268. Telegram From the Delegation to the Subcommittee of the United Nations Disarmament Commission to the Department of State1
Secto 7. USDEL Disarmament No. 458. Subject: Four-Power meeting, July 30, 1957, 3:00 p.m.
Highlights:
1. The Secretary led US Delegation in Four Power meeting at Foreign Office today. Principal matters discussed were aerial and ground inspection zones, formula on non-use nuclear weapons and inventories of military installations and armed force.
Details:
2. Discussions of inspection zones centered around paper drafted by USDEL based upon previous UK and French papers on tactics for presenting Western proposals on zones to subcommittee. Paper follows by pouch.2
3. Moch objected to principle of linking ground and aerial inspection in same paper, preferred speak only of aerial and prepare subsequent paper on ground inspection. Moch felt this would lead to neutralized zone in Europe. The Secretary explained that aerial and [Page 670] ground inspection would of course be coterminous for inspection in entire territories of US, Canada and European Allies together with all of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. In case of more limited zone, US paper emphasized ground inspection only in proposals involving the US. The Secretary further explained this based on US position that aerial inspection without mobile ground inspection was inadequate.
4. Selwyn Lloyd suggested that unless aerial inspection zone proposed for Europe public might view Western proposals as retreat because of Soviet acceptance of principle of aerial inspection in Europe.
5. The Secretary related that proposals went much further than previously since all of Europe was being proposed for inspection. Furthermore US had accepted principle of ground inspection as well as aerial inspection which represented evolution since original Open Skies proposal.
6. Moch expressed belief Western Four must define what they meant by ground inspection since French had contemplated fixed control posts rather than mobile inspection teams. The Secretary agreed this was heart of matter and referred to paragraph in US paper under discussion which proposed that working group of experts be set up to examine technical problems. Secretary recalled that Selwyn Lloyd had proposed this previously and pointed out that since character of inspection might have serious political implications it would not be profitable to go into area of inspection zones in Europe until nature of ground inspection could be further defined.
7. The Secretary emphasized that almost every conceivable political problem existed in Europe and that agreement in principle to a European inspection zone might reap a harvest of liabilities. Soviet strategy might well be that of proposing that West yield on a series of political problems before Soviet would agree to establish aerial and ground inspection systems. USSR could thereby use good hopes of Western democracies as lever to gain political ends. The Secretary stated his judgement was USSR would be unwilling to accept the kind of inspection which the West would require.
8. Regarding tactics on presenting Western proposals on aerial and ground inspection to the subcommittee, the Secretary stated that he felt the Western Four should first propose a large area of inspection involving all of Europe, all of the Soviet Union and the US and Canada. If the Soviet Union was not willing to accept this proposal, the West should offer the USSR the alternative of an aerial inspection zone in an area free of political problems. Such an area would be the Arctic, although from the point of view of gaining experience in techniques and providing a trial period of cooperation with the Soviet Union any other area similarly devoid of political difficulties would be acceptable; the US was not seeking a special preference for itself in this matter.
[Page 671]9. Selwyn Lloyd reiterated opinion that the Western Four should propose inspection zone in Europe extending from Atlantic to Urals. He felt public opinion would understand this proposal. There also should be reference to acceptance of the Bulganin fixed control posts for the purpose of warning against surprise attack. At suggestion of Secretary, UK drafted proposal along lines of sixth report to NATO (July 16).3 Paper follows by pouch.4 Reference made, as in US paper, to a more limited zone of aerial inspection in Europe which would extend over a significant part of the territory of the Soviet Union. Preliminary discussions were held on this paper but completion of discussions was put over to meeting to be held on July 31.
10. Draft Four Power proposals briefly examined with special attention to unresolved questions concerning a formula on the non-use of nuclear weapons. Selwyn Lloyd expressed reservations on US proposal, fearing that this would weaken the deterrent. Moch likewise expressed reservations but said he could accept “double negative” proposal prepared by French Delegation. Secretary stated he would recommend dropping the entire topic from Western proposal since Soviets apparently had already rejected it anyway. Moch and Lloyd agreed to do this although stating they could re-affirm the classical Western formula on non-use of nuclear weapons except in defense against aggression.
11. The Secretary stated that US not willing to provide inventories of its military establishment until it had right to verify accuracy of Soviet inventories. US therefore could not accept proposals for exchange of military inventories of entire territories of US and USSR unless entire territories of both under inspection. He believed concept of verification of inventory within zone should be retained and put into a context which would not involve reductions in armaments and armed forces. Selwyn Lloyd expressed the opinion that there was great force in this explanation.
12. The Western Four agreed in a brief discussion of the report due to the Disarmament Commission on August 1 that they should stand firm on a sentence in the report to read: “The subcommittee is continuing its work and will submit a further report”.
[Page 672]13. It was agreed that the US would seek a postponement of the subcommittee meeting of July 31 and instead US would act as host for luncheon of five principals of subcommittee. It was also agreed that the Four Powers would meet again at 11:00 am, Wednesday, July 31. The meeting ended at 7:30 pm.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 330.13/7–3057. Secret. Repeated to Paris for Embassy and USRO, Bonn, Moscow, and Tokyo, and pouched to Ottawa.↩
- Not found in Department of State files.↩
- Reference is to the Western powers’ proposals on inspection zones and missiles transmitted to NATO by the United Kingdom and summarized in telegram 417 from London, July 16. (Department of State, Central Files, 330.13/7–1657)↩
- Not found in Department of State files.↩