Office of the Historian

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

Geneva, November 16, 1955—9 p.m.

Secto 339. Morning session of 16th meeting November 16 devoted to brief discussion Soviet delegation resolution presented at previous meeting.2 In commenting on what Soviet resolution referred to [Page 801] as “concurrence of positions with regard to a number of important questions pertaining to European security” Secretary said he neither ignored fact that certain parallelism had developed nor did he minimize importance that fact.3 He referred to his own earlier statement calling attention to parallel aspects but pointed out that statement was made before Soviet delegation position re German reunification had been fully exposed. Differences which subsequently emerged relating to Germany, revealed considerable measure disagreement as far as European security concerned. Exchange of opinions indicated that if basic insecurity due to division of Germany could be eliminated other security aspects could perhaps be resolved. Soviet paper gives somewhat false impression because it does not adequately develop strong views of Western Powers that there can not be security with continued division of Germany. Soviet draft resolution also fails reflect value placed by Western Powers on NATO and WEU in relation security. Secretary mentioned difficulties of agreeing on precise wording of security points covering highly technical matters which require careful weighing by experts. For these reasons Secretary recommended that Ministers let record speak for itself.

2.
Pinay took similar position, stating that apparent concurrence of positions was one of formal concurrence rather than of substance. Soviet draft ignores basic divergence of views and Western refusal accept Soviet approach to security which would maintain division of Europe and bring about progressive elimination Western organizations for collective defense. Whenever four powers agree on common concept and goals for European security, then coincidence of views noted by Soviet delegation will have true meaning.
3.
After Macmillan had indicated complete agreement his government with statements by Secretary and Pinay, Molotov made brief statement in rebuttal and then moved discussion item 1 be considered completed. Morning session was adjourned as soon as it was ascertained none of four Ministers had additional points to raise at conference.
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 396.1–GE/11–1655. Secret. Repeated to London, Paris, Bonn, Moscow, and Berlin. The U.S. Delegation verbatim record of the sixteenth meeting, USDel/Verb/16 (Corrected), and the record of decisions, MFM/DOC/RD/16, both dated November 16, are ibid., Conference Files: Lot 60 D 627, CF 587. The meeting took place at 11:30 a.m. on November 16.↩
  2. For text of the Soviet proposal, see Foreign Ministers Meeting, pp. 174–175, or Cmd. 9633, p. 109.↩
  3. For text of Dulles’ statement, circulated as MFM/DOC/80, see Foreign Ministers Meeting, pp. 175–176.↩