600.0012/12–2653: Telegram
The Ambassador in the Soviet Union (Bohlen) to the Department of State
774. Lead article in today’s Pravda entitled “New Proposal of Soviet Union.” Begins by saying Soviet statement on Eisenhower speech “brought forth everywhere wide response and many commentaries of leading state and public figures and also the press.”
Soviets, “unfailingly following their peace-loving policy” expressed readiness for “confidential diplomatic negotiations”.
“On its side Soviet Government advanced new important proposal, directed to averting threat atomic war and lessening tension in international situation”.
Quotes from statement proposal for participating nations pledge not use weapons mass destruction. Claims this sympathetically accepted by wide groups many countries, but that “in series of countries, primarily in United States, attempts made to conceal, be silent about proposal Soviet Government, or misinterpret it”.
“Dulles, in clear contradiction to the facts”, said proposal only set forth “previous position taken by Soviet Union”. Quotes British statement that proposal only repetition previous Soviet stand, adds that after these statements “several other officials and also many bourgeois papers in United States and England are also giving such an incorrect interpretation”.
This silence or misinterpretation not accidental, apparently.
Asks what was Soviet’s “previous position”? Answers that Soviet “always considered and considers that most important and most urgent task is unconditional prohibition of atomic and hydrogen weapons as well as other types weapons mass destruction. Soviet Government repeatedly and unequivocally emphasized its desire establish strict and effective international control of this ban. Soviet Government expressed again in its statement its readiness henceforth as well to secure prohibition atomic, hydrogen and other weapons mass destruction. With such preciseness and clearness Soviet Government repeated its intention secure strict international control over prohibition” then claims Soviet Union not responsible for failure up to now to achieve agreement. “Instead of business-like [Page 1311] consideration this basic and decisive question representatives United States in United Nations Disarmament Commission attempted to tie in their plans of “registration” or “census” of various types weapons of ordinary type. These plans had no connection either with the prohibition atomic weapons or reduction ordinary weapons”.
Soviet Union “advances new proposal” …1 “In attempt find way out of that impasse into which American diplomacy led problem atomic weapons”.
Editorial then repeats argument in its statement on effectiveness Geneva protocol, and effect threat reprisals on Hitler. “This consideration applies fully also to atomic and hydrogen armament”. Signed agreement would be restraining factor as was Geneva protocol in World War II.
“Of course, an agreement on prohibition atomic weapons and on establishment effective international control over observance this ban would have still more significance than Geneva protocol. But even an agreement on refusal of use atomic weapons would have immense significance at present stage”. Proceeds repeat attacks on Eisenhower proposals: Provides for allocating only certain portions atomic materials to central control, no provision for limiting arms production, no guarantee not to use arms.
Aim of removing threat atomic war, use atomic energy for peaceful means “will be achieved faster as interested sides display more good will and desire to cooperate”.
Editorial concludes with usual words about Soviet people supporting Soviet Government’s action, and statement that “solution these questions will unquestionably contribute to strengthening peace and bettering international cooperation”.
Yesterday’s press continued carry long round-up International Press coverage Soviet proposals. United States comments given largest coverage, with introductory remark that deep world-wide interest in Soviet proposals forced United States press to abandon previous position silence. Includes quotes from Reston that “new American defense budget assigns greater place to atomic weapons than did last budget.”
Comment: Extensive coverage Soviet press on foreign reactions to Soviet atomic energy statement is undoubtedly measure importance subject in Soviet eyes.
Today’s Pravda editorial is noteworthy primarily for its plaintive tone and allegations Soviet proposal has been misunderstood abroad. It re-emphasizes that Soviet Government’s proposal for agreement on renunication use nuclear weapons represents new [Page 1312] element in Soviet position on atomic energy. However, editorial does not indicate whether there has been any change in Soviet Government’s thinking on method implementation any renunciation or prohibition agreement, except perhaps in brief criticism of past American insistence on tie-in atomic controls with census conventional weapons.
- Ellipsis in the source text.↩