48. Telegram From the Embassy in the Soviet Union to the Department of State0
2229. In frank but friendly discussion Kuznetsov yesterday believe made dent in his thinking but only small one. Depth of Soviet suspicions is incredible.
[Here follow three paragraphs on Laos.]
[Page 107]On disarmament Kuznetsov observed Stevenson and Gromyko had reached agreement not discuss substance disarmament at GA but would confine debate to establishing directive on general principles. I said certain we were not going to get ourselves bound to principle one treaty on general and complete disarmament and pointed out they had even exploited UN resolution to limit debate in previous meetings. On forum I said we were beginning to think no point in making concessions to Soviet point of view. We had reluctantly agreed to parity on disarmament committee and now they were pressing for their thesis of a three bloc world. I said even neutrals opposed to this and we considered committee already too large.
Kuznetsov said they were trying to be considerate of our position to give us time work out policies but pointed out we had many experts already familiar with problem. I replied that in previous meetings and in Pugwash discussion appeared to us they had not seriously studied disarmament problem. Each time we were about to come to grips with real substance they broke up meeting and walked out. I emphasized strongly seriousness with which we approaching problem but said this involved questions which were vital to our survival and no attempt of theirs to manipulate public opinion would cause us to jeopardize our security. If they wanted to exploit this situation they could do so but this would not advance cause of disarmament. Kuznetsov expressed suspicion we were merely stalling in order build up our armaments. He referred to increases in US military budget. He also referred number of times during our conversation to statements made by President and others about Eastern Europe and particularly Bowlesʼ speech at Farmers Union Convention.1 He quoted several times sentence Bowles alleged to have used to effect US could not tolerate Communist regimes. He said Soviet Govt was seriously studying meaning this phrase and others used by American statesmen. I replied sentence he had quoted did not appear in summary which I had received and basic thesis Bowlesʼ speech was endeavor find accommodation between us. I also pointed out that after Declaration 81 parties and Khrushchevʼs Jan 6 speech they could scarcely expect us not to reply. They had expressed readiness support so-called wars of liberation. In contrast I cited restraint we had shown during Hungarian affair. Would have been easy for us at that time to have stirred up Poles and East Germans but we had no desire use force or cause useless waste of lives. I said this in sharp contrast to their policy of stirring up trouble wherever they could. When he tried to slide over Communist parties statement I said declaration that US was enemy of peoples of world had made deep impression in US. He tried contend this referred only to certain [Page 108] circles but I suggested he re-read statement. I said we could never take actions condoning regimes in Eastern Europe unless and until they were supported by people but this did not mean we were going to take any action overthrow them.
I raised lend-lease question but got no reaction except his complaint that we were refusing sell them tractors which they could not understand.
Kuznetsov expressed opinion frank exchange of views had been helpful and hoped we would have further occasion discussions this kind.