Code Message No. 8226 from Deputy Director Wierna to Mazur (Prague)

198

August 6, code message of director general to the ambassador in Prague

regarding nuclear-free zone consultations

Warsaw, August 6, 1958

       TOP SECRET

      ^cFlash^c

CODE MESSAGE ^cNo ^h8226^h 8238 August 6, 15.00 hrs^c

^dPRAGA–MAZUR^d

As a supplement to our letter No D. I. Cz. 0862/13/58 of July 28 of this year, I hereby inform that today, during Winiewicz’s visit, Wojaczek returned to the CSR motion, underlining that they wish us to show a positive stance to this matter.^2[1] Winiewicz presented our doubts; he informed that you will present our view in detail to the comrades in Prague. Please do this ^cvery^c urgently with respect to David.

Underline that we understand and appreciate the intention behind the CSR initiative; after careful consideration we do have serious doubts as to the effects of raising matter at the UN forum. Arguments:

1. Use Winiewicz’s arguments from his conversation with Wojaczek.

2) The Canadian reply to the Rapacki Plan demonstrates that there are more possibilities for action on our part in favor of the zone in Central Europe, a ^cregion^c of our camp.^3[2] (We gave a copy of  ^hthis^{h c}Canandian^c note to Wojaczek to take it to  Prague).

3) Launching a campaign around Plan R. at the 13^th UN session would not be advisable, because it is proposed as a point for a summit discussion on disarmament. This is also related to our stance to the disarmament discussion at the UN, ^cwhere now the disarmament talks have been halted.^c4[3]

4) The proposal to establish many nuclear-free zones would, to a great extent, shift attention from the denuclearization of the German area, and at the same time, it would be construed as a tacit form of introducing a universal ban on nuclear weapons.

^c5)^c As to the chances of initiating such zones in other regions, it appears that each ^cnew^c motion, if it were to be put ^hwith respect to other regions,^h it [would need to be done] in a new form, in a specific situation and with respect to a specific environment, and therefore depending on a complex of conditions that ^hspeak^h for ^cwould speakfor^c the initiative to 'catch on'. Otherwise it would ^conly^c channel resistance.

^c6)^c Were the motion to be turned down at the UN, it would make difficult diplomatic action by our countries for a zone in Central Europe ^hwhich won^h and ^cstill has^ca solid ground in public opinion.

^h5)^{h c}7^c On his vacation in the USSR comrade Rapacki had an opportunity to speak with comrades from the MID [Ministry of Foreign Affairs]. On this basis we believe that the soviet comrades share the ^cprinciples^c of our view on nuclear-free zones.

Please notify us in conversation.

^fWierna^f

AMSZ, ZD 6/77, w. 60, t. 837

² See doc. no 74; see also doc. no 200.

³ The reference is to the Canadian note of July 17, which rejected the Rapacki Plan, and at the same did not preclude further talks on an accord limited to a given region or a certain kind of weapons.

⁴ The reference is to the Soviet withdrawal from the UN Disarmament Commission in November 1957 (due to the rejection of the resolution to set up a permanent commission made up of all the UN members).