Office of the Historian

100. Telegram From the Department of State to the Delegation at the London Working Group1

Washington, April 29, 1955—8:12 p.m.

5580. To Beam. Reference your 4785 repeated Paris Topol 209, Moscow 200 Bonn 416 Vienna 142.2

1.
US views on meeting “at summit” have been made clear on numerous occasions, most recently by President at press conference April 27. He said: “Assuming that meeting [of Ambassadors in Vienna]3 will be successful, we will know then the Big Four will meet then in terms of their Foreign Ministers. And if that leads to something that might demand higher concurrence it is possible. But I say at this moment I see no reason for that summit meeting. But, as I say, anything might grow out of it.” See also President’s press conferences March 23 and March 30. While subject will clearly have to be discussed by Foreign Ministers, you should discourage British from thinking we are likely to agree to meeting of heads of government [Page 159] unless there has previously been Foreign Ministers’ meeting and unless it is clear from Foreign Ministers’ meeting that meeting at heads of government level would be useful and desirable.
2.
Re time of meeting, you should emphasize need for adequate preparation and coordination of views of Western governments before meeting. This will require not only further working group meeting but also opportunity for consideration its work by governments.
3.
We share doubts that Soviets will agree to meeting in NATO country and believe best solution is to propose site in neutral country. Subject suitable facilities, either Lugano or Stockholm would probably be acceptable. Inclined prefer former. Department studying technical problems and will comment further.
4.
We are somewhat concerned by reiteration of British statement (reference Embassy’s 4756 repeated Paris Topol 2054 and previous messages) that “invitation” for Four Power meeting will be issued to Soviets on May 12 or earlier. We have agreed that communiqué should be issued by Ministers in Paris after NATO meeting indicating their desire to meet with Soviets and that invitation would follow shortly. However wording of communiqué remains to be agreed by Ministers. Agree with position you took that this will be affected by status of Austrian problem at that time. If, for example, Ministers were to meet in Vienna on Austria shortly after NATO meeting, communiqué might indicate it was intention of Western Ministers to propose further conference to Molotov on that occasion. If matter is not dealt with by Foreign Ministers personally with Molotov, feel strongly there should be tripartitely agreed note to Soviets. (Reference London’s 48105)
5.
As you are aware, we wish conference with Soviets confined to European questions, particularly Germany. This point will be determined by the wording of communiqué and of note to Soviets if there is one. Assume working group will propose one or more drafts for describing purpose of conference for Ministers’ consideration.
6.
Your reports indicate working group is likely to engage in little discussion on substance of positions to be taken in meeting with Soviets and you need not press for such discussion. It would nevertheless be useful if paper could be prepared commenting on probable Soviet position and tactics and of basic Western purposes in [Page 160] conference. Believe such a paper would assist Ministers in Paris in discussions re substance and further preparatory work to be done.
Dulles
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 396.1/4–2755. Secret. Drafted by Reinstein; cleared by Elbrick, Merchant, BNA, EE, RA, and WE; and signed by Dulles. Repeated to Paris, Bonn, Moscow, and Vienna.↩
  2. Document 96.↩
  3. Brackets in the source text.↩
  4. Telegram 4756 reported on a U.N. disarmament subcommittee meeting on April 26. (Department of State, Central Files, 330.13/4–2655)↩
  5. Telegram 4810 reported that the French favored an oral invitation to the Soviet Union, while the United States opposed it. (Ibid., 396.1/4–2855)↩