193. Telegram From the Delegation at the Geneva Conference to the Department of State1

Secto 43. Meeting of four Foreign Ministers this morning devoted mainly to question of agenda for today’s meeting of heads of government.2 Macmillan suggested that subjects common to all four speeches yesterday should constitute agenda; namely, German Reunification, European Security, Disarmament, Development East-West Contacts. Molotov agreed that subjects of common interest were disarmament, European security, German problem and development of economic and cultural contacts. However Bulganin had mentioned additional questions yesterday on which Soviets would welcome comment: (1) Termination cold war, (2) attitude toward neutrality, and (3) Far East.

Secretary agreed with Macmillan’s proposal re list of subjects with following comments: Re development East-West contacts, President had spoken primarily about communication of knowledge and information rather than contacts of economic and cultural character to which Molotov had referred. Re three additional subjects suggested by Soviet Secretary said he thought omission of any reference to these subjects by President had occurred not through oversight but from feeling such subjects did not properly lend themselves to discussion here.

Pinay noted that Molotov had listed four common subjects in different order, and did not think the order would cause difficulty. Molotov said he had no objection to the order proposed by Macmillan. Pinay commented regarding end of cold war and re-establishment of atmosphere of trust, that once the four common questions above were solved, there would not be any cold war and trust would be restored. Therefore questioned usefulness including these items on agenda.

Molotov said Soviet Delegation had no objection to including communications in field of information along with contacts in economic and cultural fields.

Secretary indicated agreement with Pinay’s view that end of cold war and restoration atmosphere of trust and confidence would come about as we made progress in other areas rather than as result [Page 384] achieved arbitrarily or through discussion. He pointed to Bulganin’s refusal discuss problem of satellites and international communism which appeared to be major causes of distrust and tension so far as US concerned. Secretary stated that US had made its views clear re proposed declaration of neutrality by Austrian Government.3 We doubted that policy of so-called neutrality should be encouraged generally because we believed in principle expressed in UN Charter that broadly speaking there was duty of nations, subject to minor exceptions, to be prepared take collective action for preservation peace and prevention and removal of threats to peace. Neutrality was an unrealistic policy for country with large population and geological location of Germany. US had tried neutrality in 1914 and 1939 and found that it was dangerous for us and our friends. We considered Far East questions not proper topic for discussion at this conference where Asian nations concerned (principally National Government of China and People’s Republic) were not present.

Agreed that press would be informed of decision on four items agreed for afternoon’s meeting, and question of additional items would be left to decision of heads of government.

Molotov asked whether Foreign Ministers might not also exchange views on substance of questions on agenda as well as merely establishing list of items. Ministers agreed that insufficient time remained at this session, but no objection in principle to Foreign Ministers exchanging of views on the four common subjects if so desired by the heads of government.

  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 396.1–GE/7–1955. Secret; Priority. Repeated to London, Paris for Perkins, Moscow, and Bonn. The U.S. Delegation verbatim record, USDEL/Verb/M–1, July 19, and the record of decisions, CF/DOC/RD/3, July 20, are ibid., Conference Files: Lot 63 D 123, CF 509. The meeting began at 11 a.m. and adjourned at 12:20 p.m. For Merchant’s account, which is in substantial agreement with this record, see Recollections, pp. 33–34.
  2. See Document 197.
  3. See Document 76.