270. Letter From Secretary of Defense Clifford to Secretary of State Rusk1
Washington, August 15, 1968.
Dear Dean:
The proposed memorandum for the President concerning Arms Control on the
Seabed has been reviewed within the Department of Defense.2
I agree that there may be serious disadvantages in a United States refusal to
be forthcoming on the issue of peaceful purposes. The Joint Chiefs of Staff
concur in this view. However, we have certain difficulties with the specific
arms control proposal set forth in the draft formulation of a U.S. statement
on this subject. I am therefore enclosing an alternative draft statement
incorporating some changes which I believe will cover the concerns expressed
in the discussion portion of the draft memorandum while affording more
adequate protection for the national security interest.3
[Page 681]
I am in general agreement with the discussion which supports the proposal.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff have suggested some changes in paragraphs 5 and 6
of this section which will more accurately reflect their previously
expressed views. I agree with these suggested changes so they are also
attached.4
Sincerely,
Tab A5
Memorandum for the President
SUBJECT
- Arms Control on the Seabed
Recommendation:
That, during the August 19-30 meeting of the United Nations Ad Hoc
Committee on the Seabed, the United States Representative be authorized
to state:
“The United States supports the adoption of a General Assembly resolution
declaring that the seabed and deep ocean floor should be used
exclusively for peaceful purposes. The United States has previously
supported, in the Space Treaty of 1967, the use exclusively for peaceful
purposes of the moon and other celestial bodies. As we said then we
understand that the test of whether an activity is ‘peaceful’ is whether
it is consistent with the United Nations Charter and other obligations
of international law.
“We believe it is important to prevent the spread of the arms race to new
environments. It is appropriate that the General Assembly should go on
record in support of this proposition as the
Assembly addresses itself to the future use of the seabed and deep
ocean floor. A resolution declaring that the
deep ocean floor should be used exclusively for peaceful
purposes. It is evident that
preventing the spread of the arms race to this new environment
requires meaningful and effective measures of arms control, and to
that end the careful elaboration of legal instruments taking the
form of an international agreement. There must obviously be reliable
and effective means for verifying compliance with such an
agreement.
[Page 682]
However, considering that the term ‘peaceful purposes’
does not preclude military activities generally, specific
limitations on certain military activities will require the
negotiation of a detailed arms control agreement.
“To that end the United States proposes that the
ENDC
undertake negotiations with a view to
achieving an
examine the question as to whether a viable
international agreement pursuant to may be achieved in which each party would agree
not to emplace or fix weapons of mass destruction on the seabed or deep
ocean floor, beyond a narrow band along its
coast and up to the coast of any other State. The width of this
narrow band would be determined by negotiation. The prohibition on
emplacement or fixing should be aimed at launching platforms and
delivery systems as well as weapons themselves. These discussions must also consider the need for
reliable and effective means for verifying compliance with such an
agreement. Other military activities would continue to be conducted
in accordance with the principle of freedom of the seas and
exclusively for peaceful purposes.
“We propose that (this Committee or General Assembly) request the ENDC to take up this question.”
Tab B6
EXCERPT FROM JCSM-497-68,
dated 10 August 1968
“3. (S) The Joint Chiefs of Staff also have
no objection to the”Discussion” provided the following changes are
made:
a. Substitute the following for paragraph 5:
“5. The Joint Chiefs of Staff understandably have been concerned
about the question of verification of a ban on seabed
emplacement of nuclear weapons. On 27 April 1968, they stated
that the United States did not have a verification
capability.7 They also
stated that they did not believe that any nation had such a
capability. However, this issue is now under intensive study by
the intelligence community. In any event, during discussions in
the ENDC there will be a full
opportunity to investigate the problems of verification and to
satisfy ourselves as to how they will be handled before we enter
into new treaty commitments.”
Reason: Accuracy.
b. Substitute the following for paragraph 6:
[Page 683]
“6. Although there is no formally planned weapons system on the
deep ocean bottom, the Joint Chiefs of Staff feel strongly that
the option of a future nuclear weapons system in this
environment should remain open. Should technological
developments by the United States make this option feasible, the
Joint Chiefs of Staff believe the use of the deep ocean bottom
would be more advantageous to the United States than to the
USSR. Paragraph 3 of the
recommended statement uses the language you recently approved
for use in the United Nations. This language was carefully
formulated so as not to foreclose any military options
prematurely. We have taken action to reassure our NATO Allies that it is not our
intention to foreclose this option but only to define those
factors vital to the consideration of an agreement in this area.
The definition of these factors, along with the progress made in
the strategic missile talks to which a seabed agreement is a
logical corollary, may determine whether an agreement in this
area should be pursued.”
Reason: To make the discussion support the
recommended change to paragraph 3 of the proposed statement and to
express more clearly the position of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
For the Joint Chiefs of Staff:
Pete C. Sianis
8
Major General, USAF Deputy Director, Joint Staff
