317. Telegram From the Delegation at the Foreign Ministers Meetings to the Department of State1
Secto 157. Following is brief summary second meeting Committee of Experts, November 3. Jackson opened with sincere appeal to find maximum area of agreement. However necessary point out certain misconceptions in Soviet draft proposal and Vinogradov’s presentation yesterday:2 (1) Area of trade covered by strategic controls is in fact a small portion of total potential trade between East and West and cannot be correctly regarded as an obstacle to peaceful trade; (2) US Delegation at loss understand references to navigation and hope the specifics would be brought forward in working group; (3) Believed only possible for experts to speak for their own nations, important to clarify this basic jurisdictional limitation with reference entire Soviet proposal; (4) With this in mind paragraph 4 Soviet proposal which suggested four-power declaration in favor participation in international specialized agencies of all states so desiring could not be considered within purview this conference; (5) Re Soviet reference to new conference on use atomic energy for public health wished point out US had sponsored specialized UN agency for peaceful uses, and believed advisable leave question conference on public health to WHO; (6) However, paragraph 5 Soviet document referred to cultural exchanges, exchanges of people, publications, etc., and as suggested was in substantial agreement with Western proposals and should be carefully discussed in working group; (7) Finally, US Delegation cannot accept the Soviet proposal as the sole basis for the work of the committee or its working groups but could accept as one of the papers for discussion and as representing some of the items worthy of further exploration.
French expert Baillou explained joint Western proposals which had been criticized yesterday by Vinogradov as both too narrow and too wide and not representing a four-power position. It was the purpose of the West to obtain four-power agreement on as many of the listed items as possible. He made following points: (1) Minister Pinay had made it clear in his speech of October 31 introducing the three-power memorandum3 that there was no desire whatsoever to interfere [Page 669] with the internal jurisdiction of any nation; (2) The document is believed to be wholly in accord with the summit directive; (3) In answer to Soviet reproach of subordination of trade item, memorandum followed summit directive by mentioning contacts first and trade second; it would be improper to put all the emphasis on trade as suggested by the Soviet Delegation; (4) He emphasized distinction between peaceful trade and that small portion of trade covered by strategic controls; (5) Three-power memorandum gives proper emphasis to concrete proposals in the field of cultural and scientific exchanges which if accepted would give rise to improvement in human relationships.
UK expert Grey then followed with two general observations: (1) Studies of the working groups should not be confined to those areas on which agreement already exists or even those items listed in the two documents but discussions should be free to cover all problems that may exist in East-West contacts; (2) UK wish to reserve right to introduce new items not contained in either document either in working groups or in the committee. Then as chairman he suggested that the two working groups now be constituted as agreed previously and called for the other experts to nominate spokesmen for each group. This procedure was accepted and the following were nominated: Group one—contacts: UK, Hohler; French, Manac’h; USSR, Kemenov; US, Stoessel. Group two—trade: UK, Tippetts; French, D’Harcourt; USSR, Cheklin; US, Goodkind. Separate cables follow on working group meetings.4
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 396.1–GE/11–355. Confidential. Repeated to Paris, London, Bonn, Moscow, and the Mission in New York. Passed to Defense. The second meeting of the Committee on Experts on East-West Contacts took place at 10 a.m.↩
- For text of the Soviet proposal, see Foreign Ministers Meeting, pp. 239–240, or Cmd. 9633, p. 163; for a report of the first meeting of experts, see Document 314.↩
- For text of the tripartite memorandum on East-West contacts, see Foreign Ministers Meeting, pp. 245–248, or Cmd. 9633, pp. 164–166.↩
- The Working Group on Contacts met twice on November 3 but was unable to agree on any matter including the agenda for their work. (Secto 160 from Geneva, November 4; Department of State, Central Files, 396.1–GE/11–455) The Working Group on Trade meet for 3 hours, agreed on an agenda, discussed most-favored-nation treatment, and agreed to ask whether civil aviation and shipping problems should be considered under their jurisdiction. (Secto 159 from Geneva, November 4; ibid.)↩