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

582. Memorandum From Henderson (IO) to Merchant¹

Washington, July 19, 1960

SUBJECT

• Background for Your Meeting with Lord Hood on Disarmament

The Acting Secretary and Ambassador Lodge, in a meeting with the President agreed in principle that we take steps to convene a meeting of the Disarmament Commission about the middle of August—preferably earlier rather than later. We had hoped to have a meeting of the Disarmament Commission shortly after the Soviet walkout from the 10-nation Committee on Disarmament meetings in Geneva which would have been limited to a call on the USSR to resume negotiations. We had not envisaged that the Commission would become involved in the details of the substance of disarmament, nor would it concern itself with the transfer of the disarmament negotiations to a forum other than the 10-nation group. The passage of time has changed the situation, and the limited kind of DC meeting we had in mind no longer appears profitable.

It has been our expectation and that of our allies that there would be at least one meeting of the Disarmament Commission before the next General Assembly. The primary issue among our allies is whether or not the meeting should be immediately before the Assembly convenes and pro forma in nature or whether it should be called earlier and a more substantive discussion of the issues be allowed to take place. On July 15 Mr. Wilcox called the British, Canadian, Italian and French representatives in and informed them that we now believe a meeting by mid-August of the Disarmament Commission was most desirable. We have now had responses to our proposal. The Canadians feel that the earlier a meeting of the DC is convened the better; the Italians are willing to go along with a mid-August meeting but do not appear to feel strongly about the date; the British feel that the disadvantages of a mid-August meeting outweigh the advantages and prefer a later meeting which, at one point, they described as possibly late August or early September; the French prefer to hold no meeting of the Disarmament Commission and are adamantly opposed to a meeting prior to September 15.

While there are advantages and disadvantages which are cited below for a mid-August meeting, we believe the advantages outweigh the disadvantages and that we should make further efforts to persuade the French and British to our point of view.

Briefly stated, the advantages of a meeting by mid-August are as follows:

1. By that time the Soviet Government may have responded to our note of July 2 concerning the Communist bloc walkout from the 10-nation meeting in Geneva and again made clear that they do not intend to resume negotiations in that forum in the near future.

2. There is an obligation to report to the Disarmament Commission on the 10-nation Conference and it is likely that some members of the Commission would resent what they might consider a deliberate effort to avoid meaningful discussion and action if the meeting is called just prior to convening the General Assembly. In addition, a late session of the Commission would interfere with the preparations which each delegation must make prior to convening the General Assembly session and might for this reason alone be resented.

3. Finally, fixing a precise and early date for convening the Disarmament Commission might place some pressure on the French to move toward agreement with us on a revised disarmament plan. Such agreement would, of course, give us a much stronger position in a substantive discussion in the Disarmament Commission and the General Assembly, a position much less possible of exploitation for divisive purposes by the USSR.

On the other hand, there are serious difficulties. The principal one is a possibility that agreement will not be reached on a revised disarmament plan and we will thus be susceptible to Soviet divisive efforts. In addition, the question of the usefulness of the 10-nation Committee probably will be challenged by the Soviet Union and its associates, and the difficult question of the composition of another group may be raised (we have raised the question of composition with our allies but we have not as yet received their views as to how to handle this issue should it be raised).

We are doubtful that the French or even the British can be persuaded of the advantages of a meeting of the Disarmament Commission by mid-August but in view of the agreement in principle on such a meeting between the Acting Secretary, Ambassador Lodge and the President, we believe we should make one more effort at your level before reconsidering this course of action. We had urged our allies to respond favorably to our proposal well before July 20 so that our request for a meeting of the Disarmament Commission could be made coincidental with the withdrawal of the bulk of our negotiating mission in Geneva which will begin on that date.

1. Source: Background briefing for Merchant’s meeting with Hood on position on timing of a meeting of the U.N. Disarmament Commission. Confidential. 2 pp. NARA, RG 59, Central Files, 600.12/7–1960.