Modern History Sourcebook:
Khrushchev and Eisenhower: Summit Statements, May 16 1960
Nikita Khrushchev: Summit Conference Statement, May 16,1960As is generally known, a provocative act by the American air force against the Soviet
Union has recently taken place. It consisted in the fact that on May I of this year a U.S.
military reconnaissance plane intruded into the U.S.S.R. on a definite espionage mission
of gathering intelligence about military and industrial installations on Soviet territory.
After the aggressive purpose of the plane's flight became clear, it was shot down by a
Soviet rocket unit. Unfortunately, this is not the only instance of aggressive and
espionage actions by the U.S. air force against the Soviet Union.Naturally, the Soviet government was obliged to describe these actions by their proper
name and show their perfidious character, inconsistent with the elementary requirements of
normal peacetime relations between states, to say nothing of their conflicting grossly
with the aim of reducing international tension and creating the conditions needed for
fruitful work at the Summit conference. This was done both in my speeches at the session
of the U.S.S.R. Supreme Soviet and in a special protest note sent to the U.S. government.At first the U.S. State Department gave out an absurd version to the effect that the
American plane had violated the frontiers of the Soviet Union by accident and had not had
any spying or subversive assignment. When this version was shown with incontrovertible
facts to be manifest falsehood, the U.S. State Department on May 7, and then the Secretary
of State oil May 9, declared on behalf of the U.S. government that intrusions into the
Soviet Union for purposes of military espionage were carried out by American aircraft in
accordance with a programme approved by the U.S. government and by the President in
person. Two days later President Eisenhower himself confirmed that flights by American
planes over the territory of the Soviet Union were and remained a calculated policy of the
United States. This was also stated by the U.S. government in its note to the Soviet
government on May 12. Thereby the U.S. government has grossly flouted the generally
accepted standards of international law and the lofty principles of the U.N. Charter,
which bears the signature of the United States also. .Now that the leaders of the governments of the Four Powers have come to Paris for their
conference, the question arises: how is it possible to productively negotiate and examine
the questions confronting the conference, when the U.S. government and personally the
President have not only failed to condemn the provocative intrusion of an American
military plane into the Soviet Union, but, on the contrary, have declared that such
actions remain official U.S. policy towards the U.S.S.R? How can agreement be reached on
this or that issue needing to be settled in order to lessen tension and remove suspicion
and distrust between states, when the government of one of the Great Powers says outright
that it is its policy to intrude into the confines of another Great Power for spying and
subversive purposes, and consequently to heighten tension in the relations between the
powers? Obviously, the proclamation of such a policy, which can only be adopted when
nations are at war, dooms the Summit conference in advance to total failure. . . .It follows from all this that for the conference to be successful, the governments of
all the powers represented must adopt an honest and forthright policy and solemnly declare
that they will not commit against each other any actions which constitute a violation of
national sovereignty. That means that if the U.S. government is really prepared to
co-operate with the governments of other powers in the interests of maintaining peace and
strengthening confidence among the nations, it must, firstly, condemn the unpardonable
provocative actions of the U.S. air force in regard to the Soviet Union and, secondly,
renounce continuing such actions and such a policy against the U.S.S.R. in the future. It
goes without saying that in that event the U.S. government cannot fail to call to stern
account those immediately responsible for the deliberate violation of the Soviet Union's
national frontiers by American planes. . . .It is natural that under these conditions we are unable to work at the conference,
unable to work at it because we see from what positions it is desired to talk to us -
under threat of aggressive intelligence flights. Everyone knows that spying flights are
undertaken for intelligence purposes with a view to starting war. Accordingly, we reject
the conditions in which the United States is placing us. We cannot take part in any
negotiations, not even in the settlement of questions which are already ripe, because we
see that the U.S. has no desire to reach agreement. . . .We wish to be rightly understood by the peoples of all countries of the globe, by
public opinion. The Soviet Union is not abandoning its efforts for agreement, and we are
sure that reasonable agreements are possible, but evidently at some other, not this
particular time. . . .The Soviet government is profoundly convinced that if not this U.S. government, then
another, and if not another, then a third, will understand that there is no other solution
than peaceful co-existence of the two systems, the capitalist and the socialist. It is
either peaceful co-existence, or war, which would spell disaster for those now engaging in
an aggressive policy.We therefore consider that a certain amount of time should be allowed to elapse, so
that the present issues may simmer down and those responsible for shaping the country's
policies may analyze what a responsibility they have incurred in proclaiming an aggressive
course in relation to the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries. Accordingly, we
feel that the best thing will be to postpone the Heads of Government conference for some
six or eight months.The Soviet Union, for its part, will not relax its efforts to secure agreement. I think
that public opinion will correctly understand our position, will understand that it was
made impossible for us to participate in these negotiations. However, we firmly believe in the necessity of peaceful co-existence, for to lose faith
in peaceful co-existence would mean dooming humanity to war, it would mean accepting that
war IS inevitable-and everyone knows what calamities war today would spell for all
the peoples of the globe. . . .We regret that this Meeting has been torpedoed by the reactionary element in the United
States as the outcome of provocative flights by American military planes over the Soviet
Union.We regret that this meeting has not led to the results which all the peoples of the
world expected to follow from it.Let the shame and blame for it fall on those who have proclaimed a brigand policy in
relation to the Soviet Union. . . .I think that both Mr. Eisenhower and the American people will understand me rightly.The Soviet government declares that it for its part will continue to do everything in
its power to promote the relaxation of international tension and the solution of the
problems which today still divide us; in this we shall be guided by the interests of
furthering the great cause of peace on the basis of the peaceful co-existence of states
with differing social systems.Source:from New Times, No. 21 (May 1960), pp. 34-36.
Dwight Eisenhower: Summit Conference Statement, May 16, 1960…Having in mind the great importance of this conference and the hopes that the peoples
of all the world have reposed in this meeting, I concluded that in the circumstances it
was best to see if at today's private meeting any possibility existed through the exercise
of reason and restraint to dispose of this matter of the overflights, which would have
permitted the conference to go forward. . . ,Accordingly, at this morning's private session, despite the violence and inaccuracy of
Mr. Khrushchev's statements, I replied to him in the following terms:In my statement of May 11th and in the statement of Secretary Herter of May 9th the
position of the United States was made clear with respect to the distasteful necessity of
espionage activities in a world where nations distrust each other's intentions. We pointed
out that these activities had no aggressive intent but rather were to assure the safety of
the United States and the free world against surprise attack by a power which boasts of
its ability to devastate the United States and other countries by missiles armed with
atomic warheads. . . .There is in the Soviet statement an evident misapprehension on one key point. It
alleges that the United States has, through official statements, threatened continued
overflights. The importance of this alleged threat was emphasized and repeated by Mr.
Kbrushchev. The United States has made no such threat. Neither I nor my Government has
intended any. The actual statements go no further than to say that the United States will
not shirk its responsibility to safeguard against surprise attack.In point of fact, these flights were suspended after the recent incident and are not to
be resumed. Accordingly, this cannot be the issue.I have come to Paris to seek agreements with the Soviet Union which would eliminate the
necessity for all forms of espionage, including overflights. I see no reason to use this
incident to disrupt the conference.Should it prove impossible, because of the Soviet attitude, to come to grips here in
Paris with this problem and the other vital issues threatening world peace, I am planning
in the near future to submit to the United Nations a proposal for the creation of a United
Nations aerial surveillance to detect preparations for attack. This plan I had intended to
place before this conference. This surveillance system would operate in the territories of
all nations prepared to accept such inspection. For its part, the United States is
prepared not only to accept United Nations aerial surveillance but to do everything in its
power to contribute to the rapid organization and successful operation of such
international surveillance.We of the United States are here to consider in good faith the important problems
before this conference. We are prepared either to carry this point no further or to
undertake bilateral conversations between the United States and the U.S.S.R. while the
main conference proceeds.[]Mr. Khrushchev brushed aside all arguments of reason and not only insisted upon this
ultimatum but also insisted that be was going to publish his statement in full at the time
of his own choosing. It was thus made apparent that he was determined to wreck the Paris
conference. . . .In spite of this serious and adverse development I have no intention whatsoever to
diminish my continuing efforts to promote progress toward a peace with Justice. This
applies to the remainder of my stay in Paris as well as thereafter.
Source:from The Department of State Bulletin, XLII, No. 109 (June 6, 1960), pp.
904-905.
This text is part of the Internet
Modern History Sourcebook. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and
copy-permitted texts for introductory level classes in modern European and World history.
Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright.
Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational
purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No
permission is granted for commercial use of the Sourcebook.
The Internet History Sourcebooks Project is located at the History Department of Fordham University, New York. The Internet
Medieval Sourcebook, and other medieval components of the project, are located at
the Fordham University Center
for Medieval Studies.The IHSP recognizes the contribution of Fordham University, the
Fordham University History Department, and the Fordham Center for Medieval Studies in
providing web space and server support for the project. The IHSP is a project independent of Fordham University. Although the IHSP seeks to follow all applicable copyright law, Fordham University is not
the institutional owner, and is not liable as the result of any legal action.
