Eisenhower Library, Eisenhower papers, Whitman file
Memorandum of Discussion at the 162d Meeting of the National Security Council, Thursday, September 17, 19531
[Extract]
eyes only
Present at the 162nd meeting of the Council were the Vice President of the United States, presiding; the Acting Secretary of State; the Secretary of Defense; the Director, Foreign Operations Administration; the Director, Office of Defense Mobilization. Also present were the Acting Secretary of the Treasury; the Acting Attorney General (for Items 4 and 5); the Director, Bureau of the Budget; the Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission (for Items 2, 3 and 6); the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of the Air Force (all for Item 2); the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; The Chief of Staff, U.S. Army (for Item 2); the Chief of Naval Operations (for Item 2); the Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force (for Item 2); the Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps (for Item 2); Capt. C. C. Kirkpatrick, USN, Col. D. O. Monteith, USAF, and Carroll Hinman, Foreign Operations Administration (all for Item 2); the Director of Central Intelligence; The Assistant to the President; Robert Cutler, Special Assistant to the President; C. D. Jackson, Special Assistant to the President; the NSC Representative on Internal Security (for Item 4); the Acting White House Staff Secretary; the Executive Secretary, NSC; Hugh D. Farley, NSC Special Staff Member; and George Weber, NSC Special Staff Member (for Item 2).
[Page 1217]There follows a summary of the discussion at the meeting and the chief points taken.
. . . . . . .
3. Position of the United States on Disarmament in the Eighth General Assembly (NSC 112 and NSC 112/1; NSC Action No. 899)2
Secretary Smith introduced this item, which had been scheduled on the agenda as an urgent matter in view of Secretary Dulles’ speech at the UN the following day.3 He referred to the Council action at its last meeting and said that the Department of State had assumed that the Council had not meant to repudiate our past positions while the new review was pending, even though the Council had not approved paragraph 7–a of NSC 112/1.
Mr. Cutler said his understanding was that the Council did not wish to reaffirm or push our previous disarmament proposals until the new review had been completed.
Vice President Nixon asked if Secretary Dulles wanted to reaffirm our position.
Secretary Smith then said that the Department of State was proposing that Secretary Dulles reaffirm the basic principle, that any disarmament system must meet the basic test of effective safeguards, but added that our past proposals were designed to meet this basic requirement and were not inflexible as the only proposals that could meet such a test. Secretary Smith felt that the Council could agree on language which would state that our past proposals had been designed to meet this test, but we are not inflexible in believing they are necessarily the only ones that would meet these criteria.
The Vice President, Secretary Wilson and Mr. Cutler all felt that the Council would support the latter language, but did not intend to reaffirm our past proposals.
Secretary Smith said there was a chance that Secretary Dulles might be asked categorically if we still stand by our former proposals. In this event, he felt the answer must be yes, subject to review.
At Mr. Stassen’s suggestion, Mr. Strauss expressed his view, namely, that the language proposed, to the effect that our past proposals had been designed to meet this test but that we are not inflexible, was satisfactory. He remarked that the control aspects for fissionable material did not apply to fusionable material. The latter is much more plentiful, harder to inspect and easier to produce. Accordingly, Mr. Strauss said his understanding was that the NSC intended [Page 1218] the whole disarmament problem to be reviewed in the light of new developments.
Admiral Radford suggested that if Secretary Dulles were asked the direct question, he might say that technical developments had outmoded the details of our previous disarmament proposals.
Secretary Smith said that Secretary Dulles could not decline to answer where we stood on such a basic UN resolution, and suggested that Secretary Dulles could say that we supported our previous UN resolutions, subject, of course, to such review as new developments require.
The National Security Council:4
Agreed that the following U.S. position on disarmament at the eighth General Assembly, as proposed orally by the Acting Secretary of State, would be consistent with NSC Action No. 899:
- a.
- Any acceptable disarmament system must meet one test, that of effective safeguards to ensure the compliance of all nations and to give adequate warning of possible evasions and violations.
- b.
- Our past proposals have been designed to meet this test, but we are not inflexible in believing that they are necessarily the only ones that would meet these criteria.
- c.
- We are constantly reviewing the disarmament problem; hope others will do likewise; and will seriously examine any promising new proposals made by others or will put forward new ideas as we develop them.
- d.
- If required during the course of the eighth General Assembly, we might take the position that we still support the basic principles of our past proposals, subject to review of the details of these proposals in the light of recent developments.
. . . . . . .
- Prepared by Hugh D. Farley, NSC Special Staff Member, on Sept. 17.↩
- For NSC 112/1, Sept. 1, see p. 1190. For NSC Action No. 899, see footnote 3, p. 1212. For NSC 112, July 6, 1951, see Foreign Relations, 1951, vol. i, p. 477.↩
- See the editorial note, supra.↩
- The paragraphs which follow constitute the operative portion of NSC Action No. 909. The action also includes a concluding note which reads as follows: “Note: The above action, as subsequently approved by the President, [was] transmitted to the Secretary of State for appropriate implementation.” (S/S–NSC files, lot 66 D 95, “NSC Actions”) On Sept. 17, General Cutler informed President Eisenhower, who was in Colorado, of the action taken by the Council at this meeting. (Message Capital 187, Eisenhower Library, Whitman file, Administration series, “Cutler”)↩