Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957, Regulation of Armaments; Atomic Energy, Volume XX

275. Telegram From the Delegation to the Subcommittee of the United Nations Disarmament Commission to the Department of State¹

London, August 1, 1957—9 p.m.

Secto 18. USDel Disarmament No. 467. Paris for Embassy and USRO. Department pouch Ottawa. (For delivery to Perkins 9:00 a.m., August 2, 1957) Subject: Four-Power meeting, August 1, 1957, 3:30 p.m. Secretary, Lloyd, Pineau and Johnson² present.

Highlights:

1. Secretary led USDel at second Four-Power meeting today.³ Final version working paper on zones agreed by US, UK, France, for presentation subcommittee tomorrow if NATO, Canada responds favorably by meeting time. Pineau presented French views on number of subjects. General agreement Western Four reached on disposition of proposals regarding a) advance notification of troop movements; b) exchange of arms inventories; c) export-import of armaments; referal to governments being required in some cases.

Details:

2. Lloyd, summarizing, said UK, France, US now agreed on new U.S. formula on use (Secto 12, USDel 462⁴) with Canada still to be heard from.

3. Four discussed program of work for immediate future, agreed Western Four paper in treaty form would require considerable time to prepare and gain necessary approval. But all felt some type of informal Four-Power paper embodying Western proposals highly desirable if possible before recess and, in any case, before General Assembly convenes. Lloyd suggested recent British white paper on disarmament⁵ as type of document required.

4. Secretary expressed view informal paper possible to achieve in perhaps two to three weeks. Suggested subcommittee might then recess to permit Soviet study of Western proposals and Western drafting of concise paper which he estimated would probably take about one month.

5. Secretary suggested West might usefully press Soviets to agree to working groups of experts who, during recess, could begin to get down to details on questions where agreement in principle now exists.

6. Stassen, in response Secretary’s question, said remaining items in Western position for presentation are: a) zones of inspection; b) exchange of arms inventories; c) limits on transfer of fissionable material from one nation to another; d) formula on use; e) miscellaneous items. If Western Four can agree these matters and prompt NATO response obtained, he estimated oral presentation could be completed within two weeks.

7. Pineau commented on (a) latest version of inspection zones paper; (b) nuclear testing proposal; (c) definition of manpower; (d) advance notification proposal.

8. Zone paper. Pineau said France accepts July 31 working paper on zones.⁶ He added that in French view phrase “significant part of territory of Soviet Union” in 11.3, must not be understood as “restrictive” and West must press for largest possible portion of Soviet Union. He said smaller area of inspection, greater is danger of demilitarized areas developing. Position on relation of fixed to mobile control will also depend on size of zone. If area is small, mobility question is especially important for same reason as above. If area is larger, danger of demilitarization developing decreases. Size of zone would also determine extent of exchange of military information. However, he repeated France has no fundamental disagreement on present Western zone position.

9. Testing. Pineau reiterated that French testing position depends on link with nuclear weapons cut-off. Expressed French concern that test cessation must be real step toward disarmament, not just move designed stop countries not now testing from making tests. He said very difficult for France agree to more than 10 month test cessation, with understanding cessation could be extended additional 8 months. Cut-off must occur no later than 18 months after treaty goes into effect. Said test problem not one applying only France, but also to many other countries close to testing for first time.

10. Manpower. Pineau said very important reservists called back to active duty not included in manpower ceiling figures. Believes precautions this effect must be taken now so as not to restrict later interpretation. Figure must not include those called back from reserve nor those who obliged continue service beyond time required. If this exception not made, France would be required make four hundred thousand man reduction.

11. Advance notification proposal. Pineau said this proposal much more to advantage Soviet Union than West, particularly dangerous for countries trying protect overseas territories. As example, said notification French troop movement would be immediately passed to rebels in Algeria.

12. Procedure. Pineau expressed view very few substantive matters still to be settled by Western Four. Believed possible draft informal working paper with positive tone that would have good effect on public opinion.

13. Status of latest working paper on zones. Secretary reported general acceptance July 31 zone paper by Federal Republic with two qualifications: a) Specific dimensions of smaller European zone should not be put forward until Soviet response made to other zones, and until NATO has chance to review situation in light of Soviet response; b) must be made clear that area of ground inspection will be least coterminous with aerial inspection area.

14. Lloyd and Pineau agreed with Secretary that tactic requested in 13 (a) acceptable. Johnson said Canadian Government has wanted presentation 5–35 European zone immediately after Soviet rejection other zones, and must therefore reference his government regarding this change.

15. On 13 (b) Lloyd and Pineau agreed to Secretary’s redraft third sentence section III, 4, of July 31 working paper, reading, “it is understood that ground posts may be established by agreement at points in the territories of the states concerned without being restricted to the limits of the above described areas, but the areas open to ground inspection shall not be less than the areas of aerial inspection.”⁷Johnson said he must also reference his government this change and will seek reply on both points by tomorrow morning.

16. Secretary reported NAC will meet tomorrow morning on zone paper changes. Said he does not anticipate difficulty on final version. Secretary expressed opinion Western side would experience serious difficulty if not able present zonal proposals in subcommittee tomorrow. Lloyd and Pineau agreed with emphasis on need to proceed Friday.⁸

17. Western Four agreed that if necessary clearances obtained enabling presentation zone paper, US would present it. Others would support.

18. Exchange of inventories. Pineau agreed to exchange of arms inventories in zones, provided zones remain as large as area now contemplated by Western proposals. Secretary said he would seek promptly necessary change in present US policy this question. Lloyd said new position not yet technically approved by UK military but does not anticipate difficulty. Johnson said new formulation would be referred his government.

19. Export-import of armaments. Western Four agreed in principle to change sense of Article IX, paragraph (b) of draft Four Power proposals (revision II) from “to establish system for regulating export and import of designated armaments,” to, “to study system for regulation export and import of designated armaments”.⁹ Generally agreed that effective implementation original US proposal would be impossible to accomplish in first-step agreement, but some recognition Western desire to solve this problem would be valuable to include.

20. Four agreed hold further meeting 12:30 tomorrow, followed by working lunch at 1:15, during which it was expected NAC response¹⁰ would be received.

21. Publicity on zonal proposals. If zonal proposals presented subcommittee tomorrow, four agreed release text to press shortly after conclusion of meeting.

Dulles

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 330.13/8–157. Secret. Repeated to Paris, Bonn, Tokyo, and Moscow, and pouched to Ottawa.
2. David M. Johnson, Canadian Representative on the Subcommittee of the U.N. Disarmament Commission.
3. An account of the morning four-power meeting is in Secto 19 from London, August 1. (Department of State, Central Files, 330.13/8–157)
4. Dated July 31/August 1, midnight, not printed. (Ibid., 330.13/7–3157)
5. Reference is presumably to the British White Paper on Defence, printed in The New York Times, April 5, p. 4.
6. See footnote 2, Document 269.
7. This is the wording in the working paper submitted to the Subcommittee of the U.N. Disarmament Commission on August 2, printed in Documents on Disarmament, 1945–1959, vol. II, p. 838.
8. August 3.
9. Reference is to the Western working paper, eventually submitted to the disarmament subcommittee on August 29, printed in Documents on Disarmament, 1945–1959, vol. II, pp. 868–874.
10. See Document 277.