Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XI, Arms Control and Disarmament

50. Memorandum of Conversation¹

Washington, November 23, 1964.

SUBJECT

• Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons—Course of Action for UNGA—Discussed by the Committee of Principals

PARTICIPANTS

• See Attached List²

Secretary Rusk opened the meeting pointing out that in view of the difficulties over Article 19,³ it might be a long time before non-proliferation would come up at the General Assembly. Mr. Foster stated that the paper on “tactics” on non-proliferation for the General Assembly had been prepared by the Thompson Committee at this time⁴ since a US position was necessary long in advance of the formal discussion at the General Assembly. Three questions which involve important policy matters were highlighted in the covering memorandum.⁵ He also stressed the need for secrecy on the proposal for the Irish to present the resolution at the General Assembly⁶ since any leaks might prejudice the US position. Furthermore, he emphasized that the resolution was illustrative since changes might of necessity occur during the process of presentation.

Secretary Rusk asked the basic question of whether the US should oppose other countries’ obtaining nuclear weapons over the next ten years. Should it always be the US which would have to use nuclear weapons against Red China? He could conceive of situations where the Japanese or Indians might desirably have their own nuclear weapons. Secretary McNamara stated that this question had not been staffed thoroughly in the Department of Defense, but he thought it unlikely that the Indians or Japanese would ever have a suitable nuclear deterrent. He thought a group should be established to study this basic policy. Secretary Rusk stated he had asked a committee to investigate inter-Asian security problems, giving consideration to a US-supplied Far Eastern nuclear stockpile. Mr. Foster agreed that these alternatives should be looked at but that in the meantime it was necessary to maintain a strong non-proliferation policy. Once a nation had taken the nuclear road, it would be impossible to turn back. Secretary McNamara concurred that the resolution should be available, if needed, but that the Gilpatric Committee and a US Government group should study the desirability of non-proliferation. He raised the question of whether a non-proliferation policy automatically meant providing a nuclear guarantee to all countries for, if so, this would be a major policy change.

Mr. Foster pointed out that when the General Assembly convenes we will be under major pressure in this area since a number of other countries would be pushing actions which would be less acceptable to the US. He did not believe that the proposed course of action would preclude a different non-proliferation policy which might develop from the studies proposed. Secretary Rusk emphasized that the present discussions should continue with a clear understanding that US policy favored non-proliferation. Chairman Seaborg stated that he saw no other pattern than non-proliferation since anything else would involve a loss of US control.

Mr. Foster discussed the bracketed points in the draft resolution.⁷ Ambassador Thompson believed that the Germans should be consulted since Par. 3 puts them under considerable pressure. Secretary Rusk said that the British Prime Minister had today made a strong statement against the MLF. He raised the problem of concealing a treaty obligation (bracketed Section in Par. 2) in a UN resolution since a resolution had no mandatory authority. Perhaps Par. 2.c. might ask States to inform the Secretary General of their intention not to acquire nuclear weapons. He also questioned the desirability of inserting “national” before “control” in this paragraph. Without this the Canadians might claim they were forced to give up their participation with NATO nuclear forces. He felt it most unlikely that the Germans would be willing to undertake the obligations in bracketed Par. 3.

Mr. Foster emphasized that the bracketed Par. 2 was the most constructive action in the resolution and would have major value during the interim required for negotiating the treaty. Mr. Fisher pointed out that this was the only major addition to the Irish resolution and also stressed that we had always construed the use of control as in the Irish resolution to refer to “national.” The insertion of “national” at this point would weaken this interpretation for other documents in which it was not present. Mr. Cleveland pointed out that the most critical problem in the General Assembly would be the introduction of an anti-MLF clause into any non-proliferation actions.

The Canadians felt that some such self-denying ordinance as a proposed resolution was necessary on the part of those states having nuclear capability who had not chosen to develop weapons. Mr. Thompson indicated that the Swedes were reluctant to have to vote again at this time on the proliferation issue.

In view of this discussion, Secretary Rusk questioned whether the procedural resolution would not be better than the proposed non-proliferation one.⁸ Mr. Foster believed that pushing the procedural resolution first would look like a stalling action. Mr. Thompson said the matter was one of tactics of deciding to push for a resolution with which we could live with or getting a lot of resolutions which were unacceptable and then might be handled by the procedural resolution. Mr. Cleveland indicated that the UN Staff felt we needed something more than the Irish resolution; perhaps some intermediate resolution would be satisfactory. Certainly, we would have to do something more than to agree to go to a meeting. Mr. Foster pointed out that there have been several international meetings on the subject, such as the OAU and non-alignment conferences. The other nations wish to get on with the problem of non-proliferation and also to limit the MLF. The US resolution tends to get the MLF out of the picture and satisfy their desires to get on with non-proliferation. The US would have a difficult time, at best, and therefore we needed a positive policy.

Secretary Rusk stated that it was disconcerting to see gaps in the concern about disarmament in many countries. There was no evidence that many countries were worried about non-proliferation. Most countries ignore disarmament for themselves and support sweeping resolutions on disarmament for the world. He felt there should be limitations on conventional weapons transfer as well as nuclear. Mr. Cleveland pointed out that the purpose of this exercise was to go beyond idle statements and reach some kind of semi-binding international agreement similar to the “ban the bombs in orbit” resolution.⁹ Mr. Foster felt that the non-proliferation proposal had broader support than other possible items, the inclusion of which might only serve to muddy the waters and preclude achieving a meaningful resolution on non-proliferation.

Chairman Seaborg stressed the importance of the enforcement side and discussed the progress being made in instituting IAEA safeguards. This program was moving in parallel to the one under discussion and he saw no inconsistency with the resolution except for the possibility that the resolution might justify some nations in rejecting the need for safeguards. He urged that we continue to press other countries to place reactors under safeguards and for suppliers, such as the UK and Canada, to demand safeguards in connection with their international programs. Mr. Foster pointed out that ACDA had circulated another paper relative to programs in this area which had been generally approved by the Thompson Committee.¹⁰

Secretary Rusk questioned whether the proposed resolution could be strengthened by inclusion of a requirement for safeguards in the international agreement.

Following this discussion, the following actions were decided upon:

a. Par. 2 of the draft resolution should be amended for further consideration to include a reference to a requirement for safeguards in any international agreements to be concluded.

b. Par. 3 should be changed to substitute “governments and authorities” for “states.”

In concluding the meeting, Secretary McNamara again urged that the question of alternatives to our non-proliferation policy should be kept highly classified. Secretary Rusk and others agreed that there should be no question that the established Government policy is against proliferation of nuclear weapons.

1. Source: Department of State, S/S-RD Files: Lot 68 D 452, Committee of Principals, August-December 1964. Secret. Drafted by Scoville. Another account of this meeting is in Seaborg, Journal, Vol. 9, pp. 399, 404, and 409.
2. Not printed.
3. Reference is to discussions in the U.N. General Assembly on the question of the applicability of Article 19 of the U.N. Charter to the costs of peacekeeping operations. Article 19 specified procedures for U.N. member states that were in arrears in the payment of their financial obligations.
4. Reference is to the November 9 paper, “Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons,” which was sent under cover of a memorandum from Foster to the Committee of Principals, November 12. Foster explained in his memorandum that the paper set forth a general course of action on the proliferation problem for the United States at the forthcoming U.N. General Assembly: “While, as the paper notes, it will be necessary to retain tactical flexibility in order to take account of the results of consultations and the developing situation with respect to the General Assembly, it seems appropriate for the Principals to consider and approve the general tactical line.” (Department of State, S/S-RD Files: Lot 68 D 452, Committee of Principals, August-December 1964) Foster’s memorandum is also reproduced in Seaborg, Journal, Vol. 9, pp. 405-407.
5. The three points were: 1) Should the United States try to include a non-acquisition pledge into the resolution; 2) Should such a resolution include a provision calling upon non-member states of the United Nations to declare their readiness to undertake the same obligations; and 3) The danger of an amendment to the resolution seeking to prohibit a MLF.
6. At the prompting of the United States, the Republic of Ireland during the summer of 1964 quietly began to circulate a draft resolution on non-proliferation to a number of delegations in the U.N. General Assembly. (Memorandum from Foster to Secretary Rusk, July 11; Department of State, Central Files, DEF 18) No record of Ireland’s introduction of this resolution in the General Assembly has been found.
7. The bracketed parts are contained in three paragraphs of illustrative UNGA Non-Proliferation Resolution, October 30, attached as Tab 1 to the November 9 paper, as follows:

   “2. Welcomes the fact that the Member States voting for this resolution which do not possess nuclear weapons hereby declare [that they do not intend to manufacture or otherwise acquire control of nuclear weapons, and] that they are ready to undertake, through an international agreement to be concluded under UN auspices, not to manufacture or otherwise acquire control of nuclear weapons;

   “[3. Calls upon all states not possessing nuclear weapons to declare their readiness to undertake the same obligations;]

   “6. Requests the Conference of the Eighteen-Nation Committee on Disarmament to undertake on an urgent basis the preparation of a draft international agreement as called for in resolution 1665 (XVI), which would be open to all states [and to report to the UN Disarmament Commission as soon as possible and in any event not later than 30 July 1965].”

8. Reference is to Draft Procedural Resolution, October 30, attached as Tab 2 to the November 9 paper.
9. See footnote 3, Document 15.
10. Reference may be to the ACDA paper on safeguards discussed at the September 25 meeting of the Committee on Nuclear Weapons Capabilities. See Document 48.