Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, Volume III, National Security Policy; Arms Control and Disarmament, Microfiche Supplement

179. Briefing Note for the July 16 NSC Meeting¹

Washington, July 15, 1959

Basic National Security Policy (NSC 5906)

We resume consideration of Basic National Security Policy by taking up NSC 5906 and also a 4-page change sheet which was distributed to you this morning. These changes were made in the Planning Board, taking into account the comments of the Consultants and further consideration by the departments and agencies.

Paragraph 19 (page 15) treats generally of strengthening the collective defense system. As revised, it contains the new guidance that the United States should, as practicable, “induce Western European and other allies with well-developed economies to increase their share in collective defense.”

Paragraph 20 (page 15) is amended to say that we should educate not only our allies, but the Free World a whole as to the importance of nuclear weapons as an integral part of the arsenal of the Free World.

Paragraph 23 (page 16), which is split, proposes a major change in policy with respect to the development of nuclear capabilities by additional nations. Present policy provides in essence that the United States should seek to prevent the development by additional nations of nuclear weapons capabilities (NSC 5810/1, paragraph 18, page 7). The new majority proposal is that the United States should first seek to prevent or retard development by additional nations of nuclear weapons capabilities.

The majority proposal goes on to say:

(Read Revised Para. 25–b)

The Defense-JCS version would not have us seek to prevent or retard the development by additional nations of nuclear weapons; it would sanction exchanging with, or providing to, additional selected allies information on nuclear weapons; but it would not go so far as to be prepared to make nuclear weapons themselves available to selected allies. (The Joint Chiefs in their formal comments support this version).

Inescapably related is paragraph 24 (page 18), [which states present policy to the effect that the United States should consider the long-term development of a NATO nuclear weapons authority.]²

Defense and JCS would leave Paragraph 24 unchanged. The majority, however, views the question with greater urgency and would say in Paragraph 23 c:

(Read Revised Para 23 c)

Paragraph 25–a (page 18) is a revised general guidance paragraph on providing military assistance to nations “whose increased ability to defend themselves and to make their appropriate contributions to collective military power is important to the security of the United States.”

Paragraph 25–b (page 19) is new, and deals with military aid to other nations, including uncommitted nations. It reads:

(Read paragraph 25–b, page 19)

Paragraph 25–c (page 20) is also new, and grows out of the OCB conclusions on the overseas internal security program.

Paragraph 26 (page 20) is a new item of guidance and would encourage, in less developed nations, the participation of indigenous military forces in economic, social, and psychological programs.

Paragraph 28 (page 21) is the general paragraph on military research and development which is in existing policy, with two new sentences added on nuclear weapons R & D. They read:

(Read paragraph 28–a, page 21, last two sentences)

We now resume discussion of the political and economic section at the point where we left off at the Council meeting three weeks ago, and take up paragraph 36.

Paragraph 36 (page 28) a new paragraph which would apply world-wide a policy contained in the current Latin America paper (NSC 5902/1), deals with maintaining contact with selected non-Communist opposition elements. I believe that we should add “through appropriate channels”.

Paragraph 37 (page 28) seeks to spell out more clearly our general attitude toward newly-emerging nations.

The third sentence is new, and grows out of our delays in the Guinea case. It reads:

(Read third sentence of paragraph 37)

The fourth sentence is new, and applies world-wide a policy idea contained in the Horn of Africa paper (NSC 5903). The sentence here reads:

(Read fourth sentence of paragraph 37)

Paragraph 38 (page 29) is new. The first sentence is agreed. Then we had a split which has since been resolved. At the end of the last sentence of this paragraph, which sentence outlines the factors to be taken into account when the United States is determining an independent course, Defense proposes to add: “recognizing, however, that the United States should not allow the attitudes and emotions of the mother country unduly to influence actions essential to attaining or preserving U.S. objectives in emerging or newly independent countries.”

(Call on: SECRETARY McELROY SECRETARY HERTER)

Par 39 (p. 31) is old 34, broadened at the suggestion of OCB to include, in subparagraph b, U.S. action against non-Communist elements hostile to U.S. interests. State, Defense and JCS want to keep subpargraph a as it was in the old paper. Treasury would change the last clause, as indicated in the second bracket.

(Call on Under Secretary Scribner Secretary Herter Secretary McElroy Admiral Burke)

Par 41 (p. 32) is new. It recognizes foreign labor’s importance in opposing Communist efforts to control foreign trade unions.

Par 42 (p. 32) is an agreed paragraph on our foreign economic policy except for the last sentence in b. Budget and Treasury would like to keep this sentence, which was the second sentence in old 29–a. Several of the consultants and most of the PB questioned this sentence. One argument against it was that there is no functional relationship between economic development assistance on the one hand and other economic assistance and military assistance on the other. Another argument against it was that it simply doesn’t happen. Mr. Randall supports the majority.

(Call on Mr. Stans

Under Secretary Scribner

others)

At the bottom of page 33, in the third line of b, the PB agreed that “public capital” should be deleted and “such assistance” substituted. If there is no objection, this change will be made.

Paragraphs 43 and 44 (beginning on p. 34) are old 27 extensively reorganized, rewritten, and enlarged. There was a split in 43–d which has since been resolved by changing the first sentence. 43–d now reads as follows:

“Utilize and support the efforts of Free World international financial institutions to the maximum extent possible to promote economic development and to bring about economic reforms in less developed nations.”

There was also a split in f which has also been resolved by rewriting the subparagraph. It now reads:

“Make U.S. public capital available in adequate amounts on a long-term basis for the purpose of supplementing the capital available from other sources for sound economic development in less developed areas. U.S. lending agencies should be assured of continuity in order to contribute to this purpose.”

Turning to par 44, subparagraph a is new, and I would like to read it.

(Read 44–a)

In 44–b there was a split, but State has withdrawn its objection to the bracketed language. The last sentence in 44–b was agreed to by the PB, but I would like to read it because it is new and because it was the result of considerable debate.

(Read last sentence of 44–b)

Par 45 (p. 42), is new, and incorporates what is already in the approved economic defense policy (NSC 5704/3).

Par 51 (p. 44) on the conduct of negotiations with the USSR, is largely an updating of old 39, I would, however, call your attention to the last sentence, which has been added for unmistakable clarity: “Agreements affecting strength and deployment of military forces should include provisions for effective safeguards against violations and evasions.”

Par 52 (p. 45) is the general paragraph on disarmament contained in existing policy, with a slight clarification at the beginning. The old language reads:

“Safeguarded arms control should be sought with particular urgency, in an effort to reduce the risk of war, etc.”

There was a feeling in the P/B that the phrase “particular urgency” might be misinterpreted as applying to the urgency of entering into negotiations, rather than to the urgency of developing arms control measures first and then negotiating. The opening sentence has therefore been revised to read:

“Efforts to develop safeguarded arms control measures should be continued with particular urgency, and agreement thereon sought, in an effort to reduce the risk of war, etc.”

No change in policy is intended.

Par 54 (p. 47) contains two new sentences. They are:

(read the last two sentences of 54)

Since the PB prepared this paper, the OCB has been working on the problems connected with U.S. personnel overseas, and pointed out the need for policy guidance on this subject. I agreed, with PB concurrence, to propose a paragraph which would come after 54, to read as follows:

(read 54A from the blue page dated July 7)

1. Source: NSC 5906, basic national security policy. Top Secret. 7 pp. Eisenhower Library, Whitman File, NSC Records.
2. Brackets are in the original.