In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Document No. 30: Minutes of Discussion at Political Consultative Committee Meeting in Warsaw, January 20, 1965 ——————————————————————————————————————————— This gathering of the PCC turned out to be the most contentious to date. It was the first session after the downfall of Khrushchev in June 1964, and also the first to be convened at the initiative of a member other than the Soviet Union—the GDR. One of the controversial subjects of discussion was non-proliferation. This was an important issue because it represented the next phase in the process of establishing some control over nuclear weapons following the 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty. The matter had particular resonance for the Warsaw Pact in the context of the MLF, since the acceptance of the principle of non-proliferation by all sides would have had the important effect of denying West Germany access to nuclear weapons. Perhaps more importantly, given that the MLF was practically moribund at this point, the issue also related to China, which had exploded its first atomic bomb in 1964. The question was how and whether Beijing’s nuclear program could be constrained in view of the opposition by the Chinese, as well as the French, to any restrictions that would not also be binding on the superpowers . Within the Warsaw Pact, Romania took the lead in opposing the draft of the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) the Soviets had been preparing to negotiate with the United States. In doing so, the Romanians were basically taking the Chinese position, making the case that the Treaty currently being negotiated by the superpowers did not take account of the interests of others, and should be opposed as a violation of the principle of equal national sovereignty. This meeting offers valuable insight into how complex relations had become within the Pact, how far Moscow’s authority among its members had declined, how the Sino-Soviet rift influenced intra-bloc ties, and how far Romania was willing to go in adopting a position that was opposed by the Soviet Union. ____________________ […] [Gheorghe Gheorgiu-] Dej: Please allow me to say a few words, although I will not say anything new that I have not already said at our meeting. It has to do above all else with the idea of the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons and the inclusion of a relevant formulation in the Communiqué [from the meeting]. We already spoke of our position regarding the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. It is true that today many countries, including the USA, are coming forward regarding the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. And not only the USA. Other countries as well (e.g. India) which want to exploit this idea with the goal of linking it to a definite campaign, having as its goal the condemnation of China for the tests it conducted with an atomic weapon. The Indian government, as far as we know, gave instructions to its representatives in other countries to sound out the situation, along with the stance of these countries regarding the aforementioned problem, because it seeks to bring its campaign before the United Nations assembly. It is directed against People’s 179 China. […] The government of India wants to demand a harsh condemnation of People’s China at the U.N. The question arises whether it is useful for us at this time to link the matter [of theMultilateralForce,MLF]withthequestionofnonproliferationofnuclearweapons […] when all our exertions are directed against the creation of multilateral nuclear forces. We can think about it, or even better, establish contacts with representatives of China, Korea, Vietnam and other socialist countries and bring them over to our side, to a position opposed to the creation of the MLF. We would achieve in this way at the very least a unity of stances among the socialist countries on this very important international issue. We are not presenting the issue in a way that would oppose the campaign directed against third countries. For us it has to do with the actions of the Indian government, with which our countries maintain good relations; we should use them to influence [India] not to use the tribunal of the U.N. against People’s China. It cannot be ruled out that this is connected with the stance of the USA, which is also presenting the matter of China in the very same way. […] Right now, the government of India is expanding its efforts. We have expressed our regret about this, and it is an unpleasant surprise that the Indian government is undertaking such...

Share