Disarmament Files, Lot 58 D 133
Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. Bernhard G. Bechhoefer of the Office of United Nations Political and Security Affairs
[Subject:] Program for Regulation, Limitation and Balanced Reduction of Armaments and Armed Forces
[Present:] Gerald Meade—British Embassy
Barbara
Salt—British Embassy
Mr. Hickerson—UNA
Mr. Ferguson—S/P
Mr. Allen—EUR
Mr. Bechhoefer—UNP
Mr. Hickerson informed Mr. Meade and Miss Salt that the President of the United States had determined that the United States; should introduce in the forthcoming General Assembly a program for the regulation, limitation and balanced reduction of all armaments and armed forces. He handed a text of the program1 to Mr. Meade, explaining that the text had incorporated the views suggested by the President. The President, however, had not yet passed upon the exact language of the text and it was possible that there might be minor changes.
Mr. Hickerson went over the paper in some detail pointing out the chief variations from the paper which had been prepared at operating levels several weeks earlier and in the preparation of which the representatives of the United Kingdom had assisted. He indicated that the chief difference was the omission of all reference to precise figures for the limitation of either armed forces or armaments. He also pointed out that in the paper as finally approved the problem of disclosure and verification received greater emphasis than in the earlier drafts.
The question of communicating the paper to the French was discussed in some detail. Mr. Meade pointed out that the new paper was so different from the one that resulted from US–UK discussions that it should be presented to the French solely as a US paper. Mr. Hickerson stated our intention of wiring the text to our embassy in Paris with instructions that it be communicated directly by Ambassador Bruce to Mr. Schuman. Mr Meyers and Mr. Ferguson would proceed to Paris immediately to assist Ambassador Bruce.
There was some discussion of the extent to which the United Kingdom and France would be bound to follow in detail the program set forth in the United States paper in the event of agreement on a tripartite approach. Mr. Hickerson stated that the initial tripartite statement would cover most of the substantive points included in the paper. If a tripartite approach were made the United States would expect that in the General Debates and in the discussions in the Political Committee, the British and French would adhere fairly closely to the general principles of the program. After the completion of the General Assembly when the matter was referred to the new committee for regulation of armaments, which is anticipated will be created, the French and British would be free to supplement these proposals as they saw fit.
There was some discussion as to the problem of stages of disclosure. Mr. Hickerson said that in general the UK would be in a position even in the event of a tripartite approach to suggest stages which differed somewhat from those which the United States might approve provided that the general principle was followed of proceeding from the less to the more sensitive.
[Page 564]Mr. Meade handed to Mr. Hickerson a personal message from Mr. Morrison to Mr. Acheson.2 He agreed that this meeting answered the questions set forth in this personal message but suggested that a formal reply be made during the ensuing week.
Mr. Meade indicated the intention of the British to discuss this program with the older Dominions—Australia, New Zealand, Union of South Africa and Canada. Mr. Hickerson stated that he would fulfill his own commitments to inform the Canadians and at a later stage to notify Dr. Tsiang.3
There was some discussion of the possibility that France might wish to go along with the proposals while the United Kingdom would be unable to accept them. Mr. Meade ventured the opinion that if such a contingency arose the British would seek to persuade the French to go along with their proposals. If such persuasion were not successful the British would probably drop their objections to the proposal.