LETTER TO MR. ALLEN W. DULLES FROM LINCOLN P. BLOOMFIELD

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80B01676R000600010048-5
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 22
• Document Creation Date: December 14, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 21, 2003
• Sequence Number: 48
• Publication Date: September 22, 1952
• Content Type: LETTER

-
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