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

205. Telegram 239 from Moscow, July 20¹

Moscow, July 20, 1963, 7 p.m.

Saturday session began at 11 AM with same US group as on Friday.

After an exchange of pleasantries, Harriman asked if Gromyko had a solution to our problems.

Gromyko replied he had asked yesterday that we give thought to Soviet formulation which they felt should be acceptable to all parties.

Harriman said he had thought over Soviet proposal and re-read yesterday’s record particularly Gromyko’s final summary in answer to Hailsham which stressed elimination all direct reference to “violation” and “nuclear explosion.” Prepared meet Soviets half way re “violation” if Soviets can agree to refer to “nuclear explosion.” Soviets have said preferred broader language which would cover explosion but this language so broad and sweeping would give impression treaty illusory and would fail give it dignity in eyes of world. Harriman had also been advised that withdrawal must be related to occurrence of nuclear test in order obtain Senate ratification. If withdrawal not so related, Senate would pass reservation causing great difficulty. Question is how to deal with this problem. US, UK and USSR all want treaty and therefore hoped Soviets could accept our language.

Gromyko asked see text.

Harriman said text same as yesterday’s except “prohibited environments” changed to “three environments previously described.”

Gromyko said this very minor change.

Harriman responded was improvement compared with our original text which had referred to “violation.”

Gromyko admitted some improvement but still insisted very minor. Said yesterday Harriman and Hailsham had said Soviet formula broader than desired. Had pointed out formulation implied state could base its decision to withdraw from treaty on considerations far broader than those contained in treaty itself. Gromyko said he had gone into great detail yesterday in attempt explain matter but to preclude any possibility misunderstanding wished propose another version this article based on wording “related to the contents of the treaty” (sent septel).

Harriman expressed appreciation Soviet efforts find new language. Would have consult Washington before expressing opinion.

Gromyko, switching to English, said wished also state Soviets prepared accept language in preamble referring to general and complete disarmament in conformity UN purposes as suggested by US.

Harriman expressed gratitude and asked if Soviets had given further thought to Article 3. If Soviets would agree drop their language we could withdraw our proposal concerning “by means of effective treaty provision.”

Gromyko asked to hear text and following then read to him in both English and Russian: “Seeking to achieve the discontinuance of all test explosions of nuclear weapons for all time and determined to continue negotiations to this end and desiring to put an end to the contamination of man’s environment by radioactive substances.”

At this point Hailsham said Russian text was improvement.

Harriman then asked about treaty title.

Gromyko said felt perhaps better specify in title ban on nuclear weapons tests as this would have more favorable psychological effect on public opinion which considers this treaty as applying to nuclear weapons. Denied that this matter of principle or of any special interest to Soviet Union.

Hailsham asked whether subject should be “treaty for ban nuclear weapons tests.”

Gromyko responded that might be better.

Harriman said the US believed wiser specify in title three environments covered by treaty, so as not to create confusion in public mind. However, if Sovs preferred no reference to environments he would ask for Washington’s reaction. While matter not substantive, if of such psychological importance that unless Sovs could accept reference to three environments today, it would have to be referred to Washington.

Gromyko contended Sovs had no special motives re this matter, but believed from public opinion standpoint, particularly from standpoint those unfamiliar with fine points of problem, better concentrate in title on main point as scope of treaty determined by its contents so that no one would have any doubts re what was intended.

Harriman reiterated this not question of substance, only of public reaction, but would refer to Washington.

Hailsham did not believe UK Del would find any difficulty re preamble or title and therefore did not wish prolong discussion these matters. Re withdrawal language suggested by Sovs today, believed it represented substantial improvement over previous Sov text, and thanked Gromyko for having been able find such wording. Since Harriman was to refer to Washington, he thought he too should reserve his position until he communicated with London. However, personally he believed new Sov language was substantial improvement and therefore he did not wish minimize Sov effort.

Harriman then referred to article I noting it had been tentatively agreed in drafting committee and recalling subsequent US suggestion language para 2 should conform to para 1. However, article I in Sov draft treaty received yesterday contained some new language causing US certain difficulties; we would like preserve language tentatively agreed in drafting committee, with one modification he had indicated.

Gromyko said Sov draft treaty was composite text including article I with certain changes which Sovs believed should be acceptable to US/UK.

Harriman reiterated brand new language in that article caused difficulty.

Hailsham said new Sov language para 1–b, Article I, unintelligible. He could not understand it because purpose previous wording was to add to treaty coverage additional environment, i.e., underground explosions with venting. As he understood, Sov addition meant such tests should also be prohibited under future comprehensive ban; however, if there should be comprehensive ban it would cover all environments, including underground and therefore difficult understand why this clause necessary. Underground explosions with venting would automatically be covered in comprehensive treaty. Wondered whether reason for lack of clarity Sov addition perhaps lay in translation problems.

Gromyko believed there was no problem of translation. Point was that according to para 2, which had been proposed by US/UK, there were tests in a very special category, i.e., not fully underground and not fully in any of other three environments. Para did not deal with underground explosions as such but with vented underground explosions. Therefore, Sovs believed it should be clarified in treaty how this particular problem would be settled in future. Since question of such special tests had arisen it would be better, perhaps for political reasons, to include Sovs suggested language. He could see no demerits but only merits in that language, since it would strengthen the treaty without predetermining anything in future. While addition was not major, Sovs believed it useful.

Hailsham understood Gromyko’s remarks to mean comprehensive treaty would override limitation set forth in para 1–b. If that was so, he saw no difficulty in accepting Sov suggested addition but wished clarify what it meant.

Gromyko said such understanding could be correct, provided future agreement covered all four environments including underground. On other hand very specific situation would arise if future agreement covered only underground tests and not such tests as might be regarded as half underground and half atmospheric.

Hailsham said he had no objection in principle to addition, but believed improved language should be found. Believed this was only point of substance he wished to raise as other differences between US and Sov versions were purely matter of phraseology and UK could accept either version. If there were any differences in substance two versions, he wished respective sides tell him what they were. He could not see any problems of substance.

Harriman pointed out problems did arise. All these matters had been discussed in Washington for many months, but now we were faced with some brand new language. We believed treaty should stand by itself and should not deal with what might happen in future, possibly in some other form. Thought underlying Sov addition was included in preamble clause expressing hope comprehensive ban would be achieved. Since Sov addition could cause difficulties in Washington and had no clear object but only complicated matters, we wished ask Sovs remove it. New Sov draft also presented some difficulties of drafting nature, but since those might be due to translation or punctuation they should be referred to drafting committee. Hoped Sovs would remove this complication and agree refer to drafting committee Article I for final editing to make language as clear as possible to all.

Addressing himself to Hailsham, Harriman stressed these articles had been studied at length in Washington and each of phrases had definite meaning to conform with objectives we believed should be covered.

Gromyko asserted could not understand nature Harriman’s doubts and requested clarification. Wondered where Harriman saw drawbacks in Sov addition. He could well understand articles had been studied for months in Washington, but addition had been proposed not to weaken treaty but only to clarify it. Wondered whether Harriman’s doubts lay in belief Sov suggested language prejudged solution of question of future explosions of this kind.

Harriman said there were two points he wished to make clear. First, Sov addition meant rewriting of this para from what had been agreed in drafting committee. This para had been carefully drafted to cover all contingencies and without study one could not answer what problems addition would create. That was why he had suggested drafting committee study problem to see that all requirements and situations were covered. Second, there was matter Hailsham had spoken about, i.e., reference to future treaty. It was unusual to speak in text of one treaty of what some other treaty should cover. Reiterated this treaty should stand by itself and should not prejudge what should be covered in other. Language calling for achievement comprehensive test ban appropriate for preamble and indeed was already contained therein. We believed quite unusual have substantive part of treaty covering points of some future treaty not yet in existence. Certainly, when we came to comprehensive treaty we must be clear what should be covered and make sure no loophole would be left, but to prejudge this now would only complicate rather than clarify situation. Reiterated hope Sovs would remove their addition particularly as added nothing to present situation.

Gromyko had no objection to drafting committee studying this language and attempting agree on it. He now had clearer understanding Harriman’s doubts but believed they not justified. Sovs did not believe their additional language would prejudge future settlement this problem for there were only four environments and thus in comprehensive treaty one could add only one environment, i.e., underground. However, if Harriman believed present Sov suggested language in some degree prejudged nature future treaty then perhaps language could be used indicating that provision para 2 would be in effect until this problem was settled in future agreement, without speaking of nature of settlement.

Harriman observed effect would be same whether language included or not.

Gromyko commented this was not matter of substantive but Sovs believed better include such language.

Hailsham said he was impartial on this point.

Harriman suggested attempt be made find some language which would be clearer from standpoint our objectives. In any event matter must be carefully studied. Opined principal reason for Sov suggested addition was propaganda rather than substance. If addition was to be made purely for public opinion reasons we might consider it. However, we wished obtain Washington’s reaction to this matter, as Washington believed Article I had been settled.

Re articles II and III new Sov draft, Harriman said they under study by legal experts, and Washington had somewhat different language for them. However, did not believe any points of substance or principle were involved and therefore suggested they be referred to drafting committee as well.

Hailsham believed this was purely matter of language. While of course one could read different meaning into Sov and US versions he personally could put his name under either.

Gromyko agreed no matters of substance were involved.

Harriman noted Article IV new Sov draft (withdrawal clause) was one that created greatest difficulty. As to Article V that draft there appeared to be no problems.

Kohler

1. Meeting with Gromyko: resolving the finer points of acceptable language. 7 pp. Department of State, Central Files, DEF 18–3 USSR (MO).