110. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in the United Kingdom0
7505. Deliver following letter from President to Prime Minister informing Department time of delivery. (Deliver simultaneously with similar letter to De Gaulle in separate telegram.)1
Begin verbatim text.
April 5, 1960.
Dear Harold: Pursuant to our conversations here in Washington the other day concerning the procedures to be followed at the Summit Meeting, with particular regard to the size of those meetings, I think it might be well if this question were clarified in advance with Chairman Khrushchev.
I propose therefore to send a letter to him along the lines of the enclosure to this letter if you and General De Gaulle agree that this is desirable.
There is a further matter which I think it might be well for us to take up through diplomatic channels with Chairman Khrushchev which [Page 268] derives from my own constitutional responsibilities. This has to do with reaching preliminary agreement on the probable duration of the Summit Meetings. If you agree I should like to have it made clear to him that the length of time I can be absent from this country is limited—in the present instance I must consider the fact that I plan to leave early in June for my visit to the Soviet Union as well as the probable early adjournment of Congress this year. I propose to have our Ambassador at Moscow suggest to Chairman Khrushchev that we should agree the Paris meetings should end by the close of the week of May 16.
I am communicating with General De Gaulle in the same sense and should be grateful for an early indication of your reaction to both of the foregoing suggestions.
With warm personal regard,
As ever, Ike. End verbatim text.
Following is text suggested letter to Khrushchev which will be enclosure to foregoing.
Begin verbatim text.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I have been giving thought to the question of how best we can arrange our meetings at Paris in May to provide for the most fruitful kind of discussion.
Having in mind the experiences of previous heads of government meetings, I have come to the conclusion that very large meetings, with numerous advisers present, are not conducive to the kind of free and frank exchange of views that I would hope could take place among us next May. Therefore, I should like to see the greater portion of our time devoted to meetings in which the minimum adequate number of persons would take part.
Since, as I recall our conversations at Camp David, you and I agreed that at the forthcoming Summit meeting it would be more useful to conduct our meetings on a discussional rather than a negotiating basis, some such method as this would seem to be applicable.
I suppose that we will be expected to have at least a full plenary session at the end of our meetings; possibly even at the beginning as well. I am prepared to proceed on this basis.
Aside from formal requirements, our personal meetings on the other days might be arranged differently, perhaps along the following lines. We could plan—the four of us, each with an interpreter—to meet in private session for an hour or so each morning. Our Foreign Ministers could either be meeting separately at this time or plan to arrive at the meeting place about an hour after the main meeting had begun. They thus would be available to join with us each day, perhaps with one or two other advisers, when our private conversations had reached an appropriate point. The somewhat enlarged meeting could provide the [Page 269] four of us opportunity to outline daily to our Foreign Ministers the areas in which we are at the moment interested and give them the necessary instructions on which they might prepare detailed analyses. Alternatively, this information might be conveyed to each Foreign Minister by his own head of government if you and the others should deem such a course preferable.
In general, I think we would do well to plan on one meeting a day. This would give all of us adequate time for reflection between our meetings and for such staff work among our delegations as might be helpful. This would, of course, not prevent us from regathering more frequently as circumstances might make desirable.
I have made suggestions along these lines to President De Gaulle and Prime Minister Macmillan whose reactions were favorable.
I should be grateful for an indication of your views in this matter as well as any thoughts you may have on other aspects of our forthcoming meeting.
Sincerely, End verbatim text.
Observe Presidential Handling.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 396.1–PA/4–560. Secret; Presidential Handling. Drafted by Sweeney; cleared by Kohler, Calhoun, and Goodpaster; and approved by Herter.↩
- This letter was transmitted in telegram 7506 to London, April 5 at 8:54 p.m. It was similar to the letter to Macmillan, but stressed that De Gaulle’s views would be particularly valuable since he was the Western leader with the most recent contact with Khrushchev. (Ibid.)↩