Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XI, Arms Control and Disarmament

40. Record of Meeting of the Committee of Principals¹

Washington, July 23, 1964, 8 a.m.

SUBJECT

• Verification of Freeze on Strategic Nuclear Vehicles—Discussed by the Committee of Principals

PARTICIPANTS

• See Attached List²

Secretary Rusk opened the meeting by commenting that he thought the subject paper³ was quite complicated and questioned whether this would be understandable to the political representatives at the ENDC. Mr. Foster pointed out that most of the representatives at the ENDC had been intimately involved in the disarmament problem for two or more years and were therefore quite used to handling papers of this sort. He added that many of the items here had been previously handled in briefer form in the ENDC and the objective was to present this more detailed material on verification in order to answer and clarify certain Soviet objections. Certain areas of the freeze were not covered, such as ABMs, prototype testing and elaboration on the launcher problem. He felt that it was very desirable, however, to present this material on either the 6th or the 20th of August since these were the two dates during the present session at which the U.S. would be in a position to select the topics.

Secretary Rusk believed the paper was suitable for presentation but suggested two additional paragraphs; one at the beginning and one at the end. The initial introduction would point out that the freeze was a serious U.S. proposal but that the present paper was illustrative in nature and not a complete or definitive U.S. position. These and other subjects would have to be negotiated out in detail. A final paragraph would be added which would point out that this paper did not cover all subjects and would list the various items which would have to be considered at a future time. Mr. Foster concurred in the concept of an introductory paragraph which would put the present statement in an illustrative context. He doubted, however, the desirability of mentioning the specific items in a final paragraph since this might open these for detailed discussion at a time when the U.S. had not yet achieved agreed upon positions. In this connection he indicated that the insertion (Page 11) on launch site inspection proposed by Mr. McCone would raise some problems since we did not have a position on the desired type of controls on launch sites.⁴ Secretary McNamara indicated that he, too, felt some kind of an introduction was needed to point out that this was only a partial discussion of the problem but agreed that specific issues need not be detailed.

Mr. Bundy suggested that in view of the importance of ABMs this could be used as an example in order to avoid possible implications that ABMs were no longer a part of the freeze.

Secretary Rusk asked whether the inspections were not so arduous that the Soviets would never accept them. Mr. Foster explained that while inspection was quite detailed, it was very much less than that which existed for GCD. Mr. McCone explained his reasons for recommending the inclusion of the sentence on launcher inspection (Page 11). He felt that without it the right to inspect existing launchers for unauthorized improvements would be foreclosed. He also suggested the deletion of the clause, “yet at the same time unnecessarily intrusive,” at the end of the last paragraph on Page 14.⁵ He felt it would be difficult to justify or misleading to indicate that the type of inspection required would not be intrusive to the Soviets. He further observed that there had been in the past considerable criticism of inspection systems which observed the removal of things, but did not inspect the remainders. He further agreed with Secretary Rusk and Secretary McNamara on the need for an introductory paragraph. Mr. Foster observed that the purpose of the “intrusive” phrase was to try to bring the Soviets along on this inspection and that indeed the inspection was very much less intrusive than that required for GCD. Secretary Rusk suggested that perhaps the language might be changed to draw the comparison with GCD, and this was agreed upon.

Secretary Rusk also wondered whether the language was adequate to provide protection against inspection of sensitive installations. Mr. Foster read the sections on Pages 13 and 14, and indicated that he believed this adequately covered the problem which would be admittedly difficult. He felt that the situation would be adequate to guard against significant violations. Some discussion ensued on what violations would be significant, but it was agreed that this was a very complicated problem and could not be resolved at this time. Secretary McNamara expressed a desire not to foreclose at this time on this subject or on the numbers and types of inspections required. Mr. Bundy agreed that the paper should remain loose and said he felt that it was just about right at the present time. He felt that it was important to present it at this time at Geneva since this had been one of the key points in the President’s position.

General Wheeler requested clarification on why it was proposed to change the phrasing on additional procedures in Paragraph 1, Page 14.⁶ He preferred the original wording. Although State had proposed this change, Secretary Rusk said he had no objection to going back to the old wording and all concurred. With these changes it was agreed that the paper would be suitable for presentation at Geneva at an early date.

Other Business

Secretary Rusk observed that he was worried about the procedures involved in handling the collateral or partial measures. The negotiation of large numbers of treaties with all the complications of developing precise and agreed language and the clearing of these treaties through the Government and the Senate were very cumbersome and time-consuming. He thought we should look at other alternatives such as a possible Arms Commission under the Security Council which would keep a roster of information on the armed forces of all countries. This Commission could keep everyone informed and might make it easier to achieve arms reductions by unilateral decisions. Such decisions would be less binding and, therefore, perhaps not require elaborate control mechanisms. Mr. Foster observed that this was the general direction in which we were presently going and quoted the examples of the bombs in orbit resolution, budget reduction, and the fissionable material cutback. He felt that the ENDC still served a very useful purpose even in these types of arrangements and he would not like to see this abandoned.

Secretary Rusk felt that it was desirable to develop some machinery which would get the smaller nations involved in arms control since almost all the arms control activity involved only the U.S. and the USSR. Mr. Foster indicated that this had resulted from the criticality of the nuclear forces in the present age, but agreed that other areas were important. He agreed that we should explore this other approach. Mr. McCone agreed that the small nation problem was extremely worrisome and could precipitate all of us into war.

Mr. Foster informed the group that he had prepared a paper on non-dissemination⁷ as a follow-up to the discussion at the 16 June 1964 Principals’ meeting.⁸ He stated that this paper should have a limited distribution to the Principals in view of its sensitivity and would go out shortly for comment.

Secretary Rusk informed the group that Mr. Butler had requested permission to tell Khrushchev on his forthcoming visit that we would never give up the veto on the MLF.⁹ Secretary Rusk had told Mr. Butler that this would not be appropriate since it would have to be considered by all eight countries.¹⁰ Secretary McNamara agreed, but he felt very strongly that we should avoid giving the reverse impression. He felt that a number of Government people were encouraging the idea of giving up the veto either by leaks or in private conversations. He thought this was very bad and would be a great disservice to the success of many of our programs and our policies, and even to the MLF itself. Secretary Rusk agreed and said he would pass these instructions on to his staff. Mr. Foster indicated that in the ACDA paper it was attempted to develop a language which would “waffle” the situation, by referring to no increase in the number of independent entities having control over nuclear weapons. Secretary McNamara had some doubts on the desirability of any language at this time. He stated that he had made it clear to various European leaders, and believed Secretary Rusk had done likewise, that when the day came that European nations could have an independent nuclear force it would be the day that the U.S. would remove its five divisions from Europe. He had discussed this with Von Hassel and he did not feel there was any great pressure from the German side for this control.¹¹ Secretary Rusk agreed and stated that a Europe with an independent nuclear force also meant an independent U.S.

Upon a request from Mr. Bundy for the Geneva schedule, Mr. Foster pointed out that we had two days, 6 and 20 August, on which the U.S. could select topics for discussion. One of these would be covered by the freeze paper which had been agreed upon today.¹² The other subjects which had been agreed for discussion as a part of the collateral measures were non-dissemination, fissionable materials cutoff, budget and bomber destruction. He had suggested termination for the present session early in September to permit smaller countries to prepare for the UN meeting in the fall and to avoid unprofitable discussions during the pre-election period. Secretary Rusk wondered whether we could not raise the topic of arms control in other countries than the U.S. and the USSR, perhaps initially in private discussions with the Soviets. Mr. Bundy indicated that this should be handled with great care since it was potentially explosive. It was agreed that the matter would be studied.

The meeting was adjourned at 9 a.m.

1. Source: Department of State, S/S-RD Files: Lot 68 D 452, Committee of Principals, January-July 1964. Secret. Probably drafted by Scoville, who is listed as reporting officer on the attached list of participants. The meeting was held in the James Madison Room, Department of State. The source text is also attached to the summary of actions taken at the meeting, Document 41, which provides the time and place of the meeting.
2. Not printed.
3. Reference is to the position papers, “Draft U.S. Statement to the ENDC on Verification of a Freeze on Strategic Nuclear Vehicles,” July 9, which was sent to the Committee of Principals under cover of a memorandum from Foster, July 9. A prefatory note to this paper states that it was based “on the U.S. statement in NAC together with the substance of the amendments transmitted in Todis 1508 of July 7.” (Department of State, S/S-RD Files: Lot 68 D 452, Committee of Principals, January-July 1964) Todis 1508 is ibid., Central Files, DEF 18-3.
4. Reference presumably is to a later paper, “Proposed Modifications in Draft U.S. Statement to the ENDC on Verfication of a Freeze on Strategic Nuclear Vehicles.” July 17, which has not been found.
5. The full text of this paragraph is as follows: “The U.S. believes that an inspection arrangement of the type I have just described, together with such additional procedures as might be required, would afford adequate assurance of compliance with the proposed freeze on strategic nuclear vehicles and yet at the same time not be unnecessarily intrusive.”
6. This paragraph related to procedures for withdrawal from a treaty covering a freeze on strategic nuclear vehicles.
7. Entitled, “Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons,” this draft position paper was sent under cover of a memorandum from Foster to Secretary Rusk, July 23. (Department of State,S/S-RD Files: Lot 68 D 452, Committee of Principals, January-July 1964)
8. See Documents 36 and 37.
9. British Foreign Minister Butler had several talks with Khrushchev and Gromyko during his visit to Moscow July 27-August 1. Using reports not yet approved by Butler, Richard Faber, British First Secretary, summarized these talks in a conversation with Richard Freund, Deputy Assistant Director, ACDA/IR. In his talk with Gromyko on July 29, Butler said that his government would not take part in the MLF without a veto on the use of weapons nor if it thought the MLF would be provocative to the Soviets. After Gromyko replied with a tirade against Germany, Butler “reiterated that Britain would retain a veto on the use of nuclear weapons and that the control arrangements could not be changed without British consent.” (Memorandum of conversation, August 7; Department of State, Central Files, DEF 18)
10. This conversation or communication has not been further identified.
11. Reference is apparently to McNamara’s trip to Bonn from May 9-11, during which he held several conversations with German Defense Minister Kai-Uwe von Hassel. Documentation on this visit is scheduled for publication in volume XV.
12. The draft paper was revised to incorporate the decisions of the meeting, and the approved paper was forwarded under cover of a memorandum from Foster to the Committee of Principals, July 24. (Department of State, S/S-RD Files: Lot 68 D 452, Committee of Principals, January-July 1964) Acting Representative Timberlake read the approved paper at the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee meeting on August 27. Text in Documents on Disarmament, 1964, pp. 367-373. Timberlake’s statement was identical to the text of the July 9 paper cited in footnote 3 above except for a few sentences and an added opening and final paragraph.