30. Telegram From Secretary of State Rusk to the Department of State0
Secto 15. In conversations at Ambassador’s residence in Vienna following President’s luncheon for Khrushchev Secretary and Gromyko turned to discussion of disarmament.1 Secretary referred to so-called bilateral disarmament talks beginning in Washington June 19 and said perhaps agreement could be reached particularly on proposals regarding forum for broader disarmament discussions. Gromyko said he had made to Ambassador Stevenson number of reasonable proposals as to composition. Secretary pointed out Ambassador Stevenson had made some reasonable proposals on our side as well.
Gromyko said US was always talking about control. Khrushchev had spoken at length of Soviet willingness accept control in UNGA last fall but no other delegation made any mention this proposal. Secretary [Page 84] stated this question could be discussed endlessly on purely theoretical basis. In this connection wanted say frankly US very much taken aback by Soviet position in resumed nuclear test negotiations in Geneva. Without replying directly to Secretary Gromyko entered into history disarmament negotiations over past 15 years saying endless discussion of partial measures had led to absolutely no results. All Soviet proposals in this field had been rejected on ground they would change balance of power in favor Soviet Union. It was now time tackle GCD instead of starting up new round of discussions of partial measures which could go on for another 10 years.
Secretary stated Soviet Union could not both maintain its policies of military secrecy and achieve disarmament. These two policies, and he was willing grant Soviets really wanted disarmament, were incompatible. Secretary said there were only as he saw it two roads to disarmament. First would be prior settlement of political problems which might make possibilities of broader disarmament agreement. Second would be step-by-step basis with full inspection and control of each step. Gromyko said US ally Adenauer had said repeatedly no solution of political problems possible unless there was first progress on disarmament.
Secretary said for nearly 30 years one disarmament conference after another had taken place and proceeded in merely ceremonial fashion. He felt it time be realistic about this problem. The immediate action required was in conference in Geneva. In broad field of disarmament this was simple matter but it was vital test.
Gromyko referred to US adoption word “troika” to describe new Soviet proposals. Gromyko said troika was good word and good idea. It was to protect Soviet Union’s natural rights. They were only asking for one-third, not two-thirds. They had a right to one-third. Any decision against Soviet, or indeed against US interests, would be excluded. He did not want to use word “demand” which was too strong, but Soviets were very firm on this. If troika adopted US would be even better off than USSR because other one-third would side more often with US than USSR. Secretary commented real question that of veto. Gromyko replied if there were no veto Soviet proposal would not make sense.
Secretary stated if adequate number investigations seismic events could not be agreed test ban would become improbable. Gromyko replied, after some uncertainty as to whether he had said two or three, that three investigations would be acceptable.
Secretary said troika proposals were block to any progress in disarmament field. If they were maintained would be waste of time even to discuss disarmament since no disarmament would be possible if any one country could block inspection. Gromyko referred to Roosevelt proposal for veto in UN Security Council as precedent. Gromyko said under present circumstances GCD only way out. Secretary asked when Soviets had [Page 85] adopted troika proposal. Gromyko said UN operation in Congo had made them realize importance this proposal. Referred at length to US long years’ domination UN by mechanical voting majority. President Roosevelt’s veto proposals for UN Charter adopted realistic approach. US since that time had invalidated many provisions of Charter and emasculated Security Council. It was deviations from UN principles that had caused trouble. Secretary said troika proposal would run against every principle of arbitration and conciliation. Gromyko said always, even in ICJ, voting reflected state of affairs in world, therefore arbitration and conciliation were not solution. Gromyko said there were two sides to troika proposal: three-sided arrangement plus unanimity of most powerful countries. US wants order by which it could impose its decisions on USSR. Gromyko asked how he could convince us this not possible. If two sides were not able reconcile their interests it was better not to have decision.
Ambassador Thompson stated this might be true in important political decisions but not in disarmament. If two men have revolvers and decide to give them up they must be able to check whether another revolver is hidden under vest of second party. Gromyko said if general and complete disarmament treaty concluded all pockets could be examined. Even trousers could be taken off.
Nitze asked how you get through intermediate stages. Gromyko said they did not propose GCD like rocket shot. They had done their best to fit out stages with controls. Until complete disarmament was reached there naturally would not be complete control. Degree of control would be in accordance with degree of disarmament.
After discussion how troika would prevent inspection by veto in specific cases, Gromyko asked why build in such an abundance of doubts. He asked Secretary directly, do you think we are exploding atomic bombs now? Secretary replied we have no evidence Soviets are testing but it very difficult prove negative proposition. Gromyko stated vigorously that Soviets think US is sure Soviets not testing.
Gromyko said Soviets would resume testing if US did and other countries would also. He emphasized Soviets would not lose more than we by resumption. Everybody would lose but Soviets not more interested in testing agreement than was US.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 600.0012/6-461. Confidential. Repeated to Geneva.↩
- A memorandum of this June 3 conversation is ibid., 397.5611/GE/6-361. It is printed in vol. V, Document 61; see also the Supplement. Complete documentation on the Vienna summit meeting is in volume V.↩