Office of the Historian

310. Telegram From the Mission at the United Nations to the Department of State1

New York, November 5, 1957—7 p.m.

Delga 369. Re disarmament. Informal purely social lunch today at which Kuznetsov, Sobolev, Zarubin and Novikov2 were present on Soviet side and lodge, Wadsworth, Sisco3 and Pratt4 for U.S. only item of business discussed was introduced by Kuzetsov, who inquired what U.S. expected as result current disarmament debate.

When replied we expected passage 24-power resolution,5Kuznetsov asserted passage of resolution would not mean progress. U.S. should give more attention to Soviet proposal for 82-nation commission which would give all countries chance participate in discussion.6 He made it clear that his real reason for favoring 82-nation committee was because under its aegis private conversations could be held, as he said looking around and holding out both hands, “like this one”—in other words, bilateral U.S.–Soviet talks. Expense of large body would not be great since permanent representatives always here. Sobolev [Page 757] said expansion of subcommittee by 2 or 3 would do no good. Even if India, Sweden and Mexico were added, subcommittee would be “just as bad”.

Lodge
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 330.13/11–557. Confidential.↩
  2. Kirill Vasilevich Novikov, Soviet delegate to the U.N. General Assembly.↩
  3. Joseph J. Sisco, Officer in Charge, U.N. Political Affairs.↩
  4. James W. Pratt, adviser, political and security affairs, U.S. Delegation, U.N. General Assembly.↩
  5. The 24-power draft resolution, first submitted to the U.N. General Assembly on October 11 by several non-Communist nations, including the United States (U.N. doc. A/C.1/L.179), and subsequently adopted with amendments as General Assembly Resolution 1148 (XII) on November 14, is printed in Documents on Disarmament, 1945–1959, vol. II, pp. 914–915.↩
  6. The Soviet draft proposal, submitted to the U.N. General Assembly on September 24 and later revised (U.N. doc. A/C1/L.175 and Rev. 1), was rejected by the First Committee on November 6 by a vote of 45–11.↩