330.13/6–453
The Secretary of State to the United States Representative at the United Nations (Lodge)1
Dear Cabot: I understand you have inquired whether the resumption of discussions in the United Nations Disarmament Commission at this time would conflict with the priorities assigned to other US–USSR issues in testing the Soviet desire to reach a peaceful accommodation with the West.
We have reached the conclusion that extensive negotiations with the USSR on the subject of disarmament would at the moment be inappropriate to probe Soviet intentions and that bilateral or multilateral discussions with the Soviet Union could more profitably concentrate at the outset on other major international problems. Only after considerable progress towards adjusting these other problems has been achieved would there appear to be any likelihood of securing an agreed disarmament program which would safeguard our interests.
Despite this U.S. policy, it would be neither possible nor desirable to avoid United Nations discussion of disarmament. The recent General Assembly resolution on this subject, which we sponsored, requests the Disarmament Commission to continue its work and requires the Commission to report by September 1, 1953 to the General Assembly and Security Council.2 In view of this situation, and because of the pressure of international public and governmental opinion, the United States should use the Disarmament Commission primarily to explore the weakness of the Soviet disarmament position and to determine how far the USSR will go, at least in public utterances, toward support of a sound disarmament program. In other words, the United States should concentrate, so far as feasible, on pressing the USSR to explain in detail its concepts of an acceptable disarmament program, rather than bringing forward new United States positions. We should seek to avoid creating confusion between this type of operation and genuine progress toward disarmament, which could arise only as a result of a major change in Soviet attitude.
Therefore, the United States should consider the proceedings in the Disarmament Commission as in the nature of a “holding operation”. A more precise definition of what is meant by this phrase is set forth in the paper approved by the Executive Committee on Regulation of Armaments (RAC) on May 11, 1953 entitled “Policy [Page 1176] Guidance Governing United States Activities in the United Nations Disarmament Commission for the Period May through September, 1953.”3
You will recall that the President, in his speech of April 16, 1953, placed major emphasis on disarmament, while at the same time making it clear that agreement on this important problem would come only as progress towards settlement of certain other political issues strengthens world trust. The “holding operation” in the Disarmament Commission, of the nature described in the RAC paper to which I referred, follows this approach.
I suggest, therefore, that you may wish to communicate with your friendly colleagues on the Disarmament Commission, explaining our views as generally outlined in the reference paper, and ascertaining their reaction to this line. I believe that it would be advisable to resume deliberations in the Disarmament Commission within the fairly near future, probably before the middle of June, and assure you that the Department will do everything possible to ensure you are provided with all the necessary support for this operation.
Sincerely yours,