Office of the Historian

273. Telegram From the Embassy in the United Kingdom to the Embassy in the Federal Republic of Germany1

London, August 1, 1957—7 p.m.

109. Eyes Only Perkins—deliver by 9 am August 2. Eyes Only O’Shaughnessy. Deliver following reply from Secretary to Chancellor urgently. Perkins should privately show this letter before tomorrow’s meeting to Blankenhorn, who may otherwise not be informed as Chancellor is out of town, but should not give him copy thereof.

Begin text.

“Dear Mr. Chancellor:

I greatly appreciate your prompt reply2 to my letter of yesterday.3 I know how busy you must be. I believe that in the light of your reply we can indeed make a movement toward a positive result at least showing an affirmative position to the world. Permit me to comment on your letter.

1.
I confirm your understanding that in no case will a European inspection zone be offered or committed except on condition that the Soviets accept either the Arctic zone or the larger one covering both the US and the USSR.
2.
The only defined European zone to be proposed tomorrow will cover all of Europe with mutually agreed exceptions. Switzerland, for example, may have to be an exception.
3.
As you say there should not be and will not be presented now any defined smaller European zone, although an undefined zone, to include significant parts of the Soviet Union, will be suggested as a possibility. Also, I secured this afternoon the agreement of the British and the French, and of Canada ad referendum, that the fall-back European position of 5th to 35th degree of east longitude will not be presented until after the Soviet rejection of the larger zone has taken place and been reported to NATO giving it an opportunity again to take up the question.4
4.
It is my understanding that the 5th to 35th degree of east longitude is a minimum fall-back position and that no narrower zone is contemplated. If you will look at the map, I think you will see that a [Page 680] zone running to the 35th degree is by no means a narrow one but includes much of the Soviet Union with Odessa and Leningrad and goes close to Moscow itself.
5.
With respect to the matter of mobility, there must of course be a degree of defined mobility in every form of inspection. It is stipulated that this is to be subject to agreement as part of the essential details of the installation, maintenance and operation of inspection. It goes without saying that this phase of the matter will not be dealt with without the fullest consultation with NATO because it obviously affects its military structure and planning and has political implications.
6.
I note that you cannot envisage a system of ground inspection within a zone which is smaller than the zone subject to aerial inspection. I agree in order to clarify this matter the Western Four this afternoon accepted (Canada ad referendum) my suggestion to modify the text so as to specify that “the areas open to ground inspection shall not be less than the areas of aerial inspection”.5 This precludes the possibility you understandably fear of a system of ground inspection within a zone which is smaller and narrower than the zone subject to aerial inspection. I think you need have no doubt but what [that] NAC will be brought into the development of this phase of the matter also.

We are now planning to present this matter to the Soviet Delegation Friday6 at 3:30 in the UN Subcommittee, following which I shall return to Washington.

With every good wish, I am

Faithfully yours, Foster Dulles”

End text

Dulles
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 330.13/8–157. Secret. Repeated niact to Paris and to the Department of State as Dulte 11, which is the source text.↩
  2. Supra.↩
  3. Transmitted in telegram 104 from London to Bonn, Document 269.↩
  4. The agreement of the British and French and of the Canadians ad referendum is reported in Secto 17 from London, August 1. (Department of State, Central Files, 330.13/8–157)↩
  5. This modification is reported in Secto 17.↩
  6. August 2.↩