Foreign Relations of the United States, 1951, National Security Affairs; Foreign Economic Policy, Volume I

Disarmament Files, Lot 58 D 133

Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State for United Nations Affairs (Hickerson) to the Secretary of State ¹

top secret

[Washington,] October 18, 1951.

Subject: Regulation of Armed Forces and Armaments

Discussion:

On October 5, 19511 submitted for your consideration the outline of a program for regulation, limitation and balanced reduction of all armed forces and armaments. The background for this program and the contemplated tactics for its presentation were described in a covering memorandum (Tab A).² As a result of the discussion in your office on October 11,³ the paper has been revised (Tab B).⁴ The most important changes are as follows:

1. The revised paper indicates that concurrently with putting into force a system of regulation, limitation and balanced reduction of armed forces and armaments there must be settlement of major international political issues. It was generally agreed by interested Bureaus that it would be inadvisable to list any specific political issues other than Korea.

2. The revised paper stresses even more strongly than did the earlier draft the necessity of continued efforts of the free world to develop the strength required for its security pending achievement of an effective system for regulation, limitation and balanced reduction of armed forces and armaments.

3. The revised paper lays greater emphasis on the program of disclosure and verification on a continuing basis as an indispensable first step toward regulation, limitation and balanced reduction of armed forces.

The general view of those who have participated in the discussion of this paper both in the Department of State and the Department of Defense has been that the U.S. should proceed with the introduction of this program into the UN.

You will note that the footnote on page 3 contains an alternative wording for paragraph 4 c (1).⁵ The consensus of opinion among the participants in discussion of this paper was that for a number of reasons the program should avoid a reference to specific figures as to maximum level of armed forces. I feel quite strongly that a large part of the gains which we expect to achieve through introduction of the program would be lost unless some mention were made of specific figures. I likewise feel that the figures are surrounded with sufficient qualifications so that there is no danger in their use. I am accordingly suggesting the alternative paragraph set forth in the footnote.

Frank Nash indicated that Defense could accept the program either with the 1% and one million ceiling or without it; he stated that his task in finally clearing the program with Defense would be a little easier if the figures were not specified. Nash added, however, that he himself strongly favored specifying the figures.

Recommendation:

I am anxious that you should consider this program as soon as possible and if you approve it that you should make the necessary arrangements for its approval by the President. The time schedule is extremely tight since the program must be presented at the opening of the General Assembly, November 6, and since considerable preparatory work including discussions with the British and French remains.

Concurrences:

This program has been approved by SP, SAE, EUR, G, C, and P.

1. A notation on the source text indicates that this memorandum was seen by the Secretary of State on October 18.
2. For the memorandum of October 5 and its attachment, see p. 533.
3. No record of the meeting of October 11 has been found in Department of State files.
4. Tab B, an October 18 redraft of “Outline of Program for Regulation, Limitation and Balanced Reduction of All Armed Forces and Armaments,” is not printed. For the version of this document which received the approval of President Truman on October 23, see telegram 2418 to Paris, October 24, p. 559.
5. Subparagraph 4 c (1) of Tab B reads as follows: “Limiting the size of armed forces, including para-military and security forces to a fixed percent of population, and establishing a ceiling for any one country of an agreed maximum figure.” The alternative wording reads as follows: “Limiting the size of armed forces, including para-military and security forces to, say, 1 percent of population, and establishing a ceiling for any one country of, say, 1 million.”