09-151.pdf

for the first time to acknowledge receipt of such a protest letter. In
particular, the Swedish member emphasized that such a refusal was
serious and could make cooperation with the UNC/MAC difficult.
Following long discussions, the Polish member demanded a break. He
then said: “Considering the good relations within the NNSC, we are ready
to acknowledge receipt of the letter in accordance with the following
text.” Besides sending a joint acknowledgement to the UNC, it was
decided to send a joint Swedish-Swiss letter with a slightly different
view to the UNC/MAC Senior Member. A letter was thereafter sent.
Later, on August 12, a letter from the North regarding “continuous
flagrant violations of the armistice through a rise in the introduction
of atomic weapons into South Korea, that the ‘US imperialists’
were transforming South Korea into an atomic base and that they were
preparing a war against North Korea” was discussed. As previously,
the Swedish-Swiss opinion was that the NNSC should acknowledge
receipt in a letter to the MAC. The Czech-Polish view was to add an
appendix stating that the NNSC’s opinion was that the South had
violated the armistice and should withdraw its atomic weapons. After
drawn-out discussions, a letter was worked out in line with established
practice, but the Czech and Polish members wrote a slightly different
letter. On October 24, the NNSC received a letter from the KPA/CPV
regarding, for instance, the introduction of Harpoon and Pershing
missiles into South Korea and the plans to purchase modern jet fighters
from the US. It was only decided that a letter acknowledging the
receipt should be sent to the addressee. 199
199_ Försvarets Läromedelscentral, ibid., pp. 36-7; Månsson, ibid., August 4, 1975, p.
3: Månadsrapport oktober 1975: Underbilaga 2 till bilaga 1 (n. p., November 3,
1975). Original quotation marks.
North-South Dialogue and Tension during the 1970s
251