detailed analysis of the whole text might lead to lengthy discussions. However, he does also accept the second amendment by the Netherlands delegation. The final note is subsequently published with the reference C(78)35.

On 27 February 1978, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates to the Assembly an amended note on the division of work between the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC) and the independent European Programme Group (IEPG), together with a copy of a letter sent to the President of the Assembly on 23 February. The note gives details on how work is divided between the two organisations with regard to European cooperation in the armaments field. The main aim is to avoid any overlap between the work carried out by the SAC and that of the IEPG or other bodies. The Standing Armaments Committee will be kept informed of the progress of studies by the IEPG, and the Member States will ensure that there is no conflict between the work and results of all the various bodies on which they are represented.

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 30 October 1978 in Paris, the Liaison Sub-Committee on the Joint Production of Armaments holds a meeting with members of the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC) and the Assembly of Western European Union (WEU). The discussions focus on the SAC’s activities and the future equipment programme of the Member States. Lord Roper, chairman of the meeting and a British Member of Parliament, questions General Cauchie, chairman of the meeting for the SAC, on whether the differences in legal structure in Western Europe can be considered as a cause of obstruction or delay in cooperation between Member States, or whether such obstruction is caused by a lack of political will. In General Cauchie’s view, the SAC can only work within the terms of reference given to it by the Council. With the exception of atomic, biological and chemical weapons, the limits of the WEU agreements do not hinder any collaborative projects.

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.

On 22 February 1980, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates a draft reply from the WEU Council to Recommendation 338 on the definition of armaments requirements and procurement in Western Europe. The document sets out various British amendments to the Dutch draft, most of which are taken up in the Council’s final reply (C(80)68).

On 12 March 1980, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates the Council’s reply to WEU Assembly Recommendation 337 on political conditions for European armaments cooperation. The final text reproduces the draft prepared by the United Kingdom delegation, also adding that the Council is not empowered to make any statements to the Assembly on behalf of the independent European Programme Group (IEPG). But it will continue to encourage exchanges of information between the two organisations, and members of the Assembly are free to question their own governments about the IEPG’s work.

On 26 March 1980, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates a new amended draft reply from the WEU Council to Recommendation 338 on the definition of armaments requirements and procurement in Western Europe. The document contains an amendment by the British delegation, which wishes to remove a phrase mentioning that preference should be given to equipment produced jointly by European countries. This request is accepted and the phrase is removed from the final reply (C(80)68).

On 15 April 1980, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates a new amended draft reply from the WEU Council to Recommendation 338 on the definition of armaments requirements and procurement in Western Europe. The document contains an amendment by the French delegation, which wishes to retain in the Council’s final reply (C(80)68) a phrase mentioning that preference should be given to equipment produced jointly by European countries. The request by the French delegation is refused and the British amendment is retained instead (WPM(80)10/4).

On 30 April 1980, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates the Council’s reply to Recommendation 338 on the definition of armaments requirements and procurement in Western Europe, which incorporates a series of amendments proposed by the United Kingdom. The Council considers that the creation of international consortia for the production of defence equipment has been a useful contribution to a better organisation of armaments cooperation in Europe.The Council also believes that if the Member States reach agreement on common requirements, this may stimulate the formation of international consortia. This form of cooperation does not exclude joint production by European and North American firms. The Council is fully aware of the advantages of a market for defence equipment covering the entire Atlantic Alliance. Finally, since it is up to each Member State to decide to what extent sensitive information on defence matters can be circulated to the national parliaments, the Council cannot ask the Chairman of Panel I of the independent European Programme Group to communicate the annual equipment replacement schedules to the Assembly’s Committee on Defence Questions and Armaments.

On 30 April 1980, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates the Council’s reply to Recommendation 339 from the WEU Assembly on the industrial bases of European security — guidelines drawn from the symposium on 15, 16 and 17 October 1979. The final text follows the wording of the draft prepared by the French delegation (WPM(80)13/1).

On 4 December 1980, the Assembly of Western European Union (WEU) adopts Recommendation 362 on international industrial consortia and collaborative arrangements for the production of high technology military equipment. The Assembly is aware that, in spite of repeated political recommendations and constant efforts at an official level, progress towards the standardisation and interoperability of defence equipment within the western Alliance remains inadequate. It recommends that the Council invite the member governments to work actively towards armaments cooperation. Through the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC), the Council should monitor progress within the Atlantic Alliance on the interoperability and standardisation of defence equipment and encourage Western European industrial collaboration. The member governments should also be persuaded to establish a link whereby the Assembly is kept regularly informed of the work of the independent European Programme Group (IEPG). The document also calls for the convening of a Western European strategic summit to seek political agreement on the collaborative definition and development of the next generation of military projects.

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.

In a note dated 1 April 1981, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates the reply from the WEU Council to Assembly Recommendation 362 on international industrial consortia and collaborative arrangements for the production of high technology military equipment. The reply is largely based on the French proposal (WPM(81)11). The changes are mostly in paragraph 5: the Council does not retain France’s text, which emphasised the role of consortia and suggested that they should become the general rule for ‘requests for proposals’ issued by military staffs. The final reply confirms that each state is free to decide how such requests are passed on to industry.

In its note dated 20 November 1981, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates the Council’s reply to Assembly Recommendation 368 on the European combat aircraft and other aeronautical developments. Various British amendments incorporated into the final version insist on the intention of the countries concerned to explore the way forward in this field. The Council also clearly states that any further progress is dependent on the harmonisation of characteristics currently being discussed between the military authorities and the staff of the armaments directors of the various countries.

On 1 July 1982, the International Secretariat of the Standing Armaments Committee (SAC) circulates a report on the SAC’s activities. The secretariat concludes that, after 25 years in operation, the SAC has gradually established its scope of action. The SAC’s vocation for European cooperation is based on its summary reports. Its flexible procedures and freedom of debate can make it a privileged forum for cooperation. It is important to recognise that there has hitherto been insufficient cooperation in the field of armaments and more generally in the field of defence, and the SAC could represent a solution in this area for the European governments.

On 22 March 1984, the Technological and Aerospace Committee of the Assembly of Western European Union (WEU) visits the aircraft factory in Mérignac, France. The Committee handles matters relating to defence and cooperation in the field of armaments.