Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963, Volume XI, Cuban Missile Crisis and Aftermath

294. Telegram From the Embassy in the Soviet Union to the Department of State⁰

Moscow, March 16, 1963, 8 p.m.

2315. Eyes only for Secretary. Deptels 1933 and 1950.¹ My meeting at noon today with Kuznetsov (Embtel 2311)² lasted forty-five minutes.

I made oral statement to him as instructed Deptel 1933, prefacing it with sentences: “The President has been disturbed to learn of Chairman Khrushchev’s remarks with regard to the President’s position on Cuba. I have been instructed to inform you of the following in this regard, and to ask you to transmit it to Chairman Khrushchev.” (I discussed with British Minister-Counselor Barker March 15 problems involved in referring to statement made by Khrushchev to British Ambassador Trevelyan, who absent from Moscow for few days visiting Leningrad. Barker saw no particular difficulty. In view of precise manner in which it was necessary to cite Trevelyan as source for Khrushchev’s remarks, Department may wish consider providing FonOff with suitable fill-in.)

Following translation, Kuznetsov responded he should first of all say that he was very surprised by such a statement. With regard to SovGovt position on this question, it had been set forth with sufficient clarity several times, by Khrushchev in period both before and after crisis and in series of documents, as well as in discussions in New York that lasted almost two and half months. Kuznetsov was now wondering why USG was making such statement at this time. It was incomprehensible to him.

He continued, SovGovt has stated its views with regard to President’s statement in his November 20 press conference and with regard to questions he had raised there. Basic documents in this matter were letters exchanged by Khrushchev and President October 27 and 28, which contained obligations of two sides. With regard President’s November 20 statement, SovGovt could not accept it in full. He wished to recall to me that SovGovt had not agreed with claim of USG that it had assumed right to conduct flights over territory of another state. By virtue of this claim, USG was disregarding sovereign right of Cuba and was assuming policy “from position of strength” towards Cuba. This was dangerous policy.

My raising question of so-called on-site inspection evoked very great perplexity. Why was it being raised again? If legal side of matter were considered, Khrushchev’s letter of October 27 said that such inspection could be conducted if Cuban Govt agreed. Moreover, SovGovt, with agreement Cuban, had given US authorities opportunity to verify withdrawal of weapons, to photograph and count them. It seemed at time that American side was satisfied. With regard to question of future inspection, he wished to remind me of Thant proposals and others for UN presence in Caribbean, which would have involved inspections in Cuba and US on terms of equality. USG had refused to consider, let alone accept, these proposals and must bear responsibility for their non-adoption. Making such statement now to SovGovt evokes great lack of understanding.

In President’s November 20 press conference, he made statements of arbitrary character, saying USG could conduct inspections it wished to. This did not correspond to obligations assumed on October 27-28. It contained many arbitrary elements and many “ifs.” President said USG could decide unilaterally whether Cuba was danger to US and other Western Hemisphere states.

Now representatives of USG are saying that Cuba by its very exist-ence constitutes danger to US. USG officials and US intelligence even fabricated data to show Cuba has been conducting subversive acts.

If such questions exist, USG should talk to Cuban Govt.

Kuznetsov said he must resolutely reject effort to raise this now with SovGovt and attempt to engage it in discussion of question of events in Venezuela. USG always tried to explain such events by talking about “hand of Moscow”, “Communist plots”, and so forth, but all that is simply invented. Those who invent such things know they do not correspond to reality. Trouble is USG does not want to let Cuban people decide on their own way of life.

If US thinks it suffers from existence of Cuban regime, why shouldn’t USG meet with Cuban representatives and discuss these questions in effort to find solutions to them. Cuban representatives, including Premier and President, have expressed their willingness to discuss these questions.

Provisionally, Kuznetsov said, he decidedly rejected assumption contained in statement to effect that SovGovt should discuss matters relevant to Cuban Govt as though it had taken upon itself some obligation in this regard. It would be better if I did not make such statement. While he could not say definitively, he was not sure SovGovt would accept it. It was not quite clear why I was making it at all.

I said I thought there had been some misunderstanding here. This was oral statement which I was asking him to communicate to Chairman Khrushchev. It was not a demarche. Reason for statement was to be found in remarks Chairman had made to foreign diplomat. Purpose of statement was not to raise new questions, but to reassure Chairman Khrushchev that his doubts about a change in President’s policy were not founded, but that President’s policy remained unchanged. Consequently, I was surprised by what Kuznetsov had said in commenting on statement, since President wanted only to reassure Chairman. President’s policy not changed.

Kuznetsov said that what surprised him was part at end where President talked about Venezuela as though USG wanted to make SovGovt responsible for something that had happened there. He asked me to repeat this part, since that was part he could not accept.

I repeated portion of statement derived from final para Deptel 1933.

Kuznetsov said he wished to re-emphasize that this was not merely simple restatement of US policy but raised question of SovGovt and Khrushchev using influence on Castro. He could not accept these last words.

Relations between US and Cuba are very abnormal. Who is responsible?USG is responsible. American actions are things which create this tension. I knew about steps which USG had taken. It therefore sounded very funny for USG to ask SovGovt to take steps towards Cuba. Secretary Rusk had made statement few days ago to effect that existence of Cuban Republic was incompatible with US interests.³ Who gave USG right to dictate? There had been all that noise in US about Cuba. There had been noise when invaders returned and about economic sanctions. Kuznetsov therefore thought that this sort of appeal should be addressed in first place to USG. It should be apparent to US from history of Bolshevik Revolution how futile our efforts were. I must know what Ryabushinsky had said on eve of revolution, that “hand of hunger would strangle revolution.”

He continued, if we wished to put responsibility on SovGovt for events in Latin America, that was really too much. President himself had recently made statement to effect that events in Latin America were not ones for which Moscow or communism could be held responsible. These charges were “nonsense, nonsense.”

I said I thought I should understand whether he wished to transmit this statement to Khrushchev.

Kuznetsov answered that he was not sure Khrushchev would accept it; he would have to ask him.

I said I should emphasize once again that this was response to Chairman’s doubts about President’s policy. We had two different analyses of Cuban situation. We regarded belligerent attitude and threats of Castro as cause of tension in Caribbean. We think he has broken his word by imposing his regime on Cubans without giving them promised opportunity to express their will.

With regard to last words in statement asking Chairman to exercise his influence on Castro, this was expression of President’s hope. Perhaps this hope would not be realized, but understandable he should express it.

At this point Kuznetsov asked which remarks of Chairman President had in mind in making statement.

I said they were remarks Chairman had made to Sir Humphrey Trevelyan, in which Chairman had expressed view President’s position had changed with regard to Cuba.

Kuznetsov then asked whether President wanted final words of statement, “and will thus exercise his influence on Castro to this end,” included. I said he did.

I then handed Kuznetsov note on aircraft violations.

While Kuznetsov was serious during this discussion, his attitude and manner were not unfriendly, and encounter ended as it had begun, with good-natured personal small-talk.

Comment: While Kuznetsov handled himself well, as usual, I got definite impression he was either not aware of what Khrushchev had told Trevelyan or, if aware, had regarded Khrushchev’s statement as routine effort warn US against increasing pressure on Cuba and consequently had not anticipated effect remarks would have. It is of course possible that, particularly in view all he said, Soviets will refuse accept statement. Regardless of this, I believe point has been made. We should nevertheless perhaps anticipate response in kind.

Kohler

0. Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL CUBA-USSR. Secret; Priority.
1. See Document 293 and footnote 3 thereto.
2. Telegram 2311, March 16, informed the Department that as Khrushchev was on vacation, Kohler was meeting Kuznetsov at noon, March 16. (Department of State, Central Files, POL US-USSR)
3. Apparent reference to Rusk’s remarks before the Advertising Council, March 12. For text, see Department of State Bulletin, April 1, 1963, pp. 467-475.