Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 14, 2016
Document Release Date: 
May 21, 2003
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
September 22, 1952
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP80B01676R000600010048-5.pdf1.62 MB
- t ? ved For RagigiMEAT6ht6SMAMPINEM153110D0600010048-5 ADORcs OFFICIAL comiumcAMT THE SECRETARY 1:/F ST1ATE WASHINGTON 4 D. C.:, Dear Mr. Dulles: DEPARTMENT OF STATE WASH I NGTON September 22, 1952. At the suggestion of McGeorge Bundy on the occasion of his visit to Washington last week, I am sending you herewith for your information the latest draft of the Department's position paper for the forthcoming UN General Assembly, on the subject of "Regulation, Limitation and Balanced Reduction of All Armed Forces and All Armaments; Report of the Disarmament Commission." This paper is still subject to final clearance. Very sincerely yours, LLtkl?IA-1 ?1)" Lincoln P. Bloomfield Enclosure: One copy of DAC D-10a. State Dept. review completed Mr. A1 n W. Dulles, Deputy Director, Central Intelligence Agency, 2430 E Street, N. W., Washington 25, D. C. Approvedbmitimta(1,3/WVitifAililiaWN6R000600010048-5 Approved For Release 2003/06/16 : CIA-RDP80601676R000600010048-5 CLIK___14,101tHr atmatz Inforreatifig DAC D-10a ? . SepteMber 18, 1952 ARKING gm ON DE.p.mtismus.,..zEt Cam= Position aLmr. Ls kJ?, balm Baas balm gwaral Lealablz ? Mita: Iltiglelbat 1#.41.2rent al Ind raw. $r. g LzatataSsa Iltual tr. ?.ft. Mom- rnsu Gsmintst ? The attached docent incorporates the suggeetione made by the nenabers of DAC at the meeting bald on September 160 1952. It is distributed for final clearance at the earliest possible date. Caneentii should be aeldressed to Howard Memel UN?, Room 6104 New State Building. E. 14? Christenson Secretary ECIMMAld ?aurilittx latasslisn Approved For Release 2003/06/16 : CIA-RDP80601676R000600010048-5 M.P.rikpproved For Release 2003/06/16 : CIA-RDP80601676R000600010048-5 toama 0.171DE :TIAL ; Ur: I En Seventh Reg tlar of the Genera/ Azasora" ULATInt_JOITATIO:1_121M) REDUCT103 'V ALL 11.20 !O ta ;3 AID ALL PailiVE-IT'S: 0211T D FARZI.A. j..,__L_?E _.a.T 301111 3a 1 ? 0 THLMMLid What (tourist of act on should be taken by the united :Mates in the General Asoembly o t!.m !Tubjagt of disarmament and, in particular: am To br attcstion of the General Assembly and wcrld opinion the noric,us716,3o 'Of Jnitod States efforts to aelieve an effbotive and comprehsive disarmament program; b. To *minter expeat4d :;eviet attacks on the disarmanent proposals made in tho Diaarmament Commission by the,United Aates, the United Kingdom and France an to counter probable 3oviot -lisarmaAant proposals. RE:NW-MAT= 1. In the opening address in the General Debate, the :sad of toe United States Delegation elould: a. Reaffirm the determination of the United States to aahleve international peace and world soeurity, and recognise United States responsibility as a Member of the Jnited :lotions to promote these objectives; relating to peeps anti secIrity b. Declare that the major problem/us the world today is aggressiono no matter how committed; c, Reaffirm the solemn commitment of the United Statee? under the Charter of the United ations? never tout* armed foree contrary to the Charts?, and declare thin is a oommitment against the use of aggression in any form or with any weapon, whether employing bacteriological Approved For Release020M/61CLA-EPui8M1REm10048-5 Approved For Release 2003/06/16 : CIA-RDP80601676R000600010048-5 fietIZIgn =MU an 2 bacteriological warfare, atomic weepon;* masa armies or any other d, Emphasise that this pledge not to use armed force contrary to the Charten, is supported by an affirmative program advanced by the United Statese designed to do more than just eliminate all instruments of 13813 destsvatiomeehether SW, toete or mass armies?by also proposing vast reductions in armed forces and armaments of all kindse attempting to make the possibility of war lose likely through agreement on an effestive comprehensive disarmament progreme and describe IS efforts in the Disarmament Commission as evidence of 16 intentions in this roved; (30 Reaffirm DS intent to continue working for disarmament and pscoe, in the Disarmament Commission and any other feasible forum? 2, During the hearings an the Report of the Disarmament Commissions) the United States should introduce in Committee a resolution which should contain the following principal points: ao Note and approve of the work of the Disarmament Commission; be indicate that the goal of disarmament is not to regulate the conduct of hostilities but to create conditions which will reduce the likelihood of aggressive warfare* c. Reaffirm General A086111337 Resolution 502 (VI), which established the Disarmament Comessions and request the Commission to continue its efforts to Work out the comphrehensive disarmament plans called for by that resolution. de Cell an all *It is suggested that this; pledge would be given added force if supported by both the Republican and Demooratic candidates for President in statements ms4o after the speech is given in the GA. Approved For Releanak apaaggspirsomomipo o 048-5 Approved For Release 2003/06/16.. qlerRDP80B01676R000600010048-5 d. Call on all states to ,x9e:eate izi.ti:e..diag the Cansiesionto - reach agreement on the problems tlith which it is emanated. A draft resolution is attached as -zLex The resolution should have Wide ;and repr.,set.e.t5se. iveyalership in order to help obtain maximum support. In V1047 of the membership of the Disarmament Comudeeion? the sponsors 'might include tlxs United Kingdom, France, Paldstan, Chile or Brx,:a9 s:A. ai4.e.b 3* In cornectica with the abovecievezrilx4i. 1,33olution, the U. S. Delegation should emphasize the :roe plec tiwt Pitted Statoe in the Disarmament Commission,' The United. t;tate so Initletni,:.4, or joined in partnership with the thited Kffltadan and Feence.p, late placed before the Disarmament CoveUssio.n the broad elltline ,4f a pee:Able comprehensive disarmaannt program. %hie fact, a eimple evelenation of the proposals, and our willingaells to discuss opea4ainded2,y ay proposals in the Commission should 371 be emphrisived. 4. The United States Delegation should colelter poseibl.o Soviet disarmament proposals callin for (..i) retificatieu e the 1%5 Gonave bacteriological warfare protocol, a United Natirens declaration against the we of napalm, ova-third reduc.V.en of armed forces and non.atomic armaments by the rive Orett Faverup (iv) Et declaration for prehibition of atomic weapons tour but with tho under:AE=111w prohibition is to go into effect eimulteneourly leith the establishment of international SECLUTY ;1?141CRIV.,121 Approved For Release 2003/06/16 : CIA-RDP80601676R000600010048-5 Approved For Release 2003/06/1trt1g-kardoB01676R000600010048-5 of international )2.113 ? warld canfererioe on disarma- ment within a few /1,, When ;evict L,ropaganda charges unrelated to disarmament ars introduced Into illscussion of Aisarmament, particularly thorJ,a alleging the Uniterl ltes hAq u--/ a bacteriological warfar in .orth Communist ore a or/eaina 'the aton (i) point out these Are the same lies uttered proviouAy by tha Communists r-lud reminiscent of iitler's "Big Lie" tschnlquoi (ii) remind the &ssembly that the j.3. sari T,Iany times requested an i.k:-Artial investigation of these charges, oily to have these requests rejeoted by the Chinese Communists, the North Korean. Conmunists and the Soviet Union, the latter by its familiar and oft-used veto in the Security Council; (iii) raise the point of order that theca chargee are unrelated to disarmament, will be 4iscuss. ed elsewhere in the General Assembly (either in connection with a Soviet agenda item dealing specifically with these charges or expanded to inoludd them or under an item introduced by one of the Jo stern &mot:mac/es. Jae position paper on Soviet Charges), and are extraneous to the immediate problem. The background paper on IN should be referred to for additional arguments. b. As to ratification of the 1e25 Geneva BW protocol, the Delegation should explain that the United States believes the protocol's objective is humane and worthy but too limited. The protocol merely collects promises not to UAO 8, and reservations to the treaty allow its use in retaliation, while permitting stockpiling of such weapons. The United. States wishes to eliminate all weapons of mass destruction, including BW, under adequate safeguards and as part of a oomprehensive and balanced .....ECOMEMIL4=?.SECURITY IlFORMATIOI Approved For Release 2003/06/16 : CIA-RDP80601676R000600010048-5 ? Approved For Fiagaa6013706/16 : CIA-RDP80401. i6Rii00600010048-5 and balanoed disarmament pinenlva,. T4s IN problem cannot be dealt with in notation but must te,disposat of within the frnmework of a compre- hvaiva diseroamont pro am, end it ifp to that end that ill should bard their eilOrts. It is not euouTh namely to attempt to regulate the conduct nf war, an0 tin LiniW 3tatealselievesIbe true goal is to ersate c,:)nd.tticals maUng thm gutbroak of war far lees likely. The grftwart againat pesuo and maourity ? forint: 7:grog11.04 to ratter what istnpora areemploYed, and the United ' ts .1.1t4pttzg to r duoo the ponsibility and likelihood of aggreattion through e3retmont on an olarall disarmament system. United States offal: In ths tiiszezmut %mission boar testimony to the onrioasness and olOcat of our efforts to attain this objective. ? With regard t any declaration not to use napalm, it should bo potated out tat napalm is an izsendiary, one of a *lass of weapons wed for 2,00) years and employed on both sides in World Ar II, ftillar LA antiqmity ts "Greek tire,,4 In Korea, it has been used only against military objectives, particularly fortifioationo, bunkers and onplaoercnts0 Arty deolaratiao against its use distorts the role napalm has legitimately played in helping out-numbered UI forces rueaessfUay resiet and repot a criminal act of armed aggression in Korea, %oh a deolaration only imores the root of the problem, how to aohieve balanced disarmament and Increase the likelihood of peane? ratbnr than merely to regulate the conduct of var. It might he said that all weepons are frightful when used for aggressive papaws) inxt the attempt to regulate their use uithout rolatity: this to the total of disarmament problems only intensifies our diffieul- ties. The United 3tates UMW, IFCRVIATI1N Approved For Release 2003/06/16 : CIA-RDP80601676R000600010048-5 Approved For Release 2003/06/16 : CIA-RDP80501676R000600010048-5 want a ting :the conalzok, of traro V113.10 , to. 192.5 i":13 anothtir Ergo arid* bilb tall ono*cirleei? una or ,anyindiA it mai orr thew .Arorlell, .tr pieopiere :41v1:11, into nothing hut 40431 av ottzv inaiTritau hinet.9v flea Ott In OiVi tre$2 witt:13, to /pall* o goal, 4.6. diva's; tallfzet, honalv-a Otmuiva nOt inst tb 1t?4'appVcao omditicins kinE w. inaerklia.r.7,1,,ro3porssi , far '649 wovipo of twilit:1J* mitt oomplatel Inat 'dies , a ail over LtiI Pro btt h Ong te probbame &rya anba. ?? tha,trdo tallas ett problavasin both i'l.eada? objsotivN,ii to establiab aviastrant on .t?-ttalt,ta oi.t, etU ele rra at". TIM' tokkat, ,74-11,104 by th-a vatt pbM 4,kr tontio traapona- ion shot/14'point tho 40. placed major emphasie on the propaganda theme that the United Altos in the Jeourity Council and at the Toronto Rei arose Conference has -temetivereeligatiems,Actionowiamitencai, and be baCkground paper considered the use of atomic weapons, as weapons Of aggression and mass COMMENT: sazigual.pechitiedlerpoSomeemie.weartne and the establishment of stylist the Big The Powers reduce their armaments and armed euvees br third within a year. An international control organ 6 Mid be *stab. these explanations and is anxious to discuss the 3oviet proposals in played with variations. The nature of these obargea ;oviet bloc The Soviet proposals would hvre the Disarmament Dommission recommend the Disarmacent Comivaion. activities with respect to them is described in the position paper on extolled the virtues of its proposals on disarmament which hai been prohibition of atomic weapons aneL.tlle.cetabliehassat.of.stelet.tater. has used bacteriological warfare in lerth Korea and Phina, a Vim* theAgSteetwon4elegastaanala.aalia-aladmalami47-44-411se-8404?6-gentota. referred to tie Commission b..- the lixth Session of the 3eneral Assembly, that the General Aseembly proclaim irmasdiately the unoonditional international control over thee:forcemeat of this prohibition, it being understood that prohibition and the institution of control/to be cut and ineompatible with United Nations membership. The U3Si meld have into effect simultaneously. The Assembly shouldialso Aeclare that it destructions to he at varianate with the conscience and honor of peoples specifieally ooneerned with BW. 20 /A the Disarmament Commission, the USSR has at varioustmes 1. During the past six months the USSR in the Disarmament Commissions Approved For Release 2003/06/16 : CIA7RDP80B01676R000600010048-5 Soviet ethane. - , were 114410-6001abAkeiektaiteRFA8g6tA4lAilkeivIAB01941431Abol1ROU269, ths /41400,001#04. nrimwrnewevat - ? Approved For Rele 00010048-5 the.inplementation of stogie weapons prohibition and the one?third reduction, as well as to verify official information disclosed by states regarding their armaments and armed forces. This international a? ntral organ would have the right to conduct inspection on a oontinuing basis, but would dot be entitled to interfere in thetmestio affairs . of any state. A world disarmament conferepos should be called not later than July 15, 1952 to consider the problems involved in re icing armed forces and armaments, and how to prohibit the atomic; weapon and establish international control over such prohibition. Tho Disarmament Commission should prepare a draft convention by June 4 submitting it to the Security Council, oovering the same problems which were .aubsequentArbbs ooasidered by the world don/Wanes. Pinally, and t is point v.. added after the BW propaganda eamptign began, t e WM demanded consideration of the questions of violating the prohibition against booteriological warfars, the banning or the vee of BJ, an' Galling to aosount those who violated such ban. In the Disarmament Commission, the querios of various members for olarifiaation of the Soviet propoealswere met by Mr. Malikos insistenee that the members of the Co don must firet weept the soviet proposals A in principle an' then Mr. Mail( would explain what he meant. It should also be noted that, at the Toronto Red Cross conference, the, USSR delegation introduoed a resolution which sought an uneonditional declaration that tonic weapons ,should be prohibited. layovers tie UK delegation amended the resolution to read that eovornments should ilea*, within the framework of a gclolya 41samacant program, to a plan for international control 1.4ENT MAIRIMAIFORNAT491. Approved For Release 2003/06/16 : CIA-RDP80601676R000600010048-5 Approved For Release 2003/06/16 : CIA-RDP80601676R000600010048-5 COVIDENT/AL JECIRITY I-roamAnoa international control of atomic energy which would assure the ,7rohibition of' atomic weapons and the use of atomicenerTy for peaceful purposes ? only. In this form, the resolution was adopted by the Conference. 3. On July 210 1952, prominent non-Communist English iltelleatuals, particularly frost the fields of the theater an the art3, wrote a letter to Secretary General Lie protesting the United Nations Oommandss use of napalm in Korea9 and denouncing the use of the weapon as barbarous because it inflicted the most painful wounds of any weapon and W13 used indiscriminately against inhabit.' places with appalling results. The North Korean Communist raAio on August 200 1952 called the repeated United Nations air bombings in.Jorth Korea "barbarie* and &vended that the MAO of napalm be halted. This attack on napalm may be followed up in the General Assembly,, A, The history of past sessions of the General Assembly above th.t the Soviet Union's proposals on a particular subject in tle Aisenbly closely parallel their activities in other United Nati ns or international bodies during the recent months prior to that session of the Assembly. Coneequent1y9 the US SIi can be expected to pursue a course in the , 5sventh General Assembly whit* will vary only slightly the 3oviet themesdhenribed in the three previous paragraphs. The relative suooess of the 3oviet bloc taotios at the Toronto Red Gros3 conference in emphasising the 1925 Geneva protocol, as opposed to the failure at Toronto and in the Unitsi Nations to make headway with their allegations that the United .itates was using bacteriological warfare in Korea, indicatea Ora Vie Joviot3 uill probably conoantrate on tr-ing to obtain General Assembly approval for a resolution calling on all atatea whioh had not Approved For Release 2003/06/16 : CIA-RDP80601676R000600010048-5 - alnkle2 - Approved For Releasga.111M2301$71180(M0010048-5 het net adhered to or ratified the 1945 protocol to do so without (W.V. The resolutions or a separate resolution, may also demand cessation of the use of napalm as barbarous and incompatible with United lations membership, Thie would adapt Soviet tactios to the sophisticated membership of the United Nati.= delegations which, although aware of the Soviet teotios and probably doubting Communist charges thlt tle United Statls is employing DW, might be induced to support a resolution of the type deseribed bemuse many of their governments have ratified the 1925 Geneva protocol and also because of possible preamure.of public opinion in their oountriee influenced to 80Me degree by thi Communist propaganda camrliga on this 'abject. Together with these approaches, the USSR may be expected tocritioise the United States or lestern disarmament proposals introduced in the Disarmament Commission aa vague and. as putting off in-lefinitely any substantial disarmament, as opposed to the ',simple" and apparently immediate disarmament of the nature sailed for ,by the Soviet disarmament proposals. 5. Any attempt to impress on thin session of the General Assembly the efforts of the United States to aohieve,effeetive and comprehensive disarmament must initially take into amount the Soviet charges and tactics regarding haoteriologioal varthre. It is suggested that one of the best means to do so is by dealing with the problem In the , framework of US interest in compreheneive disarmament which includes all Impanel, not merely BW or napalm as evidenced by the careful and comprehensive proposals we h-Lve made in tie Diearmament Commission. Our record in this respoct, in Tcod and csrtainly far better than that of the 3oviet Union. This 3eneral approach alight be divided into two f$pecific (dements: Approved For ReleasatariblOincitt gAAPIRM011ejlenaft0V010048-5 Approved For Releas.2.2yritii_MOitikB 010048-5 specifies elements: A, We should use the general Debate to emphasise that the major problem and fear in the world today is armed aggreseion as defined and properly eondemned by the Charter. We should reaffirm the solemn eommitment of the United States under the Charter of the United Nations never to use armed tom contrary to the Charter, and dealere this is a pledge by the U.S. to refrain from aggression in any form or with any weapom,whetber employing 8W0 atomio weapons? as armies, or any other weapon. The US should then emphasise that it is supporting this pledge hy more than words. It is supporting this pledge he effirms. tile note designed to eliminate all instruments of mass destruction, to reduee drastically all armed forces and all armaments, to prohibit atomic weapons under international control...all througe reaching agreement on an effeative,and comprehensive disarmament program to reduoe the liklihood of war,, In tde connotation a deecriptioa of our efforts in the Dieareament Coemission will scree as evidenoe of 113 intention? 'The US shoeld than reaffirm its intent to eortinue working for disarmament and won in the Disareament Comaiseion and in any other feasible formal If at all possible, tea deelaration that the United States pledgee never to 11110 armed foroe wanteury to the Charter should subsequently be supported by statements made by the Republican and Demooratin oandidates for Preeident. Suoh statements would give aided foroe to the deolaratiae, indicating -Lisette next adminietration in the United States would rally support swab, a pladce. It In auzgaated that the two Preadantial oendidates be advited. of the proposed pledge and asked if they would maks statements Approved For RelesAttipLij :CIaptiftitaW0010048-5 Approved For Release 2003/06/16 : CIA-RDP80601676R000600010048-5 make statements affirming tha r support, It is impossible at the present for the United States to ratify Th. 1925 Geneva BW protm:1 or to daoIsre that BW liP3uld not be used exoept in retaliation. The r'Ultdoau are altrierllap the three meet important being (1) that suob rntifisstion or aeolarstion would restriot uso nine* we would nespeot the atunitment, but not the Soviet Unions which has already provided baeis for eaploying BW tirougb its ralse allegations of US use and *mad say that Soviet diffiploratrit of such weapons was only "retaliations" (2) because th$.3 would alike it ?Van more difficult than at present to maintain our position opposing the US call for an unconditional declaration prohibiting using atomic; bombs, when WO insist on their elimination as a result of an effective system of intonational nonitrolk and 0) because it is doubtfUl that the U.3. would gain even propaganda advantage tom suah a declaration but would, on the oontrary, imp1ied4 cast doubt on the validity of its previous position on V and lose prestige by appearing to accede to the 1925 Protocol through the pressure of 3aviat propaganda. MorievAre the official US position on Inoteriologionl warfare, as expressed in the Disarmament Commission, is that be DU issue can only be solved within the general franework of a eomprehensive disarmament program under efiloetive safeguards, and not as, an isolated problem. Any oommitrent against use soceept In retaliation, without safeguards, would give the illusion of safety While in fast providing no protections and would also open the way for a USSR propaganda campaign seeking more of aush eommitments for other weapons Bush as napalm and, of course, atomie weapons. ; TIP04,144T1911 Approved ForRelease 2003/06/16 : CIA-RDP80B01676R000600010048-5 Approved For Release, 2003/06/16 :.C1-RpP801301676R000600010048-5 weapons. On the otterni.,Indp declaration that the US will never use trued foram eoetrary't the Charter, this,being a commitment against armad aggression , no !tatter what weapon might be used, is an affirmative and dramatics aOmowledgment of the Charter obligation not to wtge aggressive war. Imitta deolaration will point up the fact that armed aggrecsion is the major problem in the world today in connection with peace and security., 7%ts follows a line familiar to the General Assembly and overwhelmingly adopted throsgh the "Peace Through DeedS4 resolutions go. 3,20(V), 17 November 1950. These conoepta are familiar to Members of the United Rations and have been approved by thom., Reaffirmation by the United States should minimise the street of the BW use allegations, basalts. mob reaffirmation goes beyond a mere declaration against the use of a particular weapon. It should serve to focus attention on the fact that the major cause o7 world Anrait and fear today in regard to peace and security is acreseion; thA the US by virtue of its culture as a de voratio system cannot be the fir it toecomit aggression. Moreover, the statement that the J3 is determined to work for the elimination of all major weapons adaptable to mass destruetion should help to place the BW problem in proper focus as only MO of the maskv problems in the Disarmament Commission, and bare the 113 can point to its record in the Disarmament Commission as evidence of its intention to continue workins for diaarmament and for pea**. The US has introduced in the Disarmament Commission, individually or in eoneert with the UK and ?ranee, the following proposales On April 29 in ittoNtit altiasit4 SAW8V4Wing Approved For Release 2003/06/16 : CIA-RID0801?646:VM(iii600010048-5 the objective? and prinolples ehieh shoale guide the Diaarmament Commession; en April 50 1952 tha preposale for progrseeive and oontineing 61i:closure sni verifiaatton of all armed forces and all armaments, ineluding atomie; on Yay 24, 195e, the tripartite paper suggesting rlAing numerical limits on areei roroes) awl on August 12, 1952 the tripartite evplerrent dealing with the relationship of armaeents to eermetted forces, sugessAing prooslera, by which antgreed disarmement program might be developed, and clarifying the oonoept or balanced relationship betueee the essential components of a disarmament program. lbestpropotale give the broad outline of a possible andcompreeensive disarmaxent systene end provide good evidence of the seriousness with ueicei the US is attacking ell the problems in this field, not merely baoteriologlaal werfare or the use of napalm. B. The United States' Delegation should use every opportunity, whetber in the Committee meetings or in Individual conversations with ether doing:Alone to 'counter 'Soviet propaganda on alleged US use of W. US failure to ratify the 1925 Geneva protocol, and possible 3oviet efforts to obtain a General Assembly &toleration against the uee of napalmo.by employing the argenente set forth in Section 4 of the WRCONEADATIONS and the background paper concerned with BW. These azguments empskasize our past record of trying to bring about impartial investigation of tee oharges and the refesal of the Chinese Communists, tee North Koreans and the Soviet Union to permit rich impartial envestigationn. The arguments also point up United States desire to elteinate all weapons of es destruction, inauding DI, not merely to agree ga_inkrtrTY_INFoRmATTE. Approved For Release 2003/06/16 : CIA-RDP80B01676R000600010048-5 Approved For Release 2003/06/16 : CIA-RDP80601676R000600010048-5 ZAEREZIWZABBIELIEFSMM. 15 to agree not to use such weapons except in retaliation but to produce and stockpile them. The Soviet approach would merely regulate the oonduct of war, while the DS believes the goal of disarmament is to create conditions making .the outbreak of war far less likely. This does not mean that the U.S. la uninterested in examining the question of the rules or oonduct of war, or in trying to protect the civiliaa population and prisoners of war in better fashion, should war unhappily occur. The U.S. believes these prob- lems are anbeldiary to the issue of diaarsament9 and that mixing ,the two issues enhances the difficulties of solving the problems in both fields. The primary goal is disarmament, and here the objective is to establish an open and substantially disarmed world which requires agreement on a comprehensive disarmament system, with attention directed to all elements and not just to a few weapons. Arguments of this nature should minimise much of the propaganda in the corridors and in the Committee rooms of the General Assembly. 6. With regard to the report of the Disarmament Commission, the US Delegation should use the opportunity to demonstrate that the VS earnestly desires to reaoh agreement on an effective aed comprehensive disarmament program, both to continue to hold thoinitiativein this important field and also to undercut Soviet propaganda alleging that the USSR is the great peace- lover and the United States the war-monger. For this purpose, it is suggested that it might be helpful for the General Asseably to go somewhat beyond merely approving the efforts of the Disarmament Commission and urging the Commission, to continue its work with the 000peration of all states. The Aseembly might also record approval of the conoept that the goal of disarmament is not to regulate the conduct of hostilities but to create conditions which will reduce Approved FordaglatoW3WEffir000600010048-5 Approved For Release 2003/06/16 : CIA-RDP80601676R000600010048-5 SECURIT! INPRMATICO .16 reduce the likelihood of aggressive warfare. This problem is complicated by the advisability of maintaining the relatively fluid situation now prevailing in the Disarmament Commision, in which proposals have not been pushed to votes which would thereby accentuate Soviet-Western disagreement. Moreover, in addition to the negotiating strength given through avoiding a rigid position on many limpet it may be wise to avoid this rigidity in order to continue to indicate to the Soviet Union the possibility of reaching agreements with the Went in the disarmament field rather than attempting to solve the (mallet Of interests through using armed force. With this in mind, the one possibly controversial issue under the suggested course of action is our contention that the goal of disarmament is not merely to regulate hostilities (the essenoe of the USSR attempt to secure banning individual weapons without safeguard46 but to reduce the likelihood of aggressive warfare. This one point is suf- ficiently important to warrant US efforts to secure GA approval of the concept. For the rest, we should avoid if possible giving the impression the U.S. wishes the General Assembly to settle by majority vote an issue pending in the Disarmament Commission, emphasising instated the need for Assembly guidance of a general nature. 7. During hearings on the Disarmament Commission's report, the Soviet Union can be expected to raise again a disarmament package similar to the proposals made in previous years, as described earlier in this paper. In such case, the Delegation should point out in what respects these proposals are similar to those made in past years by the USSR and rejected by the General Assembly. Emphasis should be placed on the fact that the Soviet Union baa, in effect, refused to explain these proposals in the Disarmament Coemission Approved For Release 2003/06/16 : CIA-RDP801301676R000600010048-5 gIMETIALT. NegaMMER04121 k CI Approved For Release 2003/06/16 : CIA-RDP80601676R000600010048-5 coMEEPTIAL - =WM Ificen700 17 Commission and has insisted that the Commission must adopt the proposals in principle before a detailed explanation would be made. The Detention should reiterate US willingness to discuss the Soviet proposals in the Disarmament Commission and the US hope that the Soviet Union would adequatety explain these proposals. It should be pointed out that the General Assembly had established the Disarmament Commission precisely to discuss any detailed and complicated disarmament proposals. The Delegation should also stress that the USSR plan of work in the Commission (DCA/Rov 1, 27 August 1952) demonstrates that the Soviet Union continues to advocate a position idiich would heighten the present intelance of powar. This Soviet position is to secure a pledge not to use *tombs weapons by whiah the West would give up a principal deterrent to Communist aggression while at the same time a onoWthird reduction in armed farces and non.atamic arms would maintain and actually intensify the present inhalants* in those fields. These Soviet positions have been related over and over again by the General Assembly, which knows a pig in a poke when it sees one. The absurdity of the Soviet proposals can be seen if we should revers* their proposition and call on the USSR to abolish immediately all armed forces and nonpatamie armaments, and to reduce existing stocks of atomic weapons by one-third. 8. The USSR can be expected to attack the United States for continuing to support the United Rations plan for international control of stoats energy, and to insist that the United States inflexible position on this subject prevents any agreement on overall disarmament. The United States Delegation should refer to General Assembly Resolution 502 (eti), homey 11, 1452, which established the Disarmament Commission, and point out that operatiie paragraph 30 says that, unless a better or no less effective Breton is devised. the Approved For Release 2003/06/16 : CIA-RDP80601676R00060001 ru 41"uuri Approved For Release 2003/06/16 : CIA-RDP80601676R000600010048-5 ZEIZENALT.A.ralliMancil 16 4b United Nations plan should continuo to serve as ths basis for international ' control of atomic energy to assure the prohibition of atomic weapons and the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes only. This paragraph also requires the Commission to consider any proposals or plans for control that may be put forward involving either conventional armaments or atomic energy. The point should be made ihat the United States Governnent is always willing to consider any proposals or plans for atomic energy control and, while con- tinually reviewing the problem, has not yet found any plan which is as effective as the United Nations plan. The Delegation should point out that the Soviet Union has not presented any new proposals in the atomic energy field to the Disarmament Commission and, in fact, baa, refused to explain the broad and vogue Soviet proposals in principle. The extraordinarily unreason- able UFAR attitude in this regard should be emphasised by the Delegation. Attachments Annex.A. UNAWNP:Hheyerstaj 9/0/52 gsagEwhita...gmazzgama Approved For Release 2003/06/16 : CIA-RDP80601676R000600010048-5 4 Approved For Release 2003/06/16 : CIA-RDP80601676R000600010048-5 EmpLam atvir-Ltz Int-wateigi TAB A Draft Remoint*: assArp141mead lb.22/29,131109"147 Taking Bate. of the Report of the Disarmament Commission, and 82.2240=1111 that (1) Under the Charter of the United Nations all states are obligated to settle their international disputes by peaoeful means and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use at farce except as provided in the Charter, (2) under a genuine and effective system of universal disarm'... Thant, no state should maintain armed forces arid armaments beyond those reasonably required for the maintenance of internal security and the fulfillment of their Obligations to maintain peace and security and in acoordanee with the United Nations Charter, (3) the goal of such a system of universal disarmament is not to regulate the conduot of hostilities but to create conditions making the outbreak of aggressive warfare improbable and releasing the world's human and economic resources for the purposes of peace, 1. Welcomes the report of the Disarmament Commission and commends the Commission for its activities, 2, Reaffirm, General Assembly Resolution 502(71) end requests the Disarmament Cc:mission to -continue its work for the development by the United Nations SepiggigtitNi Approved For Release 2003/06/16 : CIA-RDP80601676R000600010048-5 Approved For Release 2003/06/16 : CIA-RDP801301676R000600010048-5 ? CairlDENTIg. peouritx Itatanswin -2.. Nations of comprehensive and coordinated plans under international contra for the regulation, limitation and balanced reduetion of all armed forces and armaments, for the elimination of all major weapons, including bac. terielogical, adaptable tomato destruction, and for the effective inter- national control of atomic energy to ensure the prohibition of atomic weapons and the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes only.to reach agreement on the problems with which it is concerned. 3. Calls, in all states to cooperate in siding the Disarmament Commission . coririreavat S(perukitz lasmata Approved For Release 2003/06/16 : CIA-RDP80601676R000600010048-5