Khrushchev Expected To Go To Geneva

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29748, 15 February 1962, Page 20

Khrushchev Expected To Go To Geneva

(NZ. Press Association—Copyright) MOSCOW, February 14. It is widely believed in diplomatic quarters in Moscow that the Soviet Prime Minister (Mr Khrushchev) will go to the summit conference he has called for in Geneva next month, regardless of whether President Kennedy and the British Prime Minister (Mr Macmillan) go also.

But at the same time, experienced diplomatic observers of what goes on in the Kremlin are certain that the most persuasive arguments will be advanced in an effort to force at least two of the Western “Big Three” to go to Geneva, the Associated Press reported. Hardly anyone thought President de Gaulle would go. He has expressed his dislike of any kind of talks at present on any level with the Soviet Union, and especiaUy any kind of summit talks. Conflicting Views Conflicting views raged in the city as to who might show up at the Geneva meeting if President Kennedy and Mr Macmillan refused. One important diplomat felt that in addition to the Socialist States, the leaders from such States as India, Mexico, Brazil, Egypt, Ethiopia and Nigeria might attend. Diplomats who read press reports last night Showing opposition in Britain and America to accepting the proposal said they sensed tonight a softening attitude but not a capitulation. The Government newspaper “Izvestia,” which last night reported the wave of opposition in the United States to Mr Khrushchev's proposals, tonight threw out the first hard answer to the United States attitude. “It is not a meeting at the summit, but a participation by the heads of government ’in the work of the 18-nation committee,” the newspaper said.

“It is not a review of a wide range of international questions, but negotiation on one concrete question—disarmament.” “Marriage” Problem In London, Mr Macmillan said yesterday the problem was how to marry the “very practicable” Western proposals with the “very general proposals” of Mr Khrushchev over the conference.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Gaitskell) had said in the House of Commons it seemed absurd that it should not be possible for the three major nuclear Powers to agree on a very high level meeting on this vital issue.

Mr Macmillan replied: “We welcome the broad spirit of Mr Khrushchev’s letter to us, which was drafted, I think, separately from our own initiative.”

Mr Gaitskell said Mr Khrushchev had made it plain he was not proposing another summit conference, but simply that heads of States should be associated with these vitally important negotiations. “Is this not fundamentally very much the same idea as the Prime Minister and President Kennedy had in their letter to Mr Khrushchev?” he asked. Mr Macmillan replied: “There are similarities, but I feel that a formal meeting of 18 Prime Ministers with no doubt 18 speeches, which would take quite a time, may be valuable, but what is important would be a practical meeting of three nuclear Powers with their special responsibility.” The problem was to make a workable plan which would get the best of both, he said.