356. Telegram From the Delegation at the Foreign Ministers Meetings to the Department of State 1

Secto 262. 1. Eleventh Ministers session November 11 continued consideration disarmament in four-hour deadlock.

2. Secretary first answered Molotov’s five criticisms yesterday of President’s inspection proposal and stated, if USSR accepts proposal, US prepared negotiate with other countries and USSR on extension on reciprocal basis both US and Soviet inspection plans to cover overseas bases and forces of other countries.2 He repeated President’s plan only an initial step, but would serve as deterrent to surprise attack. He expressed hope Molotov’s statement yesterday3 not last Soviet word on proposal. Turning to Soviet resolution,4 insofar as it dealt with atomic matters, Secretary said (1) US prepared accept restrictions on nuclear tests if agreement reached to limit or eliminate nuclear weapons under proper safeguards; (2) Soviet-proposed [Page 751] pledges not to use nuclear weapons would be only promises on which US unwilling stake its security and moreover UN Charter already commits members to refrain from use of force; (3) Soviet proposal to eliminate atomic weapons contradicted by Soviet May 10 admission5 that no assurance at present that evasion can be detected. Secretary stressed need for continued scientific research to make inspection effective as well as need for atmosphere of trust, to which Soviet position at present meeting has failed to contribute.

3. Pinay in brief statement argued that Foreign Ministers could only establish certain principles, while UN Subcommittee worked out details; asserted UN Charter already gave moral prohibition sought by USSR; and urged Molotov to agree to Western proposals as a preliminary step.6

4. Macmillan concentrated on three points:7 (1) level of forces, where he felt progress possible; (2) level of armaments, which he criticized Soviet resolution for over-looking; (3) need for effective control, concerning which he asked Molotov three questions: (A) does USSR agree international inspectors should be established in all participating states and be ready to work before disarmament begun; (B) what rights of access and communication would USSR grant inspectors; (C) what USSR means by its term “objects of controls”?

5. Molotov focused on charge Western powers had retrogressed on disarmament.8 Western proposal yesterday called retreat from UN 1946 and 1954 resolutions, Western positions in disarmament talks in June 1954 and September 1955. Technical difficulties of nuclear inspection dismissed as pretext to avoid disarmament and progress termed still possible by Soviet proposed condemnation of nuclear weapons. Macmillan’s three questions side-stepped by comment that reply would be forthcoming once detailed discussions begun. Controls without end of arms are denounced as lulling vigilance of people. Soviet view of own control scheme somewhat spelled out by statement that establishment ground control posts should not be taken by itself but as one of the measures provided for by a general disarmament plan.

6. Following recess,9 Pinay and Macmillan pointed out Molotov had based charges of Western retrogression on incomplete and inaccurate [Page 752] measurement of earlier Western position. Secretary returned to contradiction in Soviet position, with May 10 statement admitting possibility of evasion of nuclear inspection, yet Soviet proposal calling for effective nuclear control. Molotov avoided answer by quoting different section of May 10 proposal and maintaining no contradiction. Secretary replied by rereading pertinent section May 10 proposal, but received no response, since when Molotov’s turn to speak again, he suggested adjournment.10 Secretary concluded that despite technical difficulties, something could be done regarding disarmament, asserting problem is to find out what can be controlled and then to agree to control it.

7. Macmillan undertook to sum up, maintaining all agreed on need for mutual confidence and all, despite propaganda charges, in favor of disarmament. He divided problem between unconventional and conventional weapons. Regarding former, he stressed more complete control necessary, since no mistake could be tolerated. Failure yet to find scientific answer to nuclear control should not lead to despair. Control of conventional weapons is different problem and within grasp of governments, provided adequate control established.

8. Ministers scheduled to terminate disarmament discussion at 10:30 Saturday morning session.

  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 396.1–GE/11–1255. Secret; Priority. Repeated to London, Paris, Bonn, Moscow, and the Mission at the United Nations. Passed to Defense. The U.S. Delegation verbatim record of the eleventh Foreign Ministers meeting, which met at 3:30 p.m. on November 11, USDEL/Verb/11 (Corrected), and the record of decisions, MFM/DOC/RD/11, both dated November 11, are ibid., Conference Files: Lot 60 D 627, CF 582.
  2. For text of Dulles’ statement, circulated as MFM/DOC/51, see Foreign Ministers Meeting, p. 201–206, or Cmd. 9633, p. 125–129; for text of President Eisenhower’s “Open Skies” proposal, see Document 221.
  3. See Document 352.
  4. For text of the Soviet proposal on disarmament, see Foreign Ministers Meeting, p. 184–186, or Cmd. 9633, p. 131–132.
  5. For text of the Soviet proposal on disarmament, dated May 10, see Documents (R.I.I.A.) for 1955, p. 110–121.
  6. For text of Pinay’s statement, circulated as MFM/DOC/55, see Foreign Ministers Meeting, p. 206–208.
  7. For text of Macmillan’s statement, circulated as MFM/DOC/52, see ibid., p. 208–211, or Cmd. 9633, p. 129–130.
  8. For text of Molotov’s statement, circulated as MFM/DOC/53, see Foreign Ministers Meeting, p. 211–217.
  9. During the recess, Dulles talked to Molotov about an agreed conference statement on disarmament. Molotov thought the idea was good, and the Secretary of State suggested that the Soviet Delegation see how much of the tripartite declaration was acceptable. (Memorandum of conversation, USDEL/MC/34, November 13; Department of State, Conference Files: Lot 60 D 627, CF 582)
  10. For text of Dulles’ final remarks at the eleventh session, circulated as MFM/DOC/51 (Add. 1 and 2), see Foreign Ministers Meeting, p. 217–220.