31. Letter from Stevenson to Bundy, August 111
RE: Disarmament
[Facsimile Page 1]Dear Mac:
I told you I would discuss the McCloy draft of July 28 with Mr. Matteson. I find he is out of town. Hence I am passing the following comments along to you, not knowing where else to send them.
I enclose a copy of the document with some suggested changes, which I think are for the most part self-explanatory and of little importance.
1. Paragraph (a), page 7. My feeling is that the figure on force levels of 2.1 million is too high and could well be reduced to at least 1.9 million.
2. On the basis of what little I know, I would cast my vote against linkage in Section E, page 9. I am afraid it is vulnerable to attack as requiring all measures of control before any measures of nuclear disarmament.
3. I wish it were possible to include some definition of “indirect aggression and subversion” in paragraph (b) at the foot of page 10.
4. I think Stage III is vague and visionary, but I have not attempted to rewrite it. However, in paragraph (b) on page 14 I think the clause “including weapons of mass destruction and means for their delivery” should be deleted. If, as I assume, there is some thought that such weapons might be retained for the UN peace force, this would appear to be in conflict.
As to the handling of disarmament in the United Nations, in view of the prolongation of bilaterals into September, I would envision a series of steps somewhat as follows:
[Facsimile Page 2]1) After the bilaterals in New York break down, the United States would ask for inscription on the agenda of the General Assembly. Timing will be critical, as I assume that the Soviets will try to beat us to the punch.
2) A speech by the President at the outset of the General Assembly, including as a principal initiative the United States program for general and complete disarmament in a peaceful world, and unveiling this plan.
3) The United States proposes in the General Committee that all items on disarmament be referred to Committee 1. There will doubtless [Typeset Page 117] be other disarmament items, including several carried over from the previous session.
4) In Committee 1 we would say that the subject had been debated enough and offer a resolution referring both plans (US and USSR) to the Disarmament Commission.
If it was inconvenient to certain members for the Disarmament Commission to meet concurrently with the General Assembly, it could be adjourned after a couple of meetings to resume after the General Assembly.
I had hoped to give the President a more elaborate discussion of disarmament as I see it, but I think this hurried letter includes at least the bare bones of my views. The procedure in the Assembly, of course, must remain tentative pending developments.
Sincerely yours,
- Views on handling disarmament issue at U.N. and comments on McCoy’s July 28 draft. Confidential. 2 pp. Kennedy Library, President’s Office Files, Disarmament, Test Ban Negotiations, 4/28/61–3/62.↩