SOVIET POSITION IN THE GENEVA NUCLEAR TEST TALKS

Created: 1/8/1959

OCR scan of the original document, errors are possible

SEptxir

the resumptionanuary after the Christmas recess, the Soviet delegate to the nuclear test talks in Geneva attacked aof basic points in theposition. He took issueanuary with Westernon majority rule in the proposed control commission, the position linking extensionne-year test suspension with progress in other areas ofthe proposal forany party the right tothe agreement whenby another, and theof International staffing of the control posts to minimize use of nationals of the host state.

The Soviet delegation charged that further discussion of the control system would be premature and fruitless without prior agreement on these basic issues. Tbe chief delegate urged settlement of theseblocking progress of the conference. anuary the Soviet delegate charged that rigidity of the Americanln not considering Soviet views, which could not be changed,loomyfor the conference. He insisted that there could be no further discussion of any other Issues until the question of duration of the treaty Is resolved.

APPROVED2

CURRENT INTELLIGENCE WEEKLY9

Soviet tacticstbe pessimistic statement made onecember before the Supreme Soviet by ForeignGromyko. Gromyko strong doubts as to the possibility of agreement as long as the Unltod States and Great Britain continue to raise such "Invalid conditions" as their positions on duration of the agreement, on the link to other disarmament measures, and on voting In the control organ.

Gromyko also alleged that Western "demands and conditions" regarding Inspection procedures "contradict" the conclusions of the Geneva experts'which he claimed providedecision for dispatching an inspection team would be voted on eachase of possible violation arose. He charged further that theposition that nuclear for peaceful purposes should be permitted aftertests are terminatedarrier to solution of the main task. He declared, however, that the USSR would agreeimited number offor peaceful purposes in order to defeat this alleged Anglo-American attempt to block agreement by insisting on such explosions.

The Soviet leaders remain unwilling to accept any system inoviet veto or other Communist bloc vote could not block Important decisions of the control organization,with regard toan inspection team to the scene of any suspected As long as thewere moving ahead with drafting of the moreverslal articles of the treaty, Moscow preferred ignoring"conditions." However, Western rejection beforeof the Soviet proposal to shelve the entire control issue byommittee study it while the conference continued drafting other articles prompted Moscow to reintroduce Itsto the Western stand on duration and the link to other disarmament measures.

The Soviet leaders were probably concerned that abased on the sole issue of Soviet insistence on veto rights in the control commission would place Moscow in an unfavorable light in case of any breakdown in negotiations. They preferred, therefore, to stress these other areas of disagreement, making voting arrangements only part of the Soviet objection to the Western position.

Remarks made privately by the Soviet delegate prior to the Christmas recess and after mutual agreementraftestablishing acommission suggest that Moscow may make the appearance of movement on the votingto improve its weakon this issue. SovietTsarapkin suggested that the commission be composed of three Western states, three Eastern, and one neutral.for example, with afor the necessitywo-thirds vote in the, this suggestion of while appearing to be more reasonable than insistence on veto powers, would preserve Soviet power to frustrateactions of the control organ. The present Soviet stand in the conference sessions,continues to insist on unanimity of the "threeparties" on all Important decisions of the commission.

CURRENT INTELLIGENCE WEEKLY SUMMARY

89

by the United States of new technicalwhich would require some changes in the conclusions drawn at the Technicallast summer with regard to underground explosions wasby Moscow as an effort to nullify an agreement already reached. The Soviet delegate charged that any modification of technical conclusions would be the task of the commissions

when established and was not the proper subject matter for political talks. Sovietchargedhite -House. statement Issued shortly after the Information was introduced in the conference was aneffort to complicate the discussions at Geneva in an ittempt. to biock agreemem

II

AND COMMENTS

f 14

Original document.

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA