Foreign Relations of the United States, 1951, Europe: Political and Economic Developments, Volume IV, Part 2

No. 642

398.00–MO/10–1251

Memorandum by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs (Bonbright) to the Deputy Under Secretary of State (Matthews)¹

secret

[Washington,] October 12, 1951.

Subject: Soviet-Inspired International Economic Conference Scheduled to be Held in Moscow in December²

The Problem:

The problem is to determine what the United States position should be and what action it should take with respect to the Soviet-sponsored “international economic conference” to be held in Moscow, probably in December.

Recommendations:

In the light of the background and the considerations set forth below, it is recommended:

1. That the Department issue a statement denouncing the purposes of the proposed Moscow economic conference. It is suggested that the statement:

• a) identify the conference with the “World Peace Council” and expose the WPC as a front organization established to further the aggressive purposes of the USSR,
• b) point out that the WPC has been set forth by Communist spokesmen as a rival to the United Nations,
• c) emphasize that there are a number of appropriate organizations for discussion of matters relating to international trade, particularly the various specialized economic agencies in the UN, and that the very fact that sponsors of the conference are attempting to bypass these agencies emphasizes its spurious nature,
• d) make plain that the causes of existing international tensions are not economic but essentially political and military in character,
• e) emphasize that the world cannot easily be deceived by mere variations on the “peaceful coexistence” theme, much less by transparent propaganda stunts designed to create mischief among the free nations,
• f) the Free Nations will never fail to respond to genuine and concrete Soviet actions which contribute substantively to the relaxation of current international tensions,
• g) until the Soviet Union substantiates its “peace” propaganda by concrete deeds the community of free nations has no alternative except to build up its collective strength.

2. That the statement be issued by the Secretary himself with a minimum of delay.³

3. That friendly governments—especially those of Western Europe and particularly the UK, France and Italy—be discreetly encouraged to make similar statements.

4. That the Department’s statement be fully exploited by all official media of information.

5. That after the conference is over every effort be made to utilize and exploit the statements and services of any disillusioned or disgruntled participants and that such defection be discreetly stimulated wherever possible.

Background:

1. The proposed international economic conference has its origins in the Soviet-sponsored World Peace Council, the top Communist front-organization devoted to the dissemination of fraudulent Soviet “peace” propaganda. It is one of a series of specialized international conferences, promoted by the Soviet international communist movement with a view to implementing Soviet aims and objectives, through propaganda.

2. The conference stems directly from a resolution adopted at the Berlin meeting of the WPC in February, 1951, which called for the convening of a general economic conference in the USSR. The resolution stated that “Economists, scientists, industrialists, businessmen and trade unionists of all countries will be invited.” Agenda was to include primarily the improvement of living conditions and international trade.

3. Convocation of the conference has been delayed and Communist publicity now indicates that it is to be held late in 1951, probably in December. Professor Oskar Lange, former Polish Ambassador in Washington, appears to be in charge of preparations. He is currently endeavoring to establish an “International Initiating Committee” of some 35–40 persons from about ten countries which would sponsor and call the conference as well as prepare its agenda.⁴ Preparations for the Moscow meeting are now under way on a world-wide basis.

4. In a strenuous effort to obtain distinguished non-Communist participation, the conference is being promoted without the customary Communist vituperation. Publicity attending it reflects rather sweet reasonableness and a Soviet “spirit of negotiation”. Spokesmen have thus emphasized that it will be entirely independent of WPC auspices and that there will be complete freedom of discussion. An effort will supposedly be made to agree on reasonable measures that can be carried out within the framework of existing systems and assurances are given that no attempt will be made to separate the European countries economically from the US. The conference is enthusiastically described as an opportunity to make a “real contribution to relaxation of current international tensions.”

5. Despite these assertions it has become apparent that this meeting will inevitably become another sounding board for Soviet propaganda. In this connection it is interesting to note that the USSR Peace Committee (an affiliate of the WPC) will be host to the conference when it meets in Moscow.

6. Although the “International Initiating Committee” is formally charged with preparation of the agenda, there are definite indications that the conference will become a stage for Soviet proposals designed to embarrass current US foreign policy. Discussion will apparently promote the theme of “peaceful coexistence” and the fiction that restrictions in East-West trade are a cause rather than an effect of existing international tensions.

Soviet Objectives:

It is evident that the main purpose of the USSR in organizing the proposed Moscow conference is to advance and publicize economic arguments in support of its “peace” offensive. These arguments seek to weaken the unity of purpose of the Free World and to weaken its support of policies and programs vigorously promoted by the US. They aim to split Western Europe from the US on the issues of East-West trade and rearmament, and finally to split non-Communist peoples from their governments.

The conference is directed principally at public opinion in Western Europe where critical currents like the opposition of Bevan’s rebel group or the latent “neutralism” in some French and Italian circles may be bolstered in their resistance to the current armament program. Generally it is aimed at all those throughout the world who are concerned with maintaining and improving current living standards.

As indicated previously, an important tactical objective of the Moscow meeting is to lure a maximum number of prominent non-communist Western economists to attend the conference in order to give it an air of respectability.

Discussion:

1. The US Government has sought consistently to expose the true character of the fraudulent Soviet “peace” offensive and to discredit its propaganda themes and projects. The very fact that Communist publicity endeavors to dissociate the Moscow conference from the WPC indicates that counter propaganda identifying and discrediting the various Soviet-sponsored “peace” fronts has achieved a certain measure of success.

2. The US should expose the conference for what it is—another Soviet-sponsored campaign aimed at the very foundations of the NATO program. The US cannot afford to leave unchallenged the misleading ideas which the conference will publicize and promote, nor can it appear to be indifferent to non-official US and allied participation. Such participation would appear to lend substance to Communist claims that public opinion in the NATO countries is seriously divided on the issues of rearmament and East-West trade. Furthermore, participation by respected Western personalities would refute our exposition that this is just another Communist propaganda phenomenon.

3. Western participation should therefore be firmly discouraged. However, in view of the economic difficulties which many Western European countries are presently facing, initiative in this matter is not likely to be taken by allied governments in Western Europe.

4. There are indications that a number of professional economists and businessmen, both here and in other non-Communist countries, are confused concerning the true nature and purposes of the conference. It is important, therefore, for the US Government publicly to state its position on the Moscow meeting before these reputable individuals have committed themselves to acceptance.

5. In order to present a unified front in this matter, it would be useful to encourage other friendly governments, particularly those of the NATO countries, to issue similar statements denouncing the conference. This they could do more easily after the US had taken the lead. These statements would discourage serious and patriotic Western economists and businessmen from attending the Moscow meeting, although they would admittedly not prevent attendance by Communists and fellow-travelers.

6. Although it would be convenient to introduce an element of opposition into the meeting through the presence of reliable Western delegates, there is little possibility that such a move could be successfully achieved, particularly in view of known communist ability to maintain rigid control over procedure and communications in meetings held in their home areas. Furthermore, it would be almost impossible to obtain reliable participants willing to assume public condemnation for attending and their presence would greatly weaken our efforts to brand the conference as a purely Communist affair.

1. Drafted by Revey (P/POL) and Smith (EUR/EE), and approved by Barbour (EUR/EE), Byington (EUR/WE), and Sargeant (P). Transmitted to Matthews through Counselor Bohlen together with a copy of an alternative position paper drafted by Helen Kirkpatrick (EUR/EE). The Kirkpatrick paper suggested the following course of action:

   “Western participation should not be unduly hampered, and careful steps should be taken to see to it that the western delegations are infiltrated with well-briefed, eloquent and skillful representatives of the western viewpoint. These delegates must be briefed by the Department, but the fact that they have been picked and briefed must not be revealed until after the Conference. It will be their task to disrupt, contradict and in every way possible sidetrack the Moscow discussion, and following the conference to use every media to expose the running of the conference and its objectives.”

   In a brief transmittal memorandum of October 13 to Bohlen, Assistant Secretary Perkins commented as follows:

   “I have not enough wisdom to justify overruling the memo that Jamie [Bonbright] has signed, although I admit that Helen’s suggestion has great appeal. Will you pass these papers on to Doc [Matthews] with whatever recommendation you think proper.”

   In a brief transmittal memorandum of October 18 to Matthews, Bohlen observed that on balance he agreed with Bonbright’s memorandum. Bohlen saw some advantages in Kirkpatrick’s view, but he felt that “the net gain would be relatively unimportant as compared with unquestioned risks and dangers.” Matthews’ marginal endorsement read: “On balance I agree with this, but am open to persuasion.”

2. Regarding this conference, see the circular airgram, Document 638.
3. The source text at this point includes the following handwritten addition, presumably by Barbour (EUR/EE): “after appropriate consultation with the British etc.”

4. In a circular airgram of October 2, 2:40 p.m., to diplomatic and consular offices, the Department of State reported that during the preceding several weeks copies of letters had been received on the projected International Economic Conference to be held in Moscow addressed to several different Americans by Oskar Lange. Lange used as his address the headquarters of the World Peace Council in Praha, Czechoslovakia. Lange’s letters, which were almost identical in form and content, invited the addressees to attend the conference, described its organization and purpose, and included the names of persons who had reportedly agreed to serve on the conference’s Initiating Committee. The airgram quoted paragraphs from one of the letters. (561.00/10–251) One of the letters under reference above, addressed to James P. Warburg, was sent to Secretary Acheson by Warburg on August 21. In a reply of August 29, Acheson acknowledged receipt of the copy of Lange’s letter and commented upon it in part as follows:

   “Past experience with meetings or conferences inspired and organized by the Communists makes it exceedingly doubtful whether such a ‘private and independent’ conference could genuinely provide for a businesslike, serious discussion and interchange of views on concrete subjects of economic and business relations without degenerating into a sounding board for Communist political and economic propaganda. Our preliminary view therefore coincides with yours that little could be achieved by this conference except to promote Soviet objectives.” (398.00–MO/8–2951)