Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963, Volumes VII, VIII, IX, Arms Control; National Security Policy; Foreign Economic Policy, Microfiche Supplement

62. Telegram 913 to USUN, October 13¹

October 13, 1961, 8:51 p.m.

Deptel 566. Disarmament Item. Reftel suggested course of action for handling disarmament item 16th GA on assumption no agreement would be reached in bilaterals on either statement of principles or disarmament forum. Now that agreement reached on principles, request your comments on following course of action:

1. We would not seek endorsement our disarmament plan by 16th GA for reasons indicated reftel. However we would wish set forth our understanding of agreed principles and extract maximum advantage by explaining key provisions our plan as illustration and embodiment those principles.

2. In order avoid creating illusory impression wider US-USSR agreement in disarmament field than in fact exists and undesirable consequences such impression could have in view present world situation, we inclined not submit joint US-USSR resolution endorsing agreed principles and calling for resumption negotiations as suggested by UK (DEPTEL 880). In view fact US-USSR agreement on principles we doubt there will be mediation effort by third parties as UK feels, and in any event believe disadvantages US-USSR joint action at this point are controlling. In general, we do not believe that US-USSR agreement on principles should be played up in debate.

3. Regarding disarmament forum we believe resolution advanced Section B our tel 566 still sound. Our thought is that dependent on results consultations with allies we would put forward resolution calling on DC appoint subcommittee of 20 as (1) counter to probable Soviet or neutral resolution calling for less favorable composition and (2) an earnest of our determination get effective consideration disarmament question. We realize problem posed by French opposition any forum other than 10-Nation forum but would hope French recognizing that we could not achieve favorable vote such resolution and in view tactical advantage this proposal could be persuaded remain relatively quiet on 20-nation proposal.

4. We anticipate probable outcome of debate will be resolution referring disarmament question to DC. This would appear to be result in view fact neither side may be able get agreement in Assembly debate on smaller forum. We believe best if resolution referring question to DC were put forward by representative group of nations and would suggest that Canadians, who put forward referral resolution in last GA, might organize group co-sponsors. In initial statements debate, while we would argue for soundness of 20-nation forum proposed in draft resolution, we would continue express willingness have problem considered in broader forum (including DC) which truly representative GA membership.

5. Following text suggested for resolution with alternative Section B referring matter to DC in event res on 20-nation subcommittee (part B Deptel 566) proves not to be feasible:

“The General Assembly,

A.

“Conscious of its responsibilities under the Charter for disarmament;

“Recalling the terms of its resolution 1378 (XIV) of 20 November 1959, which called upon Governments to make every effort to achieve a constructive solution of the disarmament problem and which expressed the hope that measures leading toward the goal of general and complete disarmament under effective international control would be worked out in detail and agreed upon in the shortest possible time;

“Noting the report submitted to the General Assembly by the United States and the USSR following their exchange of views on questions relating to disarmament and to the resumption of negotiations in an appropriate body (Doc A/4879);

“1. Welcomes the joint US-USSR statement on agreed principles for disarmament negotiation included in that report;

“2. Recommends that negotiation on general and complete disarmament be based upon those principles.

B.

“Deeming it essential that negotiations for general and complete disarmament agreement under effective international control be resumed at the earliest possible time;

“Recognizing that all states have a deep interest and concern in disarmament negotiations;

“Noting that no agreement has been reached on the proposals for composition of a disarmament negotiating forum contained in the memoranda of the US dated July 29, 1961 (doc A/4880) and of the USSR dated July 28, 1961 (doc A/4887);

“1. Refers to the Disarmament Commission the proposals for general and complete disarmament which have been placed before it by the Governments of the United States and of the Soviet Union, and the various other proposals relating to disarmament which have been submitted during the deliberations of the 16th General Assembly;

“2. Recommends that the Disarmament Commission meet as soon as practicable in order to consider these proposals and to undertake the negotiation of a disarmament agreement; and

“3. Further recommends that the Disarmament Commission appoint such sub-committees as it may deem appropriate.”

6. Question whether Section A and B should be combined or treated as separate resolutions would depend tactical situation and our consultations with Canadians and other Allies.

Ball

Acting

1. Handling disarmament issue at U.N. following U.S.–U.S.S.R agreement on principles. Confidential. 5 pp. Department of State, Central Files, 600.0012/10–1361.