87. Memorandum From David Elliott of the National Security Council Staff and the Counselor of the Department of State (Sonnenfeldt) to Secretary of State Kissinger1
SUBJECT
- Environmental Warfare
You have pending before you (Action 2101) the package on environmental warfare. A decision is needed on what approach to take in opening the U.S.–USSR talks on this subject, which were agreed to at the summit (Tab A).
As you recall, after the summit the Soviets put environmental warfare on the UNGA agenda, and have introduced a draft resolution and convention (Tab B). They want the latter to be referred to the CCD for examination and a report to the next UNGA. Both the resolution and convention give us trouble because they:
—are broader in concept than we envisaged,
—go beyond military limitation and could constitute a restraint on civil environmental activity,
—launch the issue in a multilateral forum before we have had an opportunity to explore it bilaterally, and
[Page 299]—prejudge the appropriate mechanism for imposing restraints by limiting consideration to that of an international convention.
The Soviets are expected to press their UNGA initiative when debate begins in the First Committee. This could come as early as October 16. State believes we have no chance of derailing the matter altogether. However, if we act promptly, we might be able to change the Soviet resolution to avoid prejudging the outcome of negotiations in the CCD (a draft cable to USUN is at Tab C).
At the SRG on environmental warfare, you indicated that the bilateral talks would be expected to defuse or delay the Soviet UN effort. The Soviets have given no indication that they subscribe to this view, and on September 24, Gromyko piously told you the Soviet initiative would further our bilateral talks. Having already made their UN pitch, it is doubtful the Soviets can or will want to put the cat back into the bag.
Accordingly, we need your guidance urgently on the following questions:
1. Will you, by a direct approach to the Soviets, again seek to get them to postpone their UN initiative?
_______ I will handle it with the Soviets. Prepare talking points.
_______ Let State handle it.
_______ In Moscow In New York
_______ No
_______ Other
2. Do you want USUN to be working with the Soviets (and some friends) to improve the Soviet resolution?
_______ Yes
_______ No. Wait for bilateral approach.
_______ Other
3. Should we set a date for bilaterals with the Soviets (on the assumption we will soon have U.S. position) or should we consider them OBE and deal with the issue in the UN and CCD?
_______ Set date.
_______ I’ll set the date during my Moscow trip.
_______ Forget the bilaterals; deal with the Soviets in the UN and CCD.
_______ Other
Dick Kennedy, Denis Clift, and Jan Lodal concur.
Recommendation:
That you respond to the above request for guidance.
-
Summary: Referencing the pending action on the environmental warfare package, Elliott and Sonnenfeldt indicated that Kissinger needed to reach a decision concerning the approach to take in talks on the subject with Soviet officials at the ongoing UN General Assembly session.
Source: Ford Library, National Security Adviser, Presidential Agency Files, Box 21, USUN, 10/1/74–7/31/75. Secret; Sensitive. Sent for urgent action. Under the questions posed at the end of the memorandum, Kissinger checked taking a direct approach to the Soviets in New York; agreeing that USUN would work with the Soviets to improve the resolution; and agreeing to set a date for the talks with the Soviets. Tab A, a copy of the July 3 U.S.–USSR Joint Statement; Tab B, telegram 3428 from USUN, September 26; and Tab C, the text of a draft telegram to USUN, are attached but not published. The minutes of the August 28 Senior Review Group meeting are Document 75. The Soviet draft resolution and convention introduced in the General Assembly on September 24 are printed in Documents on Disarmament, 1974, pp. 516–521.
↩