There are two other points concerning the speech of which I am sure you
have thought:
The trick is to do it sweetly and without giving him a chance to say that
we want “open sky” before there is any
disarmament or “open sky” with never any
disarmament.
[Enclosure]
Draft Letter From President Eisenhower to Chairman Bulganin4
New
York, February 3,
1956.
Your proposal would, it seems to me, inescapably narrow the impact of
the true spirit of the United Nations Charter. It now applies
equally to all of the 76 Members. Your proposal would narrow them to
two—or, if you include France and the United Kingdom, to four.
Americans believe that the small nations have proven that they make
a vital contribution to world peace and that it is not wise or just
to put them in an inferior category.
You point out that “the United States of America, like many other
states, after the creation of the United Nations became a party to a
large number of both bilateral and multilateral treaties and
agreements”. But these agreements were in no sense a substitution
for the ideals of the Charter. Regional agreements, such as those to
which the United States is a party, are in amplification of the
Charter’s aims. Agreements which fortify the aims of the Charter or
which provide for its application in special circumstances are—you
must surely recognize—at the opposite extreme from your proposal
which would put two or four powers in a separate category from the
rest of the world as regards the basic spirit of the Charter
itself.
I agree heartily with your statement that “the U.N. Charter itself
cannot be sufficiently effective if the two greatest powers in the
world—the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A.—do not harmonize their
relations”.
But, as I said before, this must be by deeds. Frankly, Marshal
Bulganin, we have had a
plethora of words. If all we needed to keep the peace were words, it
would have been guaranteed long ago. The time has come to do
something concrete.
That is why I proposed the Open Sky plan for photographing each
other’s military installations. The very simplicity and concreteness
of this plan is what has commended it to the mass of men and women
throughout the world and makes them eager to see it put into
effect.
The objection which you make to it seems to me to be neither
important nor well-founded. You ask the question:
[Page 316]
“What would the military leaders of your country do if it were
reported to them that the aerophotography showed that your neighbor
had more airfields?”
And then you answer your own question as follows:
“To be sure, they would order an immediate increase in the number of
their own airfields”.
Let me note in passing that in the United States the military leaders
do not determine questions of this kind because here we have
civilian control of the military. The establishment of airfields and
the voting of appropriations therefor are matters within the
jurisdiction of the Congress.
But the real fallacy in your comment on the Open Sky plan is that it
seeks to magnify a wholly secondary aspect of the plan, and ignores
the main purpose of it.
The main purpose of this plan is to convert air power into peace
power. This would make it impossible for either of us to make a
major surprise attack on the other. It would virtually eliminate the
danger of aggression, and that is certainly more important than the
mere number of airfields. Elimination of the danger of surprise
attack is a matter of transcending importance. It would eliminate
fear, which in turn would eliminate tension, which in turn would
make possible far-reaching disarmament in addition to the
disarmament measures which we are prepared to undertake now.
I realize that you have so far responded negatively to this idea. But
I do not despair. I remember that initially your government did not
endorse the Atoms for Peace plan. Yet you finally joined it. I
therefore bring up again the “Open Sky” plan and urge you once again
to join me in deeds which will make a reality of all the words to
which your nation and mine have already subscribed.
