USUN Files
The Department of the Air Force Representative on the Executive Committee on Regulation of Armaments (Hamilton) to the Deputy United States Representative to the Commission for Conventional Armaments (Nash)1
Dear Frank: Any effort to do more than acknowledge with full appreciation your letter of 1 September is probably an empty exercise, since the final U.S. position will presumably have been taken by the time this reaches you.
On the other hand you were good enough to concentrate a part of your vacation on giving the most enlightening explanation of your reasoning and conclusions, so the least that I can do is to tell you where, according to my analysis, our views seem to diverge.
Basically, I think it boils down to the question of which of two courses is most likely to lead to that indeterminable but hoped-for point in international relations where the present climate of distrust gives way to some discernible measure of cooperation. You say that “the only disagreement … is concerning the specific organ or medium to be selected for the channelizing of our efforts.” I am afraid it is more than this: much more a choice of actual tactics or maneuver than merely a choice of forum.
I have been fairly closely connected with U.N”, problems since the days of the preliminary Dumbarton conferences, also with certain other matters wherein the U.S.–U.S.S.R. relationship was the predominate factor. In no instance that I can recall has any progress been achieved except in those all too few instances when we planted our feet firmly, after reaching a considered position, and refused to participate in further useless palaver. Therefore, I believe that what little chance there may be of obtaining some real progress toward alleviation of the world’s armament burden is jeopardized, not enhanced by continuing the ridiculous repetitive discussions of the CCA. I am [Page 159] convinced that only when they can no longer “negotiate” (in the Russian sense) will the Soviets give any honest consideration, if at all, to the wisdom of reaching practical agreement by negotiation (in the Western sense).
Moreover, from the standpoint of our “moral” position or our relationship with the other members—and even our position before the peoples of the world—I do not share the fear or timidity by which the “State” (as opposed to NME) viewpoint seems to be so largely influenced/One of the troubles today, which has its own perfect reflexion in our CCA dealings, is that the rest of the world is looking to us for leadership; expecting and hoping for something vigorous and clear, and all that we are giving them is the pusillanimous mildly voiced and unsteady picture of a beautifully mannered moralist who wants never to do anything except that which he is sure “the majority” will agree with. In fact we do worse than that: whenever possible we sit tremulously hoping that they will make their desires known first so we shall never have to appear as holding any opinion other than the popular (?) one. In my humble opinion, that may win friends,—in the sense that it won’t make enemies,—but it’s one helluva way to try to influence people.
Your preferred proposal of unobtrusively picking-up Item III of the CCA Plan of Work is indubitably “the easy way” but that it is the best way to achieve whatever of real progress toward our ultimate goal may be possible, I most emphatically doubt. To borrow your own analogy of the “gal from Kansas City”, it is my contention that “we’ve gone about as far as we can go” right now. Nothing within the competence of CCA to change will be changed a year from now and I can see no valid or compelling reason to put off until next year what can be done today. I do believe that doing it today,—and thus, incidentally, confirming and proving consistent with our AEC stand,—may well be conducive of, or contribute to, the basic change, which we all agree will happen, if at all, outside CCA and is a prerequisite to any fruitful activity within that body.
I think you overestimate the honest sales resistance to be expected and underestimate both the intrinsic merit of the package and the salesmanship of one, Frank Nash, when you dub it “unsaleable” while at the same time admitting its feasibility if others should make the suggestion.
My guess is that your side will win so there’s little point in my “argufying” further, but I did want you to know that, regardless of the position ultimately taken, disagreeing with you is more enjoyable to me personally than agreeing with a lot of other people. It may be the dash of Irish or the larger modicum of Scotch or even—God forbid—too much soda in me!
Sincerely yours,
- The source text bears the initial of Ambassador Austin.↩