Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963, Volume XVI, Eastern Europe; Cyprus; Greece; Turkey

236. Memorandum of Conversation⁰

SecDel/MC/137

New York, September 1962

SECRETARY’S DELEGATION TO THE SEVENTEENTH SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY

New York, October 7, 1962, 11 a.m–noon.

PARTICIPANTS

• United States
  • The Secretary
  • Richard H. Davis
• Finland
  • Foreign Minister Merikoski
  • Ambassador Seppala
  • Mr. Max Jakobson, Director Political Department

SUBJECT

• Acquisition of Ground-to-Air Missiles by Finland

Having touched on Finland’s policy of neutrality and President Kekkonen’s visit last year to the USA, the Foreign Minister said he wished to turn to a more important question which had been the subject of previous discussions. This question was the Finnish plan to acquire defensive air missiles. However, last spring the Finns found their plan to buy anti-aircraft missiles from the USSR using their ruble credit there had raised some doubts in the US. As it became clear to the Finns that linking the question of the reinterpretation of the Peace Treaty to these particular purchases had become a liability to Finland in their foreign relations, the Finnish Government had decided not to go ahead on these purchases. By this decision the Finns wanted to demonstrate that they were not acting under compulsion from any quarter in this matter.

The Foreign Minister continued that the acquisition of anti-aircraft missiles was not so important for purely military reasons. The Finns realize their military potential is not great. From the point of view of creating internal confidence in the Finnish potential to defend themselves, the acquisition of missiles is of considerable value.

The Foreign Minister expressed satisfaction that the Finnish point of view has now been understood by the UK and the USA. He wished to extend to the Secretary his personal appreciation that this matter has been brought to a conclusion. It would now be possible for the Finns to modernize their defense forces in this important respect. The British Government’s decision to accept Finnish reinterpretation of the Peace Treaty and the willingness of the US to sell conventional armaments were regarded by the Finnish Govt. as expressions of confidence in its policy of neutrality. The sole purpose of Finnish efforts to modernize and strengthen their defense capacity is to strengthen their security and neutrality.

As to what amount of armaments including ground-to-air missiles the Finns were prepared to purchase, the Foreign Minister stated this would be considered by the Finnish Cabinet after the return of President Kekkonen from his visit to the Soviet Union. He could only say at this time that the Finns are taking into account in deciding on what purchases to make the possible effect on Finnish neutrality. He emphasized that at the moment the Finns had no plans for the purchase of ground-to-air missiles. The British had made certain proposals in the past including the offer of Vigilant anti-tank missiles. These British offers will be considered at the same time the Cabinet meets. He reiterated that though in the past the Finns had planned to buy specific missiles from the USSR, at the moment there were no definite plans.

Turning to the subject of aircraft purchases, the Foreign Minister pointed out that Finland had up to the present time purchased military aircraft from France, Sweden and the UK. The Finns were now negotiating for the purchase of a small number of Soviet aircraft—one squadron of MIG fighters. This type of fighter plane can carry air-to-air missiles but until now the Finns have not negotiated with the Soviets for the purchase of such missiles. This squadron would contain only 15 combat planes though in addition some training planes would be involved.

The Foreign Minister said he had wanted to inform the Secretary in general terms of the Finnish position at this stage on the acquisition of defensive armaments. The Finns regarded it as most important to clarify their position on purchases of armaments. He also wished to refer to the information recently received from Ambassador Gufler by President Kekkonen that the US is willing to sell conventional armaments to Finland. As the President told Ambassador Gufler, the Finns have received this news with the greatest satisfaction. What the Finns may be able to buy from the US will have to be considered carefully when the Cabinet reviews the over-all problem of armament purchases.

The Foreign Minister then referred to the disastrous year which Finland had experienced for its agricultural production and remarked on the great drain on the Finnish budget. However, he thought that some arrangements could be made for purchasing certain armaments in the US.

The Secretary said he wished to emphasize that the primary responsibility in regard to the reinterpretation of the Finnish Peace Treaty rested upon the parties to that Treaty. It was not for the US to reinterpret the Treaty in place of the signatories to the Treaty. However personally the Secretary said he was a little puzzled by the underlying military rationale for the purchase of missiles now being considered by Finland. Missiles were a very expensive business. They require elaborate equipment, complicated radar, high technical skill and training and expensive construction work. For instance, the Secretary cited the limited number of ground-to-air missiles supplied to Cuba by the USSR which we estimate to cost in the neighborhood of $60 million.

Subsequently the Secretary said he would like to make some further observations. He thought careful consideration should be given to the circumstances of Finland’s military position in regard to its geographical location and its relation to the continent of Europe. Besides the factor of expense of installing these air defense missiles and the training of personnel, the problem of war in Europe should be seen in terms of a rocket war. Here the Secretary remarked that while we of course hoped there would be no war, if his conversation with the Foreign Minister was to have any reality on the issue of armaments purchases, it must be spoken about in terms of the possibility of war. In the age of rockets manned aircraft were beginning to be obsolete and the Finns might not find any to shoot at with ground-to-air missiles. In his opinion the primary defense of Finland was not to become a target for either side in the event of war. The warring powers would probably be so heavily involved with themselves that these countries which had no targets would be left alone because there would be nothing worth shooting at.

The Secretary said he did not wish to comment further on the expense of acquiring missiles from the Soviet Union since he was not certain the value the Finns put on their ruble credit. But if the Finns plan to spend their own resources for the purchase of missiles, he would counsel them to consider this matter very carefully. Missiles which other countries were willing to supply were in all probability already obsolete—first generation missiles—or otherwise these countries would not be willing to sell them to Finland.

The Secretary reiterated that his comments did not cancel his earlier remark that the question of the reinterpretation of the Peace Treaty was basically an issue for the signatories to the Treaty. However, he thought as a friend to Finland he ought to express his personal puzzlement at the Finnish desire to acquire missiles given Finland’s limited resources.

Foreign Minister Merikoski expressed surprise that the Secretary could look so deeply into one of so many countries in the world. He said their ruble credit in the USSR was a commercial credit and therefore it did have value. It was not a gift from the Soviet Union. As he had already remarked, the Finns realize their planned purchase of ground-to-air missiles was not of great value from the military viewpoint. The Finnish idea was to have some kind of air defense which their population supports. Even at that he realized this would not be a completely effective defense. Their main purpose was to strengthen the belief and confidence of the Finnish people in their government’s efforts to be able to defend themselves. This project would not run into anything like the cost mentioned by the Secretary in regard to Cuba. They had previously planned to purchase from the USSR only three batteries costing in the neighborhood of $12 million. They had already made a contract in the UK for the necessary radar amounting to approximately four million pounds. The Secretary observed that his remarks had related only to ground-to-air missiles and not to anti-tank missiles or other armaments. He added that if we were sending an official note to Finland, we would not be saying the things said today.

The Foreign Minister commented the Secretary had mentioned the training of personnel for these complex ground-to-air missiles. He wished to note that the question of training of crews had not yet come up with the USSR. The portion of ruble credit allocated for purchases from the USSR of defensive weapons by the Finnish military had already been used up so if there were to be new purchases it would require a new decision by the Finnish Government.

The Secretary observed that training ground crews for missiles requires about twelve to eighteen months. If the purchase of air-to-ground missiles meant that crews would be furnished by the supplying country in the intervening time, this could create embarrassment for Finnish neutrality. For instance in Cuba if their defensive air missiles were to be used in the next year, we would have to assume that they would be serviced by Soviet crews. This question of trained crews could present difficult political problems.

The Foreign Minister asserted that the only current training project concerned the training in the Soviet Union of Finnish air officers for aircraft purchased in the USSR. There would be no Soviet instructors in Finland.

The Secretary remarked that he was glad he was not a member of the Finnish Cabinet and had to participate in decisions on the question of purchasing missiles. This question involved the position of Finland in relation to the total military picture in Europe. If the Finns had a different geographical position, the problems might be different. Referring to the expense of sophisticated weapons, the Secretary observed somewhat laughingly that some officers in the Pentagon have a saying in regard to weapons that “if it shoots, it’s obsolete”.

Ambassador Seppala stated that the Finns have an army which needs to be modernized. They could not be armed just with old rifles. Here the psychological element was very important. Small countries can’t defend themselves but they need to have the potential to make a “bang”. The Secretary concluded by referring to an African friend who recently had asked for the US to supply his country with supersonic aircraft. He had pointed out to this African friend that the cost of these aircraft would be enough to establish and run two universities. Again the Secretary emphasized that this issue was basically a matter for the signatories to the Peace Treaty.

0. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 760E.5612/10–762. Secret. Drafted by Davis on October 8 and approved in S on October 11. The meeting was held at the Waldorf Astoria. The source text is labeled “Part III of V.” Separate memoranda of this conversation are ibid., Conference Files: Lot 65 D 533, CF 2153.