Reception of the US Chargé d'Affaires in the USSR (Gatry) on Nov. 18, 1966: Note to be Distributed to CPSU CC Politburo Members and Candidate Members

Distribute to CPSU CC Politburo members and candidate members

22 November 1966 A. Gromyko

Secret. Copy Nº  30

22 November 1966

RECEPTION OF US CHARGE D’AFFAIRES IN THE USSR [GATRY]

18 November 1966

At 1645 I received US chargé [Gatry] and told him of some of our views in connection with the language of Article 1 of the proposed nuclear weapons non-proliferation treaty the Americans recently sent us.

I noted, first, that we are somewhat surprised by this language inasmuch as it provides for the non-transfer of nuclear weapons only to individual countries into their national possession and nothing is said in it about the prohibition of the transfer of nuclear weapons under joint control to a particular bloc, alliance, or group of countries.

I said further that during the exchange of opinions with American representatives, including with President Johnson, we proceeded from the position that this was about closing off all avenues for the proliferation of nuclear weapons, that is, to prohibit the appearance of nuclear weapons both in the individual hands of a particular country which does not have this weapon, as well as into the collective hands of one bloc or another or group of countries. It is true that in the course of an exchange of opinions on this question Rusk repeatedly stressed that it would be necessary to come up with some language in order not to rub salt in a painful wound of some US allies. But there is a limit, for one can be so overcautious that you lose the substance of the question or, at least, as in this case, half the question concerning a group of countries. It is true some words figure in the American wording which we also use in determining the requirements which should apply to the nuclear weapons non-proliferation treaty, but these words have been given a completely different meaning. For example, in the American draft it speaks of the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons directly or indirectly; however, it relates all this only to the transfer of nuclear weapons to an individual country at the same time as the question of the transfer of nuclear weapons to some collective of countries is plainly neglected.

I stressed that in the exchanges of opinions with the Americans which took place the discussion was about the prohibition of a transfer of control over nuclear weapons to any country or group of countries. But in the American draft it speaks only of the nuclear powers not yielding their control over their own nuclear weapons. This obviously means that a nuclear power can allow other countries control over a nuclear weapon, while not abandoning its own control. The nuclear weapons non-proliferation treaty should provide for the prohibition of transferring any control whatsoever over a nuclear weapon to other countries or groups of countries.

I expressed the assumption that the appearance of this American language is the result of a misunderstanding, and expressed the hope that the US would examine its position again and remove the artificial barriers on the way to achieving an agreement if, of course, the US is actually interested in prohibiting the proliferation of nuclear weapons, as we would like to think. I stressed that [we] cannot lose time on this question, otherwise it might become too late to solve this problem at all.

I noted that some days ago we passed our draft treaty to Foster in New York, including Articles 1 and 2 of the treaty in which some wishes of the American side which Rusk expressed in conversations with us were taken into consideration.

In conclusion I asked [Gatry] to convey what we had said to the US government and Rusk personally, and expressed the hope that the situation in connection with this question would be cleared up and improved.

[Gatry] made no comment about our statements, limiting himself to the comment that he was not a specialist on disarmament matters, and promised to pass what we said to his government without delay.

The conversation lasted 15 minutes. G. M. Korniyenko, Chief of the USA [OSShA] Department; V. M. Sukhodrev, Counsellor of the Translation Bureau; and also A. Akalovsky, 1^st Secretary of the US Embassy, were present.

A. GROMYKO

Authenticated: [illegible signature]