Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, United Nations and General International Matters, Volume II

86. Memorandum From the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs (Walmsley) to the Secretary of State¹

Washington, August 13, 1959.

SUBJECT

• Views on Possible UN General Assembly Initiative on an “Open World”

In telegrams of June 29 (Tab A) and August 4 (Tab B).² Ambassador Lodge has proposed that the US employ the theme of an “open world” as a basis of a major US initiative at the 14th General Assembly. This would take the form of a separate agenda item in one of the political committees. Ambassador Lodge stresses the importance of pursuing increased contacts with the Soviets through this initiative, and of proclaiming our belief and practice of “open world” principles.

IO concurs that the US has much to gain, particularly in the light of the recent US-USSR exchange agreement and the proposed Eisenhower and Khrushchev visits,³ in reaffirming before the General Assembly that a truly free world has to be an “open world.” The visit of Khrushchev particularly may tend to obscure the fact that the Iron Curtain in many areas is still very much a reality. These factors, as well as indications of our interest in furthering contacts with the Soviets in line with the statements of Nixon in Moscow,⁴ might well be emphasized in the Secretary’s address before the General Assembly.

Ambassador Lodge in his proposals has emphasized in the present atmosphere of the GA the need to bar obvious propaganda from any “open world” initiative and to avoid rancor toward the Soviets. IO agrees that if we were to introduce an item on the “open world” theme, we would need to be prepared with specific proposals to render it genuinely constructive.

Ambassador Lodge suggests that the promotion of our contacts with the Soviets as advanced under the US-USSR exchange agreement might be a principal object of the “open world” initiative. However, as has been indicated by the East-West contacts office these exchanges have in the past been negotiated on a highly selective basis, and blanket-type proposals in the GA, such as would be embodied in a resolution, could not be well coordinated with the continuing bilateral negotiations which are being conducted under the agreement, and it might be more difficult for the US to refuse unprofitable exchanges which are continually being advanced by the Soviets during these negotiations.

Moreover, the Nixon statements have clearly been directed to the task of securing exchanges between the US and USSR as the leading nations of the “two systems.” A proposal which would include this program in one embracing the entire GA membership might seriously encumber it by displacing its object, which is the increase of contacts between this country and the USSR, to contacts between all UN members, for which we have decidedly less enthusiasm. While the US and free Europe generally can negotiate profitable increases of contacts on a bilateral basis, other areas are not likely to handle the Soviets with the same level of sophistication. Broad multilateral promotion of increased contacts could seriously weaken our position in some areas. ARA, FE, and NEA have expressed their concern that a blanket UN endorsement of increased international contacts involving the Soviet bloc and possibly the Chinese Communist regime could pose a threat to the stability of their areas.

An “open world” item if it were placed in a political committee would probably invite a series of East-West clashes or more likely a major Soviet propaganda barrage to win acceptance for “peaceful coexistence.” Highlighting of political differences, and promulgating of the “open world” as an alternative to “peaceful co-existence” to demonstrate the superiority of the free world’s system might be considered desirable. However the “open world” initiative would be considered by other General Assembly members as an invitation to such a propaganda clash. Moreover, as illustrated by the history of the Peaceful and Neighborly Relations item during the last two years, the Assembly while conducting such debates has shown increasing reluctance to pass a resolution with concrete proposals on “open world” matters in a political committee which the Soviets do not at least tacitly accept. A bland, unspecific resolution similar to those on Peaceful and Neighborly Relations of the last two years⁵ is therefore likely to be the end product of the US initiative on an “open world.”

As a part of the “open world” initiative, Ambassador Lodge has suggested that the General Assembly establish a Committee to recommend to the 15th General Assembly ways of furthering an “open world.” Support for such a Committee would be difficult for a number of pro-Western states, and neutralist states would be unlikely to support it against Soviet opposition. If such a Committee were nevertheless established, neutrals such as the UAR and India might also refuse participation, as they did in the Outer Space Committee, and the Committee as a result would find it difficult to function.

At this juncture, IO and the other area bureaus, with the exception of EUR, do not believe that either in the fields of East-West contacts, world-wide freedom of information, or exchanges, that the US can advance proposals under an “open world” item in the General Assembly which would be “constructive,” tactically feasible, and at the same time not damage our position in other areas or jeopardize programs which are pursuing the end of the “open world” bilaterally.

EUR agrees with the Lodge proposals that a separate item should be introduced in a political committee on the “open world.” It feels that secrecy and barriers to normal intercourse between peoples are inherent features of the Soviet system, and those most vulnerable to attack.

On balance, however, IO believes that the “open world” can better be promoted in the General Assembly through integrating it as a theme whenever appropriate throughout our General Assembly position, e.g., in the Secretary’s opening speech, in Committee 3 on freedom of information, and in the disarmament and outer space items. Also, it is quite likely, as in the past two years, that the Soviets will again request inscription of an item on “peaceful co-existence” among states, in which case the “open world” can form much of the basis of the free world’s response.⁶

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 320/8–1359. Confidential. Drafted by Eisendrath and initialed by Cargo and Walmsley. Sent to Herter through S/S and initialed by Herter. Copies were distributed to Bacon, Ludlow, Monsma, Nunley, and AF. A typed statement beside the distribution list on the source text reads: “These officers have agreed that the memorandum accurately states the positions of their bureaus.”
2. Neither attached. Tab A, telegram 1202 from USUN, is ibid., 320/6–2959. Tab B, telegram 123 from USUN, is ibid., 320/8–459.
3. For text of the Agreement Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Exchanges in the Cultural, Technical, and Educational Fields, signed at Washington and entered into force January 27, 1958, see 9 UST 13. Khrushchev visited the United States September 15–27.
4. For text of Nixon’s August 1 address in Moscow, broadcast over radio and television in the Soviet Union, see American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1959, pp. 887–894.
5. For texts of U.N. General Assembly Resolution 1236 (XII), adopted December 14, 1957, and U.N. General Assembly Resolution 1301 (XIII), adopted December 10, 1958, see U.N. docs. A3805 and A4090, respectively.
6. Telegram 144 to USUN, August 26, informed Lodge that the Department had decided to pursue the “open world” as a theme in U.S. presentations in the 14th General Assembly rather titan as a separate agenda item. (Department of State, Central Files, 320/8–2659)