Memorandum, "Non-proliferation Policy," n.d. [circa 3 June 1980], Secret
National Security Archive
A secret 1980 meeting reveals how the U.S. weighed swapping case‑by‑case plutonium reviews for a broader, diplomatic ‘generic’ approach with Europe and Japan.
Source: Memorandum, "Non-proliferation Policy," n.d. [circa 3 June 1980], Secret Date: Jun 3, 1980 Archive: RG 59, Muskie Subject Files, box 3, Tarapur Collection: Japan Plutonium Overhang Origins and Dangers Debated by U.S. Officials Jun 8, 2017
Editorial Analysis
Original analysis by the DriftSeas editorial desk. The complete primary-source document, transcribed from the National Security Archive scan, appears in full below.
A Secret Pivot in the Plutonium Regime
On June 3 1980 senior officials gathered in the Secretary of State’s conference room to hash out a subtle but consequential shift in U.S. non‑proliferation policy. The participants—Berl Bernhard, Leon Billings, Tony Lake, Gerry Smith, Jerry Oplinger, Bob Gallucci, Tom Pickering and Arnie Raphael—were the same cadre that had steered the United States through the 1970s nuclear‑export debates. Their discussion, recorded in a now‑declassified memorandum, reveals a moment when Washington weighed moving from a painstaking case‑by‑case review of plutonium transfers to a “generic” approval framework for Western European allies and Japan.
The Cold‑War Context and the Plutonium Overhang
The early 1980s were dominated by three intersecting pressures. First, the United States faced an expanding “plutonium overhang” – surplus weapon‑grade material generated by its own reprocessing program and by the export of uranium to allies. Second, the European Community, especially West Germany (FRG) and France, were deepening their own breeder‑reactor ambitions, threatening to create a parallel supply of plutonium. Third, the 1977 Nuclear Non‑Proliferation Act (NNPA) gave the President a formal right to control how European partners disposed of U.S.‑origin plutonium, but it left the practical mechanics ambiguous.
Within this milieu, the memo captures a strategic calculus: by offering a more predictable, category‑based licensing regime, Washington hoped to extract “quid” from the Europeans—likely tighter safeguards or a voluntary freeze on sensitive material exports. Ambassador Gerry Smith, the principal architect of the paper under discussion, argued that the United States was not seeking a policy reversal but merely “exploratory talks” in Vienna to test the waters. The language is deliberately cautious; the memo stresses that no final decision is expected this year, and that the President’s informal approval, rather than a formal endorsement, would suffice to launch the dialogue.
Inside the Deliberations: Options, Risks, and Perceptions
Tony Lake laid out two policy pathways. “Option 2 A” would grant generic approval only to arrangements predating the 1977 statement, preserving a narrow historical carve‑out. “Option 2 B” would extend the generic approach over a ten‑year horizon to any country that demonstrated a “certain level of plutonium‑regime sophistication,” effectively widening the net to include Japan alongside the Europeans. Smith’s preference for 2 B signals an ambition to institutionalize a broader, more flexible regime that could be leveraged in future negotiations.
The memo also records sharp concerns about perception. Bernhard, Billings, and others warned that a shift toward generic approvals could be read domestically as a weakening of the President’s non‑proliferation resolve, especially given the sensitive backdrop of breeder‑reactor opposition. Pickering warned that delaying talks would erode bargaining power, while also noting that a generic approach might compel Europe to adopt “more stringent safeguards” in exchange for U.S. flexibility.
Why the Document Matters Today
The June 3 discussion foreshadows the eventual 1985 “Plutonium Policy” that granted broader, category‑based transfers to the FRG, France and Japan, coupled with reciprocal safeguard commitments. It also illuminates the behind‑the‑scenes bargaining that shaped the 1991 U.S.–EU Plutonium Agreement, which formally recognized the right of the United States to influence European plutonium disposition. By exposing the internal debate over “generic” versus “case‑by‑case” licensing, the memo helps explain why the United States later adopted a more nuanced, risk‑based approach to nuclear material control—a legacy that underpins today’s Nuclear Suppliers Group guidelines.
Moreover, the memo underscores a recurring theme in U.S. non‑proliferation strategy: the use of incremental, low‑visibility diplomatic steps to secure broader strategic concessions. The emphasis on “exploratory talks” rather than formal negotiations reflects a pattern repeated in later arms‑control dialogues, from the 1990s START negotiations to contemporary discussions on high‑enriched uranium export controls.
In sum, the June 3, 1980 memorandum is not merely a bureaucratic record; it is a window into a pivotal decision point where the United States consciously chose to trade a degree of procedural rigidity for diplomatic leverage, shaping the architecture of the global plutonium regime for decades to come.
DECLASSIFIED Authority NND: 486008 SECRET
Subject: Non-Proliferation Policy
On Tuesday, June 3, a meeting on non-proliferation policy was held in the Secretary's conference room attended by Berl Bernhard, Leon Billings, Tony Lake, Gerry Smith, Jerry Oplinger, Bob Gallucci, Tom Pickering [handwritten: Lou H...] and Arnie Raphael. The Secretary attended a portion of the meeting.
Ambassador Smith was asked what he saw as the specific goal of his paper on non-proliferation. He responded that we had to determine how to continue the exploration process; he is not asking for a change in policy. Under the NNPA, we claim a right to determine how the Europeans dispose of plutonium derived from American-supplied uranium. The fundamental question is how do we exercise that right with the Europeans. He emphasized that he was asking for authority to explore this issue, beginning next week in Vienna, not to negotiate with the Europeans.
Ambassador Smith emphasized he did not see any final decision being made this year but believed we had to move ahead with exploratory talks. He believed the preferred option was to move away from case-by-case review of plutonium transfers and move toward a generic approach on granting permission for
SECRET
DECLASSIFIED Authority NWD: 48008
SECRET
2
specific categories of transfers. Ambassador Smith added he believed that, in return for this step on our part, the FRG and the French would probably agree to stop the export of sensitive nuclear material without full scope safeguards.
He added there is a question over the thrust of the President's plutonium regime policy. On the one hand there is a considerable and well justified sensitivity toward international traffic in plutonium. On the other hand, the President stated that it was not our intention to interfere in others' domestic breeder reactor programs.
[INSERT on p 4] Tony Lake noted that there were two possibilities -- 2 A and [2 approaches if we decide to proceed] 2 B. Under 2 A, we would give generic approval to arrangements with the Western Europeans and the Japanese that preceded our 1977 statement on non-proliferation, but would not do so for any arrangements signed since then. Under 2 B, we would give the same generic approval a -- over the next ten years; b -- to countries which had reached a certain level of plutonium regime sophistication without restricting it to the Western Europeans and Japanese. Ambassador Smith noted that his preference was to explore option 2 B with the Europeans.
SECRET
DECLASSIFIED Authority NND: 48008
3 SECRET
Ambassador Pickering noted that if we waited until next year to begin these explorations with the Europeans, it would erode what we may be able to get during the talks. He added that under our present case-by-case system, we have concurred in all the transfer requests; if we go to a generic approach, we may be able to extract certain concessions from the Europeans.
Mr. Bernhard asked how the proposed change would affect the danger spots such as Iraq, Pakistan and India. Mr. Pickering noted that the result could be tighter controls; the Europeans might well agree to more stringent safeguards in response to our accepting the generic approach.
Mr. Billings raised the question of whether this change in policy would be seen as backing off on our opposition to the breeder reactor program. Ambassador Pickering noted that this could be a perception problem in the US, but he believed that our opposition to breeder commercialization at the present time was well known.
Mr. Lake noted that it is less dangerous, in terms of perception, to ask for the President's informal approval for the approaches to be made, than seeking the President's formal blessing. He added there are two choices we do not have to make now. One, we do not have to decide finally whether we will
SECRET
DECLASSIFIED Authority NWD: 48008 SECRET 4 move toward the generic approach until we see what quids we would get from the Europeans. Two, even if we do move eventually toward the generic approach, we need not now address the issue of whether it should be option 2 A or 2 B. [To p. 2] Mr. Bernhard and others noted, at various points in the con- versation, that regardless of how we packaged Gerry Smith's talks in Europe, they would be perceived as a shift in our policy, specifically as a weakening of the President's non-proliferation policy. We could consequently face a major public perception problem on this issue. The consensus of the meeting was to recommend to the Secretary that the issue be discussed at the Friday breakfast. The recommendation would be to seek the President's informal approval, at the breakfast, for Gerry Smith to begin exploratory talks (not negotiations) with the Europeans in Vienna next week. The purpose of the talks will be to elicit what quid the Europeans would be willing to offer if we showed some willingness to be flexible on moving to a generic approach. It was also decided that we would recommend to the Secretary that there would be no PRC meeting on this subject. SECRET
DECLASSIFIED Authority NND: 486008
5 SECRET
Several papers were tasked. 1 - an item for the Friday breakfast which would give the Secretary appropriate background and talking points to discuss this issue with the President. 2 - a briefing memo for the Secretary which would explain what specific quids we might be able to expect from the Europeans in return for our moving toward a generic approach to the plutonium regime. An adaptation of this paper could be used for public explanation of our approach if we reach that point. 3 - the effects of this shift in policy on the commercialization of the plutonium regime, specifically, breeder reactor programs, in Europe and Japan.
SECRET
NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE
National Security Archive, Suite 701, Gelman Library, The George Washington University, 2130 H Street, NW, Washington, D.C., 20037, Phone: 202/994-7000, Fax: 202/994-7005, nsarchiv@gwu.edu