Office of the Historian

429. Telegram From the Mission to the United Nations to the Department of State1

New York, September 10, 1963, 9 p.m.

755. Outer space—consultations with Soviets. USUN’s 744.2

1.
We believe Soviet paper received yesterday is moderate, businesslike document which provides basis for useful consultations in coming weeks. Fact that response to our July 26 paper delayed until morning of Outer Space Comite meeting indicates Soviets probably do not anticipate concrete agreement on legal principles during course of meeting, but would envisage progress, if any, to be recorded later, possibly during GA debate. See separate report of conversation with Morozov. Due delay in translations, caused by debate, have been unable compare language with Fedorenko statement in Comite.
2.
We do not feel that Space Comite meeting should be suspended or delayed on account of bilateral consultations with Soviets. To do so would place other members Comite in awkward, secondary role, and, as practical matter, would be difficult to convene Comite and produce its report to GA later than this week. Consultations with Soviets may require months before results are known. Accordingly, we are maintaining line that Comite seek finish work this week. Matsch and friendly members are in agreement.
3.
Believe legal portion of Comite report should be limited to recording results of Legal Subcomite meeting as indicated in para 11 of Legal Subcomite report and taking account consultation by modifying last para along fol lines:

“With a view to the desirability of reaching full agreement on the issues on the agenda of the Committee, the delegations taking part in its work recommend that the consultations and exchanges of views between members which have been undertaken should continue. It is hoped that these will result in a wider consensus before the GA takes up the Outer Space item during its 18th session.”

4.
If Dept agrees, we will respond to Soviet paper early 12 Sept as follows:
A.
Present Soviets with our translation their paper and ask if translation is accurate; and
B.
Seek clarification of Soviet paper with following questions:
(1)
With ref 3(A), does revision of preamble Soviet text include dropping para 1, as well as revision para 5?
(2)
3(D), what does joint responsibility of international orgs and “states participating” mean? How is responsibility divided? Are all member states participating or have Soviets some other idea? What orgs have Soviets in mind?
(3)
3(E), When do Soviets envisage Legal Subcomite would determine composition study groups? When would study groups meet?
(4)
Do Soviets envisage in their para 4 that state itself would determine potential danger its experiments before seeking consent other states? If not, how is potential danger to be determined?
(5)
With regard to compromise formula for unresolved problems, such as, for example, banning use of satellites for purposes of war propaganda, etc., and activity in outer space of private companies, what language have Soviets in mind?
(6)
Do Soviets believe that declaration must represent agreement on all outstanding issues, e.g., war propaganda, or might it be limited to areas on which agreement has already been reached, as outlined Fedorenko’s address?
5.
Although we might not pose all of above questions in next bilateral meeting, believe it would be useful to signal to USSR by 12 Sept. that we consider their response businesslike and will give it serious study in coming weeks. At same meeting we would also plan discuss with them above ideas for formulating legal portion of Comite report to GA.
6.
Unless we hear to contrary we plan give text of Soviet note to UK, Canadian and Australian Dels late 11 Sept with request that it be maintained strictly confidential as has been case with our 26 July note to Soviets.3
Stevenson
  1. Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1960–63, SP 6 UN. Confidential.↩
  2. Telegram 744 from USUN described at greater length the Soviet paper outlined in Document 428. (National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1960–63, SP 6 UN)↩
  3. This note was transmitted to USUN in telegram 197, July 23. (Ibid.)↩