[Tab A]
The Department of State
to the British Embassy3
secret
Aide-Mémoire
The Department of State refers to the British Embassy’s Aide-Mémoire of March 5, 1954, containing Mr. Eden’s views on the reply which
might be made to the Soviet proposals for a ban on the use of atomic and
hydrogen weapons. This problem has been under consideration for sometime
within the United States Government, which is of course constantly
reviewing its disarmament positions to determine their continuing
validity.
The Department of State agrees with Mr. Eden’s view that the Western Powers could not agree to
this Soviet proposal without grave risks to their security. A mere
declaration abjuring the use of these weapons cannot be accepted, since
it is not supported by effective safeguards to ensure that the agreement
will be observed. Furthermore, such an agreement would not prevent the
accumulation of stockpiles of weapons sufficient to destroy our major
cities and industries and even to damage gravely western civilization as
we now know it, should this unsafeguarded agreement be broken.
As Mr. Eden has pointed out,
mass destruction weapons should be eliminated as part of a general
agreement on disarmament which would also include a substantial balanced
reduction of all armed forces and non-atomic armaments, under an
effective system of controls and safeguards which would assure that no
state should have cause to fear that its security was in danger.
While concurring in the general line suggested by Mr. Eden for reply to the Soviet
proposal, we suggest that this might be modified slightly so that it
would read somewhat as follows:
“The Western Powers are second to none in wishing to achieve
elimination of major weapons adaptable to mass destruction. They
certainly agree that the disarmament system for which we are
working should provide for the prohibition of the production,
storing and use of atomic and hydrogen weapons, but believe that
this can only be accomplished as a result of an effective system
of safeguards which will ensure that agreements of this nature
will be observed. They have always maintained this, and it has
been provided for in every General Assembly resolution on
disarmament.
“The Western Powers believe that a mere declaration abjuring the
use of these weapons and which lacks adequate safeguards against
violations or evasions does not lessen the danger of war nor
[Page 1423]
the destructiveness
of war if it should come. The Soviet proposal would do nothing
to prevent the accumulation of stocks of materials for major
weapons adaptable to mass destruction, sufficient to destroy
major areas of the world if not to wound mortally our
civilization, as Mr. Malenkov has pointed out.
“The United Nations has also made it clear that world security
can only come about through balanced disarmament, applied to
armed forces and to all manner of armaments in such a manner
that the security of all States will be assured. In this
connection, it should be pointed out that the United Nations has
recognized that it is aggression which is the gravest of all
crimes against peace and security, rather than the use of any
particular weapon. Our ultimate objective is to prevent war of
any kind. Our immediate objective is to eliminate the
possibility of any successful aggression by such a substantial
balanced reduction of armaments and armed forces, including the
elimination of atomic weapons, that the possibility of an
aggression achieving its goal will be virtually removed.
“We still maintain that progress toward disarmament should be on
the basis of the resolutions of the General assembly, of which
the most recent provides that the whole disarmament program,
including the elimination and prohibition of atomic weapons and
major weapons adaptable to mass destruction, should be carried
out under effective international control and in such a way that
no state would have cause to fear that its security was in
danger.
“For their part, the Western Powers are individually prepared to
renew their solemn assurances that they will not use either
weapons of mass destruction or any other weapons except to repel
aggression. Nor will they threaten to employ these weapons or
use them in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of
the United Nations.”
The Department of State suggests that it would be advisable to work out
an agreed statement of the above general nature at the forthcoming
meeting in London of the staffs of the United Kingdom, Canadian and
French and United States Delegations, in preparation for the Disarmament
Commission subcommittee’s meetings.
