Office of the Historian

318. Memorandum of the Conversation at a Luncheon of the Foreign Ministers of the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, Geneva, November 3, 1955, 1:15 p.m.1

Geneva, November 3, 1955, 1:15 p.m.

USDel/MC/21

SUBJECT

  • Disarmament

PARTICIPANTS

  • United States
    • The Secretary
    • Mr. MacArthur
    • Mr. Bowie
    • Mr. Wainhouse
  • United Kingdom
    • Mr. Macmillan
    • Mr. Pink
    • Mr. Hancock
    • Mr. Thring
    • Mr. MacKenzie
  • France
    • M. Pinay
    • M. De Menthon
    • M. Genevey
    • M. Sauvagnargues

At lunch given by Foreign Minister Macmillan today, the following points came up during a discussion of Agenda Item II, “Disarmament.”

1.
With respect to the tactics to be employed at the Conference, it was generally agreed that there would be a general round of views on disarmament by the Foreign Ministers, this possibly taking two meetings. It was thought that Mr. Molotov would probably table a paper on the opening day of the discussion.
2.
It was agreed that following the general round of views we should consider having a “restricted session” for the discussion of the draft declaration2 but we should retain the right to make the declaration public since the Soviets, if they table a paper, will probably make theirs public.
3.
In general, there was agreement on the text of the declaration. The French, however, submitted a revision of paragraph 3–a. No decision was taken on this revision which is to be considered by the Experts.
4.
The Secretary surmised that Mr. Molotov will table a resounding resolution dealing with reduction of forces and prohibition of the bomb. Mr. Macmillan stated that we were not in a position to make detailed proposals since both the US and the UK were in the midst of reviewing their policies. He felt that if we came out with a Four-Power declaration that would be something. The Secretary stated that the problem public opinion-wise was to tide over the next three months. Mr. Bowie felt that (a) the President’s proposal;3 (b) inspection and control; and (c) our position that we are willing to make reductions, if there is an effective system of inspection and control, should help us to tide over.
5.
Since the US review of its disarmament policy is not likely to be ready before January 15, with the British likewise engaged in a review, it was felt that the Subcommittee of the United Nations Disarmament Commission should not meet before February, for following the firming up of the US position there should be tripartite meetings with the Canadians also included to develop an agreed position for US, UK, France, and Canada to take in the Subcommittee.
6.
It was generally agreed that the Foreign Ministers should (a) emphasize the President’s proposal as a prelude which would facilitate getting on with the Disarmament problem; (b) stress the importance of inspection and control; and (c) express strong interest in the reduction and limitation of armaments under proper safeguards.
7.
It was agreed that the Tripartite Disarmament Working Group should continue to work together on disarmament and that when “Disarmament” is being discussed at the conference they should meet every morning to discuss and recommend tactics to the three Ministers.4
  1. Source: Department of State, Conference Files: Lot 60 D 627, CF 574. Confidential. Drafted by Wainhouse on November 5.↩
  2. Reference is to a draft tripartite declaration on disarmament that had been discussed by the Tripartite Working Group on Disarmament in Washington; see Document 136. For text of this declaration as submitted by the Western powers on November 10, see Foreign Ministers Meeting, pp. 199–201, or Cmd. 9633, pp. 132–133.↩
  3. For text of President Eisenhower’s “Open Skies” proposal, see Document 221.↩
  4. The Tripartite Disarmament Working Group met on November 5 and revised the wording of paragraphs 3 and 6 of the draft declaration. In the discussion which followed it was agreed that each side would prepare answers for questions that might be raised during the consideration of disarmament by the Foreign Ministers and that these would be exchanged before the item was discussed. A memorandum of the conversation at this meeting, USDel/MC/23, November 5, is in Department of State, Conference Files: Lot 60 D 627, CF 609.↩