35. Memorandum from Rusk to Bundy, August 171

[Facsimile Page 1]


  • Ambassador Stevenson’s comments on July 28 draft of Disarmament Negotiating Proposal

I have reviewed Ambassador Stevenson’s comments on the July 28 draft of the disarmament negotiating proposal in light of the changes since made and reflected in the August 11 draft of that proposal. My comments follow the order of Ambassador Stevenson’s comments to you:

1. Initial reduction to a force level of 1.9 million rather than the present level of 2 in the proposal would increase the amount of disarmament in stage I and thus would improve the saleability of our proposal in the General Assembly context. However, I question whether we should change this figure without further study of its military implications.

2. I agree with Ambassador Stevenson’s comments on the linkage in Section I, page 9, of the July 28 draft and share his view that its inclusion would make our proposal vulnerable to attack. While this linkage has been modified to some extent by the changes made in the August 11 draft of the negotiating proposal, I nevertheless believe that the language proposed by the Department of Defense (footnote on page 8 of the August 11 draft) is an unnecessary qualification. It would be misinterpreted by the Soviet bloc and probably be misunderstood by many of the non-aligned states without commensurate gain in terms of protecting our security interests.

3. I doubt the advisability of attempting at this time to spell out or further define the phrase “indirect agression and subversion”. The language as it appears is generally understood and an effort to further define the terms might better be left to a general disarmament negotiation. If challenged in the General Assembly debate on this issue, we could parade again the Communist record to exemplify the meaning we attach to the words.

4. I agree with Ambassador Stevenson’s suggestion that in paragraph (b) on page 14 of the July 28—and also August 11—draft the clause “including weapons of mass destruction and means for their delivery” be deleted. The question as to whether weapons of mass [Typeset Page 125] destruction [Facsimile Page 2] should or should not be retained for the United Nations Peace Force and/or for remaining national forces is a matter upon which agreement would have to be reached in the course of negotiations.

5. The suggestions which Ambassador Stevenson has made with regard to handling disarmament in the United Nations seem generally sound. We are currently engaged in a more detailed formulation of the tactics which might be adopted to best achieve our purposes.

6. These comments have been checked with Mr. McCloy’s office and are consistent with his recommendations.

Dean Rusk
  1. Stevenson’s comments on July 28 draft disarmament negotiating strategy. Confidential. 2 pp. Department of State, Central Files, 600.0012/8–1761.