190. Record of the Secretary of State’s Staff Meeting, Department of State, Washington, September 26, 1960, 9:15 a.m.1
[Here follows discussion of items 1, “Intelligence” and 2, “Tito–Nasser Trips.”]
3. UN Developments
Mr. Hare said he hoped Nasser would talk firmly and frankly with Khrushchev. He has done so in the past in private and may do so again. Mr. Hare reported that Nasser apparently was not pleased with his visit with Castro, particularly the way in which Castro was living. Mr. Merchant remarked that it does not do us much good so far as world opinion is concerned if the Neutralist leaders play up to the Soviets in public but then excuse themselves in private to us. The Russians always play tougher than we do and the Neutrals sometimes take advantage of this.
Mr. Henderson remarked that he was not optimistic regarding the “boomerang effect” of Khrushchev’s attack against the UN. His experience has been that the Soviets usually are successful in bringing down any man they aim at. Mr. Merchant said we can certainly not discount the seriousness of Khrushchev’s attack. Also, he felt that Nkrumah’s speech at the UN2 had really been much more sinister than Khrushchev’s. Mr. Hare commented that we should not take the Neutrals too literally. Most of them are of two minds on any problem and they are not fixed in their positions. He thought there was no harm in defending ourselves against attacks from the Neutralists but we should understand this aspect of their thinking.
There was discussion of the French role in the UN. Couve has already left and it is clear we cannot expect much from the French. They say they will go along with the UK–US line but they will not take the lead.
In responding to the Soviet declaration of war against the UN, we hope that Macmillan will make a major riposte on the Colonial issue. Mr. Kohler said the Department should start getting together now material on Colonialism in Soviet Central Asia for use by the UK or the US. Mr. Merchant thought this could be helpful, although he felt that we should not expect much mileage on this subject with the Neutrals. Mr. Henderson agreed, saying that, for the Africans, Colonialism means the tyranny of light skinned peoples over dark skinned [Page 357] peoples. Mr. Merchant added that the facts are good and the situation in the USSR is outrageous; we should not abandon the issue but simply should not expect too much from it.
Mr. Wallner reported that the Soviets have proposed a resolution in the General Committee on Colonialism.3 Mr. Kohler felt this would give us a good opportunity to push further the facts about Soviet Colonialism.
Mr. Kohler said it had been agreed that we should file a resolution to the Soviet resolution charging us with increasing tensions. Our resolution will be a blanket attack against Soviet actions and should be filed later. Thereafter, we could focus on any one particular issue. We might wish to concentrate on Germany and Berlin, recalling the 1951 General Assembly resolution for UN commissions to enter Germany to see if conditions were satisfactory for general elections.4
[Here follow discussion of items 4, “Yugoslav Financial Problems,” 5, “Jordan,” 6, “Cuba,” 7, “Chinese Representation,” and 8, “Bucharest Conference”; a list of the materials used during the discussion of item 1; and an attendance list.]
- Source: Department of State, Secretary’s Staff Meetings: Lot 63 D 75. Secret. Drafted by Stoessel. Merchant presided at the meeting.↩
- For text of Nkrumah’s address, which immediately preceded Khrushchev’s, see U.N. doc. A/PV.869.↩
- Not found.↩
- For text of U.N. General Assembly Resolution 510 (VI), adopted December 20, 1951, see U.N. doc. A2119.↩