Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957, Austrian State Treaty; Summit and Foreign Ministers Meetings, 1955, Volume V

373. Telegram From the Delegation at the Foreign Ministers Meetings to the Department of State¹

Geneva, November 15, 1955—10 p.m.

Secto 312. East-West Contacts. Meeting convened 10:30 today with Macmillan in chair. Molotov, first speaker, reviewed actions taken by Soviets to implement decisions heads of government and then stated that while French draft tabled November 14,² represents step forward, it also contains proposals acceptance of which inadvisable.³ Molotov here tabled and read Soviet revision French draft.⁴ This Soviet draft sent Department separate telegram.

At suggestion Dulles, meeting recessed for 20 minutes to study Soviet paper. On return. Secretary made following points:⁵

(a) US would have been willing to accept French draft of yesterday had Soviets accepted it. However, present Soviet proposal does not meet directive because it permits practically nothing designed to permit exchange ideas and information.

(b) Secretary read points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 16, and 17 of Western memorandum⁶ and pointed out that these items rejected either totally or in important part by Soviet delegation.

(c) Secretary recalled remarks he made yesterday that we consider peace not solidly based unless peoples of different countries can have access to what other peoples believe and think. Because Soviet paper would perpetuate what we term a very grave danger to peace and good understanding between peoples, because it does not seem to us to comply with the directive guiding us, we do not find it acceptable.

Pinay also referred to directive calling for elimination of barriers and stated that so long such barriers stand it will be impossible to hope for real progress. Exchanges now in existence will, of course, continue and perhaps even increase somewhat but they will always be narrow and limited if confined only to small number of people. Pinay also explained that French draft a coherent whole representing effort at compromise on question East-West contacts.

Macmillan expressed admiration Dulles’ remarks on differences between Soviet document and Western memorandum [as] well as French text of November 14.⁷ He then said, “I would still hope that Russian delegation might be able to accept French draft but if they are unable to do so I think it would really be better for us abandon attempt to get agreed document and to let these papers, when they are published to world speak for themselves. At present there seems real difference of view between two sides which cannot be bridged. Perhaps the time will come when we shall move closer together. We believe in the free movement of ideas and of people. The Soviet Government wants to restrict and control both. We want no countries to be isolated. The Soviet Government, as we know from experts discussions, wants to protect their people from corruption of Western thought. We have confidence in our people. We believe that freedom of thought is only sound basis of democratic and free people. The Soviet Government believes either in total exclusion certain ideas or in rigid censorship. These are fundamental differences”. Molotov, in disagreeable, wearisome speech, advanced following arguments:⁸ (a) Any objective presentation would recognize that Soviet draft reflects all points we can have in common between us and all steps which under present conditions would contribute to improvement and development contacts. (b) Speeches of Western Foreign Ministers endeavored to shelve possibility of agreement. (c) Western proposals do not accord either with proposals advanced at heads of government conference, with directive or with spirit of Geneva. (d) Proposal for information centers directed against Soviet Government. Such centers set up in satellites served as centers intelligence activity and were closed. Soviet Government has no intention allowing them to operate. (e) Proposal on tourism raises matter ruble rate which represents crude intervention in domestic Soviet affairs. (f) Proposal on direct air transport included in Western memorandum to complicate possibility reaching agreement this matter. (g) In fact most paragraphs of tripartite memorandum spearheaded against USSR and so formulated as to make them unacceptable to Soviet Union. (h) Necessary only to read proposals of Faure at Geneva conference⁹ to see that Western memorandum does not conform to directive or to spirit of Geneva. (i) Perhaps French delegation no longer supports Faure proposals because now four months later it committed to 17 point Western memorandum. (j) Soviets still of opinion that principal aspect development of contacts is development economic and trade relations. Soviets prepared to wait until others see for themselves that position of discrimination has negative effect so far as Western countries concerned. (k) Hope that British position will not again prevent holding congress supporters of peace in Britain; that French will permit Russian Ballet to dance in France and that it will now be easier for delegations agriculturalists and journalists from USSR to visit US.

Secretary stated he cannot overlook and must categorically reject serious charge made by Molotov that Western Powers deliberately formulated their proposals in bad faith with view to bringing about their rejection.¹⁰ He then said “We had thought that socialism was fully established within the USSR so that it would not topple if perchance some contradictory ideas found their way into Soviet Union; but apparently socialism is not as strongly established as we had thought. Nervousness and fear on behalf of Soviet Government for its own future is something we will have to take into account and evaluate when we consider results this conference and possibility further contacts.” Secretary concluded by saying that process of increased contacts may perhaps proceed more surely as a living process than by dependence upon negotiation. The US does not intend to slacken its efforts.

Pinay, after brief interchange with Molotov, pointed out that proposals in French draft are in full harmony with those submitted by Faure in July. In fact, three-fourths of Faure proposals are repeated in new French draft. Attitude taken by Soviet delegation shows Soviets departing from directives of four governments and Geneva spirit. On matter of Russian Ballet, Pinay emphasized that Paris performance cancelled to protect Russian artists from actions which might have become violent on part of people who fought in French Indochina; that hostility caused by Soviet intervention in that war, just as Molotov knows well large quantities equipment of Russian origin found in that area. I must say, he added, that happened a good bit before Molotov criticized item 2 Western memorandum on ground that information centers designed for espionage purpose and that these centers closed in satellite countries would not be permitted to open. However, when this subject discussed in Expert Committee, Macmillan remarked, the Soviet representatives proposed that this might be reserved for bilateral negotiations. This example, he said, shows what would have happened to bilateral negotiations had they started.

Discussion terminated 1:25 p.m.

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 396.1–GE/11–1555. Secret. Repeated to London, Paris, Bonn, Moscow, and the Mission at the United Nations. The U.S. Delegation verbatim record of the fourteenth Foreign Ministers meeting, USDel/Verb/14 (Corrected), and the record of decisions, MFM/DOC/RD/14, both dated November 14, are ibid., Conference Files: Lot 60 D 627, CF 586.
2. For text of the French proposal, see Foreign Ministers Meeting, pp. 266–267, or Cmd. 9633, pp. 166–167.
3. For text of Molotov’s statement, circulated as MFM/DOC/72, see Foreign Ministers Meeting, pp. 267–269, or Cmd. 9633, pp. 159–160.
4. For text of the Soviet proposal, circulated as MFM/DOC/63, see Foreign Ministers Meeting, pp. 269–270, or Cmd. 9633, pp. 167–168. The text of this proposal was transmitted in Secto 306 from Geneva, November 15. (Department of State, Central Files, 396.1–GE/11–1555)
5. For text of Dulles’ statement, circulated as MFM/DOC/64, see Foreign Ministers Meeting, pp. 270–272, or Cmd. 9633, pp. 160–161.
6. For text of the Western proposal on East-West contacts, see Foreign Ministers Meeting, pp. 245–248, or Cmd. 9633, pp. 164–166.
7. For text of Macmillan’s statement, which was not assigned a conference number, see ibid., pp. 161–162.
8. For text of Molotov’s statement, circulated as MFM/DOC/73, see Foreign Ministers Meeting, pp. 272–277.
9. See Document 256.
10. For text of Dulles’ statement, circulated as MFM/DOC/65, see Foreign Ministers Meeting, pp. 277–279.