Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, Berlin Crisis, 1959–1960; Germany; Austria, Volume IX

121. Memorandum of Conversation⁰

US/MC/9

Washington, April 12, 1960, 3:10 p.m.

FOREIGN MINISTERS MEETING

Washington, D.C., April 12–14, 1960

SUBJECT

• Tripartite Meeting of Foreign Ministers on Summit Preparations

PARTICIPANTS

• United Kingdom
• Selwyn Lloyd, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
• Sir Harold Caccia, Ambassador to the United States
• Sir Anthony Rumbold, Assistant Under Secretary of State
• (Participants continued in Attachment A; Advisers to the delegations are listed separately in Attachment A)¹

At the outset of the meeting, the Secretary indicated that there were numerous organizational and procedural matters to be resolved with respect to future meetings of the Foreign Ministers and the Summit itself. Various Working Groups have submitted preliminary reports and the task of the Foreign Ministers was to determine where further analyses are required and to issue guidance to the Working Groups for their continued work preparatory to the NATO meeting in Istanbul.

Further Meetings of Foreign Ministers

Secretary Herter presumed that the next meeting of Foreign Ministers would take place in Istanbul on Sunday, May 1. He proposed the following schedule of meetings with which there was no disagreement.

SUNDAY, MAY 1

• 10:00 a.m.—Germany and Berlin (Quadripartite)
• 5:00 p.m.—Disarmament (Five-Power)
• 8:00 p.m.—Tactics and Procedures (Working dinner—tripartite)

M. Couve de Murville stated that he was uncertain of his arrival time in Istanbul on May 1, but was sure that if he were not present in time for the morning meeting, in which case he would be represented by Mr. Lucet, that he would be available for the meeting in the afternoon.

Mr. Lloyd said that the British would make arrangements for the working dinner, presumably at the old British Embassy which is now the Consulate General.

Division of Responsibility for Reporting to NATO

Secretary Herter noted that the three Ministers might divide responsibility among themselves with regard to reporting to NATO on the three broad categories of subjects which will be discussed at the Summit. The U.S. might take on disarmament, the U.K. might report on Germany and Berlin and France East-West relations. Mr. Lloyd said that he would rather take on disarmament and that the U.S. might assume responsibility for presenting the problem of Germany and Berlin. Secretary Herter indicated that this was agreeable to him and M. Couve de Murville did not object to assuming responsibility for East-West relations.

There was a brief discussion regarding the length of the NATO meeting which is now scheduled to continue from May 2 through the morning of May 4. It was indicated that the morning of May 4 is being held in reserve in the event that the discussions are protracted.

Mr. Lloyd noted that he has to leave Istanbul on May 3 for the Commonwealth Meeting of Foreign Ministers at London.

Working Group Reports

Secretary Herter suggested that the reports, which would be revised in the light of the April Foreign Ministers discussions, might be submitted to Governments and to NATO in accordance with the following proposed schedule:

• Disarmament—April 26
• Germany and Berlin—April 22
• East-West Relations—April 22

Secretary Herter noted that there appeared to be agreement that the content of reports to NATO should deal only with substantive matters and not tactics. No disagreement was expressed by M. Couve de Murville or Mr. Lloyd. Mr. Lloyd wondered whether the Western Disarmament delegation would be reporting on the basis of past negotiations at Geneva or whether it would also attempt to project into the future. Secretary Herter commented that the Disarmament delegation might isolate certain points for discussion at the Summit and that it would be valuable to receive their views on such points.

There was general agreement with a statement made by M. Couve de Murville that the work undertaken by the Working Groups between April 15 and the May meetings would depend upon the decisions taken and the guidance given by the Foreign Ministers in their April meetings. With respect to the disarmament report,² Mr. Lloyd suggested that the Foreign Ministers receive confirmation at the Five-Power meeting on April 13 regarding the nature of the report the Western delegations at Geneva might submit to the Foreign Ministers preparatory to the Summit meeting.

Over-all Coordination

Secretary Herter suggested that the Quadripartite Group might take on the task of preparing a paper on over-all Western strategy and tactics. The Quadripartite Group was suggested in light of the understanding that Chancellor Adenauer would attend the Western Heads of Government meeting just prior to the Summit. Mr. Lloyd appeared to question whether Chancellor Adenauer would attend. Mr. Kohler indicated that the Germans understand that we are committed to Chancellor Adenauer’s participation as a result of German agreement to disband the Four-Power Group which had concerned itself with general Summit matters prior to the Western Heads of Government meeting at Paris in December. Secretary Herter indicated that there was an obvious reason for Chancellor Adenauer’s being present in view of the importance of the question of Germany and Berlin in the Summit discussions. There appeared to be no disagreement with having the Quadripartite Group assume responsibility for over-all strategy and tactics. Mr. Lloyd asked about a possible meeting with the Italian and Canadian Foreign Ministers on disarmament just prior to the Summit meeting. Following a brief exchange, it was noted that such a meeting should not be encouraged.

Meetings of Foreign Ministers at Paris

Secretary Herter said that he would be available for discussions at Paris on May 14 and 15. However, he did not want to force matters and could leave on May 12 and be available in Paris on May 13. M. Couve de Murville suggested that it might be a good idea for the Foreign Ministers to meet on May 14 and that the Heads of Government might meet on Sunday, May 15. M. Couve de Murville commented that the three Foreign Ministers might meet on the morning of May 14 and then meet with Foreign Minister Von Brentano in a quadripartite meeting in the afternoon. The Foreign Ministers could meet again on Sunday morning, May 15, leaving Sunday afternoon for a meeting of the four Western Heads of Government and their advisors. Monday morning, May 16 would be held available for a meeting of the Western Heads of Government and they could meet again in the afternoon if required after their first meeting with Khrushchev. While Chancellor Adenauer could attend the Sunday afternoon meeting, he presumably would not be expected to attend other Western Heads of Government meetings once the Summit Conference got underway.

Press Statements

The three Foreign Ministers were in accord that an agreed press statement should be drafted at the close of each of the Foreign Ministers meetings here in Washington in preference to issuing a formal communiqué.

Summit Arrangements

Secretary Herter commented that since the French would be acting as hosts at the Summit that M. Couve de Murville might work out procedural arrangements with the Soviets prior to the Summit meeting. Such arrangements would presumably deal with the rotation of the chair, etc. M. Couve de Murville stated that as he saw it, there would be two types of meetings: those restricted to the Heads of Government, which would present no problem since everybody would speak in turn and, secondly, enlarged meetings for which it would be wise to refer to precedents. Mr. Lloyd said that he did not know what type of meetings would take place but felt that President De Gaulle would certainly be expected to chair an official opening of the Conference. Secretary Herter assumed that there would be plenary sessions at both the beginning and end of the Conference. Mr. Lloyd expressed the opinion that if the meetings were restricted to four, eight or twelve persons, there might not be any need for a rotating chairmanship.

Type of Meetings

Secretary Herter stated that insofar as the three Western Heads of Government were concerned, they seemed to prefer restricted meetings. This might raise difficulties with respect to the impressions coming out of the meetings. The President has suggested that the Summit be more in the nature of discussions rather than negotiations. The view had also been expressed that the Heads of Government would meet in restricted sessions and then issue guidelines to their Foreign Ministers, who would carry on discussions in the afternoon in the presence of advisers. M. Couve de Murville noted that the French were broadly in favor of discussion-type meetings but that he was not sure that the restricted meetings of Heads of Government would last a short time, say one hour. Secretary Herter questioned whether the President would want to sit in on actual negotiations since protracted discussion would invariably get into details. The President envisaged that the Foreign Ministers should carry on any detailed discussions. In response to a question by Mr. Lloyd, Secretary Herter stated that he foresaw that the restricted meetings might consist of only the Heads of Government and interpreters. M. Couve de Murville commented that the French had been thinking in terms of a whispering interpretation and thought that each Head of Government would be accompanied by two interpreters, one of whom would give either a whispering or a consecutive interpretation. The other interpreter would be available to take care of the record since an accurate record of these meetings is considered essential. Mr. Lloyd said that he did not believe it would be very efficient to have two interpreters present and not the Foreign Ministers since the Heads of Government would be faced with the problem of issuing guidelines to the Foreign Ministers after the restricted sessions. He agreed that it would be desirable that the Heads of Government have one meeting by themselves. Secretary Herter noted that it was desirable to agree on the types of meeting that might be held in order that such views could be conveyed to Mr. Khrushchev fairly soon. Mr. Couve de Murville stated that it was difficult to make suggestions without knowing precisely what the details of the meetings would be. He did not visualize much coming out of the meetings in the way of negotiations. Each Head of Government would expose his Government’s views and that these were certainly well known. Secretary Herter stated that the essential point was that the Heads of Government would not be making firm commitments in their restricted sessions without having questions studied further by the Foreign Ministers. Mr. Lloyd agreed that the Heads of Government could meet with only interpreters the first time, but questioned whether this should serve as a pattern for the rest of the meetings.

Following further discussion, there seemed to be general agreement that a formal opening of the Conference could not be avoided. It was suggested by Mr. Lloyd that the Heads of Government might hold their first plenary session at 12:00 noon on May 16 and follow this with a restricted meeting beginning at 4:00 p.m. in the afternoon. The Foreign Ministers would hold themselves available during this first restricted session. The three Foreign Ministers also appeared to be in general agreement that arrangements should be made for simultaneous translations during any enlarged meetings. M. Couve de Murville assumed that a whispering translation would work all right for the restricted discussions, assuming, of course, that another interpreter would be available to maintain the record.

Secretary Herter indicated that he would attempt a second draft of a letter to Khrushchev³ regarding procedural matters, taking into account the discussions that had taken place today.

Length of Meeting

Secretary Herter noted that the President was planning to stop over in Portugal on the way home from the Summit and that the U.S. side hoped that the Summit would close by Saturday, May 21 or Sunday, May 22 at the latest, since the President was planning to leave for Portugal on Monday morning. Mr. Lloyd expressed concern lest the West give the impression that they were cutting off the Summit discussions. He wondered whether it wouldn’t be possible for the President to return to Paris after his trip to Portugal. M. Couve de Murville said the French were in agreement with the British views, but also in agreement in principle that the Conference should end May 21 or 22. Secretary Herter felt that it might be possible for the President to return if considered essential. There appeared to be agreement that the visit of the President to Portugal could be announced and the terminal date of the Summit left open for the moment.

Entertainment

Secretary Herter indicated that the President had expressed the hope that entertainment could be restricted to one dinner by the host government and that any remaining functions might be limited to cocktail parties by the other delegations. Further discussion indicated that the French and British were in agreement with regard to restricting entertainment. The consensus was that it would be left to the host government to decide whether the one formal function might be a luncheon or a dinner. This would not, however, exclude bilateral dinners or luncheons, as the individual heads decide. Mr. Lloyd expressed opposition to cocktail parties and wondered whether arrangements could not be made to have drinks available after each afternoon session since this might preclude the necessity of cocktail parties by delegations. M. Couve de Murville said that such arrangements could be made. He indicated that the question of entertainment might be one subject which he would discuss with the Soviets prior to the Summit.

Expanded Participation

All three Foreign Ministers agreed that the Western powers should resist any possible move by Khrushchev to expand participation in the Conference.

Future Summits

Secretary Herter noted that a good deal of talk had taken place with respect to future Summit meetings and that this question might well arise at the May Summit meeting. It was generally agreed that this question would be put aside until it was seen how the coming Summit would work out.

Subjects to be Discussed

Secretary Herter recalled that the Soviets had generally mentioned four topics for discussion: disarmament, Germany and Berlin, East-West relations and nuclear testing, in the event that no agreement had been reached on a treaty by the time the Summit convened. Asked what the French reaction, would be if nuclear testing were discussed, M. Couve de Murville stated that the French would not participate in such discussions since they were not involved in the present negotiations regarding the discontinuance of nuclear weapons testing. M. Couve de Murville implied that the French Government would not provide facilities for side talks, suggesting that such talks might be held in the Soviet Embassy. Secretary Herter commented that if this subject was raised, it would presumably be in side talks in which the French would not participate.

Order of Subjects

Secretary Herter suggested that the order of topics at the Summit might be disarmament, Germany and Berlin and East-West relations. Mr. Lloyd questioned whether the topic of general relations between states might not be discussed first, and it was his impression that President De Gaulle and Macmillan had thought this might be a good idea. The rationale behind this view was that if the Western powers could commit Khrushchev to working toward a detente, he would be less apt to take a firm position on Germany and Berlin. Secretary Herter felt that the West would look foolish if they began their discussion on the theme of a détente and then were later faced with a bust on the question of Germany and Berlin. M. Couve de Murville commented that the general idea was that a détente could not continue if the Soviets were tough on Germany and Berlin. Secretary Herter suggested that more thought be given to this question and that a discussion of this subject could again be resumed within the framework of over-all tactics at the Summit.

Possible Schedule of Meetings

M. Couve de Murville stated that the French were thinking in terms of six meetings of the Heads of Government: two meetings on Germany and Berlin, one on disarmament, one on East-West relations and one or two meetings for a conclusion, including the problem of a communiqué. Secretary Herter indicated that the U.S. side was thinking along similar lines.

Size of Meetings

After a discussion, it was generally agreed that for the opening and plenary sessions, five persons from each side would sit at the conference table with an additional five persons for each delegation seated behind.

Record of Conference

Secretary Herter suggested that the custom has been for each delegation to take its own notes. The problem of keeping verbatim minutes only brings more persons into the room. M. Couve de Murville commented that at the conversations between the Heads of Government, no verbatims would be necessary. Their experience with the Khrushchev–de Gaulle talks indicated that very good records could be kept when only a few persons were present. He emphasized again, however, if there were to be whispering translations, that another interpreter would have to be present to take notes for the record. At more formal and enlarged meetings, arrangements can be made to take verbatim notes.

There was agreement that the delegations should compare notes in order to ensure that they are consonant with one another.

Conference Communiqué

It was agreed that it would be desirable for the three powers to work in advance on a tripartite basis in drafting a communiqué for the Conference. This could best be done perhaps at Paris after the Istanbul NATO Meeting.

Public Information Policy

Secretary Herter stressed that it would be important for the three Western powers to correlate their public information policy in preparation for the Summit. The trust of such a coordinated policy would have four basic aims: (1) to promote a beginning on practical arms control, (2) to defuse Berlin, (3) to enhance cohesion of the free world, and (4) to clarify policies toward the Communist bloc. He then read U.S. document FMW D–1/3,⁴ indicating that copies would be distributed in order that the other delegations might give further thought to this matter. M. Couve de Murville suggested that one of the principles which had been stressed by Secretary Herter might be changed from arms control to controlled disarmament in order to avoid the impression that the Western powers desire control without disarmament.

Nuclear Safeguards

The Secretary said that he wanted to take this occasion to raise the question of safeguard measures to keep nuclear power reactors from furnishing fissionable material for weapons use. The Indians, despite their protestations regarding nuclear weapons, will not go along with the application of safeguards to their power reactors. They are now discussing a power reactor project with a number of potential reactor suppliers, including the Soviet Union as well as the U.S., U.K., and France. The French have supported safeguards in the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency at Vienna just recently. The Secretary hoped that France would also maintain a common policy with the U.S. and the U.K. on safeguards vis-à-vis India.

M. Couve de Murville said that he understood the position of the United States and the United Kingdom was that they would not sell a reactor without safeguards. Mr. Lloyd said that the U.K. was taking this position and would do so so long as other states took the same position. He thought that if the Western powers stood together the Soviet position would be exposed. The Secretary said that the principles and procedures for safeguard operations have been provisionally agreed by the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and could by agreement be applied to an Indian reactor obtained from a member of the Agency. Consistency in the application of safeguards is important. He recalled that the agreement between the U.S. and Euratom called for the maintenance of safeguards standards and procedures by Euratom which would be consistent with those of the IAEA.

M. Couve de Murville said that he understood the U.S. and U.K. position. France has as yet not taken a position on application of safeguards to bilateral reactor sales outside the International Atomic Energy Agency. He recalled that Dr. Bhabha had argued that acceptance of safeguards by India, when safeguards are not applied to the major atomic powers, would be discriminatory and inconsistent with India’s sovereignty and dignity.

Agreed Press Statement

Following discussion there was agreement that the following press statement would serve as guidance on reporting to the press on today’s meeting.

“The Foreign Ministers of France, the United Kingdom and the United States met in Washington on April 12 to discuss questions relating to the meeting of the Chiefs of State and Heads of Government which begins in Paris, May 16.

“They reached agreement on certain general matters relating to the Summit and noted with satisfaction the state of the preparatory work of the several working groups which will be reviewed in detail in the meetings later this week.

“The Ministers confirmed the desire of their governments to approach the Heads of Government Meeting in a constructive spirit. They emphasized the need to solve outstanding problems by negotiation and not by force or unilateral action. They expressed the desire of their governments to negotiate reasonable solutions to these problems in the interest of world peace.

“The North Atlantic Council will be informed of the present Washington discussions and consulted as preparations for the Paris meeting proceed.”

0. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 396.1–WA/4–1260. Confidential. Drafted by Dubs and approved by M on April 20 and S on April 21. The conversation took place at the Department of State.
1. Not printed.
2. Document 112.
3. For text of the first draft letter to Khrushchev, see Document 110.
4. A copy of this paper, “Pre-Summit Information Policy,” is in Department of State, Conference Files: Lot 64 D 559, CF 1629.