Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963, Volume V, Soviet Union

85. Memorandum of Conversation⁰

Vienna, June 3, 1961, 3 p.m.

SUBJECT

• Vienna Meeting Between The President and Chairman Khrushchev

PARTICIPANTS

• US
  • The President
  • D—Mr. Akalovsky (Interpreting)
• USSR
  • Chairman Khrushchev
  • Mr. Sukhodrev, Interpreter,USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs

After lunch the President invited Mr. Khrushchev for a short walk in the garden.¹ While in the garden, the President asked Mr. Khrushchev how he managed to make himself available for such prolonged conversations as, for example he had had, with Senator Humphrey and Walter Lippmann.² The President said he understood that no one had interrupted the Chairman during those meetings. As far as he was concerned, the President continued, his schedule was very crowded and he was constantly wanted on the telephone, so that it was very difficult for him to have time for lengthy uninterrupted meetings.

Mr. Khrushchev replied that it was true that he had indeed had prolonged uninterrupted meetings with Senator Humphrey and Lippmann. The reason why he had time for such meetings was that the Soviet Government had been decentralized to the extent that administrative functions had been transferred to the governments of the individual republics, while the government of the Union retained the responsibility for over-all planning.

The President remarked that our system of several branches of government involved contacts and consultations between the President and the various branches, and that this was a time consuming process.

To this, Mr. Khrushchev replied: “Well, why donʼt you switch to our system?”

The President then invited Mr. Khrushchev for a private talk inside.

The President referred to the conversation before lunch³ and said that some of the problems faced by the two countries had been discussed. Now he wanted to come back to the general thesis. While Laos was one problem now under discussion, others might come up in the future. Thus, it would be useful to discuss the general problem underlying the situation and consider the specifics perhaps later. In addition to Laos, which had already been discussed, such specifics might include Germany and nuclear tests. The President then recalled Mr. Khrushchevʼs earlier reference to the death of feudalism. He said he understood this to mean that capitalism was to be succeeded by Communism. This was a disturbing situation because the French Revolution, as the Chairman well knew, had caused great disturbances and upheavals throughout Europe. Even earlier the struggle between Catholics and Protestants had caused the Hundred Year War. Thus it is obvious that when systems are in transition we should be careful, particularly today when modern weapons are at hand. Whatever the result of the present competition—and no one can be sure what it will be—both sides should act in such a way as to prevent them from coming into direct contact and thus prejudicing the establishment of lasting peace, which, the President said, was his ambition.

Mr. Khrushchev interjected that he fully understood this.

Even the Russian Revolution had produced convulsions, even intervention by other countries, the President continued. He then said that he wanted to explain what he meant by “miscalculation”. In Washington, he has to attempt to make judgments of events, judgments which may be accurate or not; he made a misjudgment with regard to the Cuban situation. He has to attempt to make judgments as to what the USSR will do next, just as he is sure that Mr. Khrushchev has to make judgments as to the moves of the US. The President emphasized that the purpose of this meeting was to introduce greater precision in these judgments so that our two countries could survive this period of competition without endangering their national security.

Mr. Khrushchev responded by saying that this was a good idea and that this was what he called demonstration of patience and understanding. However, judging by some of the Presidentʼs statements, the Soviet Union understood the situation differently. The US believes that when people want to improve their lot, this is a machination by others. Mr. Khrushchev said that he liked the Presidentʼs statement in his message to Congress to the effect that it was difficult to defend ideas not supporting better standards of living. However, the President drew the wrong conclusion. He believes that when people rise against tyrants, that is a result of Moscowʼs activities. This is not so. Failure by the US to understand this generates danger. The USSR does not foment revolution but the United States always looks for outside forces whenever certain upheavals occur. One example ofUSSRʼs determination not to interfere in internal affairs of other countries is Iran, an ally of the United States. The Soviet Union does not want a revolution there and does not do anything in that country to promote such a development. However, the people of the country are so poor that the country has become a volcano and changes are bound to occur sooner or later. The Shah will certainly be overthrown. By supporting the Shah, the United States generates adverse feelings toward the United States among the people of Iran and, conversely, favorable feelings toward the USSR. This, of course, is to the USʼs own disadvantage. The Soviet Union does not sympathize with dictators or tyranny. This is the crux of the matter. No agreement seems to be possible on this point, but this fact should be taken into account. Mr. Khrushchev reiterated that the Presidentʼs views were correct but that he drew the wrong conclusion. Another example of this situation is Cuba. A mere handful of people, headed by Fidel Castro, overthrew the Batista regime because of its oppressive nature. During Castroʼs fight against Batista, US capitalist circles, as they are called in the USSR, supported Batista and this is why the anger of the Cuban people turned against the United States. The Presidentʼs decision to launch a landing in Cuba only strengthened the revolutionary forces and Castroʼs own position, because the people of Cuba were afraid that they would get another Bastista and lose the achievements of the revolution. Castro is not a Communist but US policy can make him one. US policy is grist on the mill of Communists, because US actions prove that Communists are right. Mr. Khrushchev said that he himself had not been born a Communist and that it was capitalists who had made him a Communist. He continued by saying that the Presidentʼs concept was a dangerous one. The President had said that the US had attacked Cuba because it was a threat to American security. Can six million people really be a threat to the mighty US? The United States has stated that it is free to act, but what about Turkey and Iran? These two countries are US followers, they march in its wake, and they have US bases and rockets. If the US believes that it is free to act, then what should the US do? The US has set a precedent for intervention in internal affairs of other countries. TheUSSR is stronger than Turkey and Iran, just as the US is stronger than Cuba. This situation may cause miscalculation, to use the Presidentʼs term. Both sides should agree to rule out miscalculation. This is why, Mr. Khrushchev said, he was happy that the President had said that Cuba was a mistake.

The President said that he agreed with Mr. Khrushchev and expressed the belief that unless the present Prime Minister of Iran improved the lot of his people and ensured better living conditions, there would be important changes in that country. The second point he wanted to make, the President said, was that he held no brief for Batista. The disagreement between the United States and Castro is not over monopolies; this question could be subject to discussion. The main point is that Castro has announced his intention to act in that general area, using Cuba as a base. This could eventually create a peril to the United States. A further point is, the President said, that the United States recognizes that it has bases in Turkey and Iran. However, these two countries are so weak that they could be no threat to the USSR, no more than Cuba to the US. The President reminded Mr. Khrushchev of the announced policy of the USSR that it would not tolerate governments hostile to it in areas which it regards as being of national interest to it. He inquired what the USSRʼs reaction would be if a government associated with the West were established in Poland. The United States stands for the right of free choice for all peoples and if Castro had acted in that spirit, he might have obtained endorsement. The United States has never taken any action with regard to such countries as Guinea or Mali, because the governments in those countries were freely elected and their policies are regarded by the United States as the judgment of their leadership. The President concluded by saying that it was critical to have the changes occurring in the world and affecting the balance of power take place in a way that would not involve the prestige or the treaty commitments of our two countries. The changes should be peaceful. Finally, the President said, if certain governments should fail to produce better living for their people, if they failed to give better education, higher standard of living, etc., to their people, and if they worked in the interest of only a small group, their days would be doomed. But in all these developments, the President reiterated, we should avoid direct contact between our two countries so as not to prejudice the interests of their national security.

Mr. Khrushchev said he agreed with the Presidentʼs conclusion. Likewise, there were some points of agreement between him and the President with regard to Cuba, although there was still considerable disagreement. For instance, Mr. Khrushchev said, he agreed that the right of free choice should be ensured to all peoples but the question of choice should be solely up to the people themselves. If Castro has not held any elections, this is an internal affair and it grants no one the right to intervene. If Castro fails to give freedom to his people he will detach himself from them and he will be removed just as Batista was. It would be a different situation if our two countries took it upon themselves to decide this question. Mr. Khrushchev then said that he had noted some inconsistency in US policy. He specified that he did not mean the policy of the President personally, because he had been in the White House only since quite recently, but rather US policy in general. He said that the United States places great emphasis on democracy. However, if one takes Iran as an example, the ruler there is the Shah, who says that his power was given to him by God. Everybody knows how this power was seized by the Shahʼs father, who had been a Sergeant in the Iranian Army and who had usurped the throne by means of murder, plunder, and violence. Now the United States supports the Shah and the Iranian people transfer, as it were, their anger from the Shah to the United States. The United States is spending vast sums of money in Iran but that money does not go to the people; it is plundered by the Shahʼs entourage. The situation with regard to Franco⁵ is a similar one. The US knows how he came to power and yet it supports him. The United States supports the most reactionary regimes and this is how the people see US policy. This weakens US policy. The United States knows that Soviet policy is more popular than US policy in many areas where there is no Communism today. TheUSSR supports the aspirations of the people but it believes that the main thing is to be tolerant and not to interfere. People should be left to decide for themselves which form of government they desire. As to Fidel Castro, he was no Communist but then the US put pressure on him and applied sanctions against him, the USSR came to his assistance, in the form of trade and technical support. Under the influence of this aid he may turn Communist but, Mr. Khrushchev said, he as a Communist could not see which way Castro would go. Mr. Khrushchev then expressed the hope that the relations between the US and Cuba would improve in such fields as trade, etc. Such a statement, Mr. Khrushchev observed, might sound strange to the United States, but the USSR believes that such a development would improve relations not only in the Western Hemisphere, but also throughout the world. Mr. Khrushchev then referred to Turkey and said that in the recent change that had occurred in that country, the USSR had remained neutral because it regarded the change as an internal affair of that country. Likewise, there had been a second change in Korea within a relatively short time. Neither the USSR nor North Korea had interfered. One can say, however, that the present government will not last very long because it cannot give anything to the people. Of course, if South Korea did something in North Korea, the latter will act and the USSR will support it. However, the USSRʼs position is that of non-interference and of not creating new points of friction. It is a policy directed at bringing about a stable situation throughout the world. Mr. Khrushchev then addressed himself to the Laotian situation and said that the President knew very well that it had been the US Government which had overthrown Souvanna Phouma. One should be frank and recognize that both the United States and the USSR are supplying arms in Laos. The side supported by the USSR will be more successful because the arms supplied by the United States are directed against the people and the people do not want to take them. In China, the arms supplied by the United States to Chiang Kai-shek went to Mao Tse-tung. Chiang Kai-shek becamesort of a transfer point for American arms to MaoTse-tung. The reason for that was that Chiangʼs troops simply would not fight against the people. At that point Mao Tse-tung was weaker militarily than Chiang Kai-shek, but he won because his ideas won. In general, the history of revolutions is very instructive. During the Russian Revolutiqn, the revolutionaries were weak and a counter-revolution occurred. The revolutionaries had to fight against the counter-revolutionaries, the British, the Japanese, the French, and others. Even the United States intervened. Mr. Khrushchev recalled in this connection that he had read a book by an American Colonel entitled “U.S. Adventure in Siberia”.⁶ Notwithstanding all this, the revolution was victorious because the people were on its side. Mr. Khrushchev then said that we must be patient. If the United States supports old, moribund, reactjonary regimes, then a precedent of internal intervention will be set, which might cause a clash between our two countries. The USSR certainly does not desire such a development.

The President rejoined by saying that he wished to explain the logic of what Mr. Khrushchev considered to be the illogical point in US position. He said that he wanted to do this not in order to defend any of our actions, but simply to explain things as we saw them. The President stated that we regard the present balance of power between Sino-Soviet forces and the forces of the United States and Western Europe as being more or less in balance. The President said that he did not wish to discuss the details of the respective military postures, but that generally this was how we saw the situation.

Mr. Khrushchev interjected that he agreed with this.

The President then said that the United States has three interests. The first interest is that the right of free choice be ensured to all peoples and that such right be executed through elections as we understand them. He said that Mr. Khrushchev may not agree with this but this is what we desire. Such free choice is not possible today in many areas of the world. It is not possible in Cuba, it is not possible in Spain. Mr. Khrushchev had said that he could not understand how the US could object to Cuba while it was supporting Spain. The reason is that our second interest is of a strategic nature. Spain has no allies. It is a power standing alone. It is a dictatorship, but it makes no contribution to our strength.

Mr. Khrushchev interjected that the US had bases in Spain. The President replied that those bases were moving into history. Mr. Khrushchev observed that they were still there.

The President continued by saying that we also support Yugoslavia, which is not a capitalist country. Thus, the question might arise how the logic of our policy could be justified. The reason for this policy is that if Franco should be replaced and if the new regime were to associate itself with the Soviet Union, the balance of power in Western Europe would radically change and this is, of course, a matter of great concern to us. The third interest of the United States is to see that the next decade—and we cannot predict which way the developments during that time will go—should proceed in a way that would not greatly disturb the balance of power. The President said that he was concerned how this balance of power might be affected as China developed its military potential. This is our general view with which Mr. Khrushchev will not agree, but this is the logic of our position. Referring to the Laotian question, the President said that this was of particular concern to us. While relatively unimportant from the strategic standpoint, this country was included under the protocol to the SEATO agreement in the Treaty Area, and thus we have treaty commitments in that area. The President then said that speaking frankly, US policy in that region had not always been wise. He stated that he had not been able to make a final judgment as to what the peopleʼs desires in that area are. According to our information, there are about nine or ten thousand Pathet Lao but they have two distinct advantages in our view. One is that they are for change. The President remarked that he himself is for change and that he had been elected on the basis of his advocacy of change. He then said that was not to say that if a change were to occur in Laos it would be the one the people wanted. The second advantage Pathet Lao has is the fact that they received support not only in the form of supplies, but also in the form of Viet Minh manpower, which has made them a stronger force. The problem now from a historical standpoint is to find a solution not involving the prestige or the interests of our two countries. The President recalled that last March⁷ he had said that the United States wanted a neutral and independent Laos. The USSR had said it wanted the same. The question now is of definition of these two terms, “neutral” and “independent”. The President said that he believed that Cambodia and Burma were neutral and independent countries and inquired what Mr. Khrushchevʼs view on this was.

Mr. Khrushchev said that he held the same view.

The President continued by saying that the problem in Geneva was how to secure a cease-fire in Laos and to establish a mechanism for its verification. The point is that the Soviet side had stated that forces associated with us had taken action against Pathet Lao. For our part, we have information that forces supported by the Soviet Union have violated the cease-fire, particularly in the Padong area. Therefore, the ICC should undertake to determine the exact situation and if it were to find that the forces supported by the US are at fault, the US would take the responsibility. If we support the ICC in making such a determination, then the next step would be to create a neutral and independent Laos.

Mr. Khrushchev said that he wished to revert to the question of regimes which the USSR calls rotten and anti-popular. He said that he could cite a number of countries where power had been seized by military means. Ayub Khan, an ally of the United States, seized power by force in Pakistan by displacing the then Prime Minister of that country, and the United States immediately recognized him. A similar situation exists in other countries, particularly in Latin America. Such regimes are anti-popular and yet the United States supports them. However, if there is popular upheaval, the US regards this as Communist seizure of power and does not support it. This is dangerous for the future and leads to a deterioration of the situation. There should be no interference and people should decide for themselves. Tolerance and patience are absolutely required. Mr. Khrushchev then said that he wanted to say a few words about the so-called guerilla warfare against regimes that are not to US liking. There has been a lot of talk about this kind of warfare in the United States and this is a dangerous policy. Mr. Khrushchev asked the President to believe him that if guerilla units were to be sent from the outside and were not supported by the people, that would be a hopeless undertaking. He said that the USSR had had great experience in this kind of warfare throughout its own history. The war against Napoleon in 1812, the Civil War, including the struggle against the US in Siberia, and World War II, had been fought with guerilla units. If guerilla troops are local troops, belonging to the country, then every bush is their ally. If they are not, then only bloodshed will occur and such an undertaking will pay no dividends. Mr. Khrushchev then recalled his service in the Red Army and said that the Red Army had British clothing seized from the White Army under Denikin, which was supported by the British and whose units were destroyed by the Reds. In spite of its being very poor, the Red Army won because the people were on its side. Mr. Khrushchev then observed that our two sides differed as to their understanding of what popular or anti-popular movements were. However, both sides should agree not to interfere and let the peoples decide for themselves. This is the only wise course to take. Modern times are not like the past; modern weapons are terrible. He said that he did not know whether the balance of power was exact, but that did not matter anyway. Both sides know very well that they have enough power to destroy each other. This is why there should be no interference. Mr. Khrushchev then referred to Angola and said that the United States supported Portugal in this matter because it was its ally. The USSR regards this situation as a popular war against colonialists. The US has no colonies but it supports colonial countries, and this is why the people are against it. There was a time when the United States was a leader in the fight for freedom. As a matter of fact, the Russian Czar refused to recognize the United States for twenty-six years because he regarded the United States as an illegitimate creature. Now the United States refuses to recognize New China—things have changed, havenʼt they?

The President said that he wanted first to refer to Angola and said that he agreed with what Mr. Khrushchev had said. In fact, the US and USSR had voted alike in the U.N. General Assembly and Portugal was bitter because of this. We have supported the liberation movement in Africa, and if one should take a look at the map of Africa today, he would see a great number of new countries. We hope that in the next two or three years the number will increase still further.

Mr. Khrushchev inquired with regard to Algeria and the Congo.

The President said that the United States had supported U.N. actions directed against Belgian interests in the Congo, particularly in the Katanga area, where the Belgians relied on Tshombe.⁸ The United States supported U.N. actions which sharply curtailed Belgian influence in that area. Belgium was of course disturbed by this.

Mr. Khrushchev said that this was true but the US voice in these matters was very timid. The Belgians may be displeased but the people are even more displeased. US policy is very uneven and even when the United States supports anti-colonialism for tactical reasons, its voice is very quiet. Basically, US policy is that of support for colonialist powers.

The President stated that in NATO the US is allied to a number of countries which are colonial powers. Yet in view of the great changes that have occurred in Africa, where some 25 countries have obtained their independence in a very short time, it is quite clear what the trend is.

Mr. Khrushchev said that this was true but wondered what the reason for this trend was and whose effort had brought about the change. He said that if the two countries could unite their efforts they could do away with the vestiges of colonialism. The liberated peoples should be left alone to take any path they want. Naturally, theUSSR would be pleased if they took the Socialist path.

The President then stated that what was of concern to the United States was the speech Mr. Khrushchev had made last January and in which he had advanced the thesis of three types of war. The problem is how this thesis should be interpreted, particularly the point on the so-called national wars of liberation. The fact is that certain groups seize power, frequently by military means. Some of such groups are friendly to the USSR and some to the United States, and the two countries lend support to them. If one takes the situation in Viet Nam, there are some seven to fifteen thousand guerillas there. We do not believe that they reflect the will of the people, while the USSR may believe so. The problem is to avoid getting involved in direct contact as we support the respective groups. In Laos, where the two countries are openly supporting the respective local groupings, the question is how to draw fire out of the situation in a way that would be mutually satisfactory to both sides.

Mr. Khrushchev said that the President and himself had a different understanding of liberation wars. As far as Laos is concerned, the Soviet Union is for an independent and neutral Laos and the Foreign Ministers of the two countries are probably talking about this problem right now. Referring to his January speech,⁹ in which he had mentioned three types of war, Mr. Khrushchev said that the U.N. had passed a resolution advocating independence for all colonial peoples. Portugal has been flouting that resolution and the question arises as to how long the people should wait. In these circumstances, the peopleʼs only recourse is to rise in arms. The Soviet Union believes that this is a sacred war. A similar situation prevails in Algeria. De Gaulle, who is an ally of the United States, is an intelligent man and perhaps he would be doing more if he had no problem with his generals. Of course, this is an internal matter of France, but what should the Algerian people do—wait for France? The fact is that Algeria should belong to Algerians and Algerians are Arabs. The only thing they can do is rise. Such a war is sacred and the Soviet Union supports it. Such wars will go on. The United States itself rose against the British. The Soviet Union has been proud of the United States in this respect. But now the US has changed its position and it is against other peoples following its suit. The Soviet Union is against all wars, both general and local. In this respect it is ahead of the United States, because the United States recognizes local wars. However, the Soviet Union recognizes the freedom of struggle for liberty. Although the Soviet Union does not participate directly, it sympathizes with and supports such wars. Mr. Khrushchev then said that he wanted to say a few words about China. At the same time, he wanted to emphasize that he had not been authorized or requested to speak on Chinaʼs behalf. He said he simply wanted to set forth his thinking on the problem. He said that US relations with China were very aggravated. Obviously they could not be improved until the United States ended the occupation of Taiwan. The most realistic policy would be that of recognizing China and having China admitted as a member of the United Nations. What kind of United Nations is it when it does not have among its members a nation numbering 600 million people? On the other hand, it should be clear that China would never join the United Nations if Chiang Kai-shek were to be still there. This would be a discrimination against Chinaʼs rights. There is no question that at some point China will gather its strength and liberate Taiwan. If the Soviet Union were in Chinaʼs place, it would probably have attacked Taiwan long time ago. The Soviet Union supports the policy of reunification of Chinaʼs territory. As a matter of fact, the United States itself signed a document recognizing Taiwan as part of China. Mr. Khrushchev said that he did not know whether the United States was ready for a change in its policy toward China. The relations between Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Tse-tung are an internal affair of China, and neither the US nor theUSSR should interfere. This would be a reasonable course and it would promote a peaceful development of the situation. Mr. Khrushchev said that he was glad that there were voices in the United States asking for a change in US policy toward China, but said that he did not know how that policy would develop. He reiterated that he had not been requested by the Chinese to speak on their behalf.

The President said that he wanted to make two points. First, with regard to the problem of national independence in Africa, he believed that Africa had made an extraordinary step in that direction and the United States had associated itself with that movement on many occasions. Perhaps more could have been done, but we do have problems with our allies. The President recalled that in 1956 he had spoken in the Senate about the need for national self-determination in Algeria. This movement of self-determination is now going on in Asia and Africa. What concerns us is what will come after these changes. It is here that disagreement exists between our two countries. The President recalled his remark about the balance of power being more or less even today and stated that we were concerned that this balance might be disturbed if some of these countries should associate themselves with the USSR. A glance at the map of the divided world is a sufficient illustration of this point. The second point regards China. The President said that even before he had assumed office China had made strong attacks against the United States and himself personally, and this has been going on like a drumbeat ever since. At the same time the USSR was cordial and expressed the hope that our relations would improve. The President said that he recognized that China was a forceful nation, that its population was one quarter of the world, and that it might still further increase its strength. He also recognized that bad relations between the United States and China affected world relations in general. However, if the United States were to withdraw from Taiwan, it would have a strategic problem. It would be confined to its shores and its strategic position in Asia would be greatly impaired. This is a problem of security for the United States.

Mr. Khrushchev said that this was an interesting conception with which he could not agree. Now he could understand the Presidentʼs conception of neutrality. Apparently the US recognizes neutrality only if countries are its followers. If not, no such recognition is given. The Soviet position is just the opposite. The Soviet Union sympathizes with countries which have embarked upon the Socialist path but it also gives full recognition to capitalist countries and here is the difference. It is true that if some country, e.g., in Africa, were to adopt the Socialist system, that might mean that a few drops would be added to the bucket of Communist power if this balance of power were regarded as consisting of a bucket on each side. But this would be an expression of popular will. If there were to be interference, there would be a chain reaction and ultimately war between our two countries. Mr. Khrushchev then recalled the recent visit to the Soviet Union by the Prime Minister of Somalia. The Prime Minister is a comparatively young man who was educated in the spirit of Italian culture. He said that he wanted his country to develop along Socialist lines. But the question arises as to what is Socialism in the view of all those people. Nasser, Nehru, Nkrumah, Sukarno¹⁰—all of them have said that they want their countries to develop along Socialist lines; but what kind of a Socialist is Nasser when he keeps Communists in jail? Nehru certainly does not favor the Communist party of India either. However, the Soviet Union helps these people and this is a manifestation of its policy of non-interference. If a country embarks on the road of capitalism the Soviet Union is convinced, and sincerely desires, that it will return to the path of Socialism. But it will be the people who will bring about such change. This is why the Presidentʼs argument regarding Taiwan sounds strange.

The President interjected that the situation should be viewed in the light of Chinese hostility. Mr. Khrushchev replied that the Chinese cannot reconcile themselves with US bases on Taiwan.

Mr. Khrushchev continued by saying that this policy is unreasonable and might ultimately cause war. He then stated that the United States had surrounded the USSR with bases. This is very unwise and aggravates the relations between the two countries. The countries where the bases are located spend money on their military establishments while their people live like paupers. Thus these people have the choice of developing along militarist lines or rising. We must be reasonable and keep our forces within our national boundaries. This is Soviet policy. The President himself has recognized this fact because in his speeches he has stated the need for reviewing the deployment of US bases, in part because of technological developments and also for other reasons. So the people in the countries where the United States has bases will rise and the US will blame the USSR for that, but it will be its own fault. Thus, Mr. Khrushchev continued, the Presidentʼs argument only fortifies the views of the Chinese. The US will not leave Taiwan and force will have to be used. This is a sad thing indeed. Referring to Chinese statements, Mr. Khrushchev said that the Chinese were against US policy, but then the Soviet Union has also criticized US policy. Mr. Khrushchev said that he had not spoken against the President personally and would not wish to do so. He said he wanted to improve relations between the two countries with the President in the White House, but he may turn out to be wrong. In that event he would have to criticize the President too. The best thing for the United States would be to recognize China because diplomatic relations alone impose certain obligations. The United States could continue to support Chiang Kai-shek, but of course only morally. The Chinese position is correct and the United States should settle its differences with China. The USSR certainly hopes that this will take place. Mr. Khrushchev reiterated that if the USSR had been in Chinaʼs shoes, it would have acted long time ago. He again referred to the fight against Americans in the Far East and against the French, the British, and Germans in other areas of Russia during the Civil War. He said that this fight had been carried on until its victorious end and that any country would do the same. Such wars are not aggressive, they are holy wars.

The President said that he wanted to reply to Mr. Khrushchevʼs remark regarding the USʼs conception of neutrality. He said he believed that our two countries with their different social systems or any other country could pursue an independent policy. Yugoslavia, India, and Burma are extremely satisfactory situations as far as the United States is concerned. The problem is if the Communist cause were to win in certain areas and if those areas were to associate themselves closely with the Soviet Union, that would create strategic problems for the United States. The same would apply to the Soviet Union if in a country like Poland a government were created that associated itself closely with the West. Referring to Mr. Khrushchevʼs remark that the United States supports certain governments which are not supported by the people, the President said that this may be so. However, the President said, if the people of Poland were given a chance to express their choice, one could not be certain as to what the result would be. Certainly one could think that they might not necessarily support the present government. The President then said that certain problems cannot be successfully settled, at least here. However, he expressed the hope that the Laotian problem could be discussed in more detail as well as the problem of nuclear tests, which is of interest to our two countries and to the world in general. Agreement on this issue would certainly improve the climate throughout the world.

Mr. Khrushchev said that he wanted to reply on the question of Poland. He said it was not respectful on the Presidentʼs part to speak in such a manner of a government the US recognizes and with which it maintains diplomatic relations. After all, Poland could say similar things about the United States. This, he said, is the line of aggravating rather than improving relations. He suggested that the situation be tested, perhaps by having a public debate any place in the USSR or the United States, and then the people will say where the truth lies. Poland has had elections to its parliament, the Sejm, and its election system is more democratic than that in the United States.

The President interjected that people in the United States had a choice, whereas in Poland there was only one group. Mr. Khrushchev replied that parties in the United States were only for the purpose of deluding the people, since there was no difference between the parties. This, he said, was the opinion of the Soviet Union, which, of course, did not commit either the Soviet Union or the United States to anything. In any event, no one should interfere in the Soviet Unionʼs internal affairs. Mr. Khrushchev continued by saying that another test of the situation would be to withdraw the forces of the two sides and have the people decide. The Soviet Union has very few forces in Poland and has already withdrawn its troops from Hungary. If forces were withdrawn, there would not be even a semblance of pressure on the people in those areas. Referring to Taiwan, Mr. Khrushchev recalled the Presidentʼs remark that withdrawal of US troops from that area would affect US strategic posture. This, he said, might be true, but what about the Chinese position—how should they regard the occupation of Taiwan? If the United States proceeds from such an assumption, Mr. Khrushchev said, he will be forced to doubt whether the United States really wants peaceful co-existence or is simply seeking a pretext for warlike developments. The Soviet Union sympathizes with the Chinese and this seems to be the only solution. There is no other way out. After all, the United States might even occupy Crimea and say that this would improve its strategic position. This would be true. But it would be the policy of Dulles, a policy of strength. Times have changed and such policy is doomed to failure. If the US wants to dictate its conditions, that is inconceivable today. No improvement of relations would be possible in such circumstances. Reverting to Laos, Mr. Khrushchev said that the Conference was in session and that it was there that a solution should be worked out. The USSR will exert efforts to solve the Laotian question and have a government establish control in that country. However, the Soviet Union will not agree to the ICCʼs becoming a kind of supragovernment administering the country.

The President said that he wanted to respond to these remarks without referring to Poland or Taiwan. He said he agreed that the ICC should be no government. However, it should determine whether a cease-fire exists. The Soviet side has claimed that there have been breaches on the part of the forces supported by us. Our people have said that the forces supported by the Soviet Union have breached the cease-fire. The President said he believed it would be a simple matter for the ICC to examine these charges and to submit its report. This should take only a few days and then the next step would be the creation of an independent and neutral Laos.

Mr. Khrushchev responded by saying that the Soviet Union approached the situation differently. Referring to the Presidentʼs remark that Viet Minh forces were involved in Laos, he said that he had no such information and that this was inaccurate. What is more accurate, and what is an actual fact, is that military action was started from Thailand by the United States.

The President replied that whether he or Mr. Khrushchev were right the problem was to have the ICC examine the situation with regard to the cease-fire, without action by Viet Minh or any other action. The cease-fire is the main problem now.

Mr. Khrushchev said that he agreed. However, he said that this could not be done without taking into account the forces participating in the struggle. There are three forces in this area and they must agree among themselves. Even if our two countries were to agree, that agreement would serve no useful purpose without agreement among the forces participating in the struggle.

The President suggested that the two countries use their influence with the people they are associated with to induce them to support the ICC and grant the Commission free access to the respective areas, so that the Commission could perform its task effectively. Then the next step would be the creation of an independent and neutral Laos.

Mr. Khrushchev expressed agreement that both countries should use their influence so as to bring about agreement among the forces participating in the Laotian struggle.

The President said that he believed that on this point agreement could be reached here. He remarked facetiously that this should be possible even if no agreement could be reached on the merits of the American election system.

Mr. Khrushchev said that this latter question was an internal affair of the United States.

In view of the late hour, the President suggested that perhaps, if there was a chance, the question of nuclear tests could be discussed during the dinner given by the Austrian President, so that tomorrow most of the time could be devoted to the problem of Germany. Otherwise, both problems could be discussed tomorrow.

Mr. Khrushchev replied that he would like to connect the questions of nuclear tests and disarmament. He said that he would set forth his position on this issue as well as, of course, on Germany. The main problem in this latter matter is that of a peace treaty. The Soviet Union hopes that the US will understand this question so that both countries can sign a peace treaty together. This would improve relations. But if the United States refuses to sign a peace treaty, the Soviet Union will do so and nothing will stop it.

The conversation ended at 6:45 P.M.

0. Source: Kennedy Library, Presidentʼs Office Files, USSR. Secret. Drafted by Akalovsky. According to another copy, this memorandum of conversation was approved by the White House on June 23. (Department of State, Conference Files: Lot 66 D 110) A summary of the conversation was transmitted in Secto 16 from Vienna, June 4. (Ibid., Central Files, 600.001/6-461) The meeting was held at the Ambassadorʼs residence.
1. A memorandum of the luncheon conversation is printed as Document 84.
2. For a record of the interview with Senator Humphrey in December 1958, see Foreign Relations, 1958–1960, vol. VIII, pp. 148–152. Regarding the interview with Walter Lippmann, see footnote 3, Document 69.
3. See Document 83.
5. General Francisco Franco y Bahamonde, Spanish Chief of State.
6. William S. Graves, Americaʼs Siberian Adventure, 1918-1920, New York, 1931.
7. Reference is to the meeting between the President and Gromyko, March 27; see Document 50.
8. Moise Tshombe, President of the Katanga Government.
9. See Document 15.
10. Kwame Nkrumah, President of the Republic of Ghana, and Akmed Sukarno, President of the Republic of Indonesia.