224. Memorandum of Conversation1
SUBJECT
- Reconvening of the ENDC (U)
PARTICIPANTS
- Ambassador Anatoliy F. Dobrynin, USSR
- Mr. William C. Foster, Director, ACDA
At my request Ambassador Dobrynin came to my office today to discuss the situation with reference to the reconvening of the ENDC on January 18.
I briefly recounted the proceedings at the last two or three meetings of the Co-Chairmen in Geneva with which he appeared to be generally familiar. I emphasized the necessity of our using the brief time between now and mid-January in an attempt to find some way of making progress on the remaining questions between us on the Non-Proliferation Treaty. As had Ambassador Roshchin, Ambassador Dobrynin asked for any suggestions we might have as to changes in the first sentence of Article III. I emphasized to him, as I had to Ambassador Roshchin, that the November 2 formulation had been developed after intensive consultations with our Allies and met the five principles which Euratom had convinced our Allies were essential in order for the NPT to be acceptable to them.2 Since it is most important that these Allies do find the NPT acceptable in order for it to be of greatest value, it therefore appears clear that we must find a way to proceed along the lines of the November 2 formulation and only through this method does such progress seem possible. I briefly sketched the remaining open questions on duration, amendments, and review conferences and the Ambassador stated he was aware of these points but had no specific new information on them.
I reviewed the important timing questions starting with the necessity of the Co-Chairmen meeting in Geneva about the 15th of January if the ENDC is to reconvene on January 18. The meeting of the ENDC on the 18th would allow approximately two months at Geneva in order to be able to meet the deadline of the U.N. Resolution which in turn leaves little time for other formalities prior to the scheduled meeting of the non-nuclear-weapon nation states on August 29. The Ambassador agreed [Page 547] with these concerns and felt that time indeed is running out since any substantial delay, in his opinion, would lead to decisions being made on the part of certain countries which would make it impossible to achieve limits on proliferation.
I told him that the discussions between Mr. Fisher and Minister Kuznetsov in New York covering the possibility of Mexican and other amendments being accepted and put before the ENDC on January 18 might allow a little more time for discussions on Article III between the Co-Chairmen, but not much time. We also discussed the possibility of a meeting of Foreign Ministers at Geneva if sufficient progress had been made so that the completion of the NPT appeared close to achievement.
He said he would report our discussions to Moscow but hoped that we too would consider the possibility of flexibility on the first sentence of Article III, Paragraph 1.3
I made known to him that I expect to be out of circulation for a period due to the probable necessity of an operation this week. He asked who would head the delegation at Geneva, and I said either Mr. Fisher or Mr. De Palma, at least at first.
In concluding, I mentioned again the deep interest that the United States Government has in the possibility of discussions on the limitation of offensive and defensive delivery systems. He responded that he was aware of this, having recently heard the same thing from Secretary McNamara.
- Source: Johnson Library, National Security File, Country File, USSR, Dobrynin Conversations, Volume I, 11/63-4/68, Box 229. Secret; Limdis. Drafted by Foster on December 26. The conversation was held in Foster’s office.↩
- See Document 216 for the text of the November 2 draft and the relevant five Euratom principles.↩
- For a discussion of the negotiations over the first sentence of Article III, paragraph 1, see the enclosure to Document 220.↩