Fanfani covered the events of the day in this journal entry, noting that he told Kennedy he would make no commitment on the Jupiter-Polaris replacement until he spoke with McNamara. With McNamara, Fanfani emphasized the point about using the Jupiter base for space launches. Both Kennedy and McNamara denied that there was a trade with the USSR, with McNamara emphasizing the risks posed by the Jupiters during the Missile Crisis.

Seymour Weiss would push back against any efforts to remove the Jupiters, but he and others realized that President Kennedy had a “keen interest” in the matter and that Secretary of Defense McNamara had ordered that action be taken (assigning his General Counsel John McNaughton to take the lead). Nevertheless Weiss and Assistant Secretary of State William Tyler presented Secretary of State Rusk with a memorandum making the case against action on the Jupiters or at least postponing their removal until a “later time.” Paralleling arguments made during the crisis by Ambassadors Hare and Reinhardt, Tyler pointed to the “symbolic and psychological importance” of the Jupiter deployments. While Tyler noted parenthetically that the Italians had “given indications of a disposition to work toward the eventual removal of the Jupiters,” the U.S. could not phase them out “without general Alliance agreement,” including Italy and Turkey’s consent, “unless we are prepared to lay ourselves open to the charge of abrogation of specific or implied agreements.” Rusk was in the know on the secret deal, but his reference to a “later time” was consistent with it and signing the memo would have placated Tyler and Weiss.

That some officials in the State Department’s European Affairs bureau were convinced that Kennedy had approved a trade of the Jupiters in Turkey puzzled State Department official Seymour Weiss, who was convinced that the higher-ups has rejected a trade. In this memo, Weiss asked a colleague, Jeffrey Kitchen, to get an “accurate reading” on the matter.

In an “eyes only” response to a State Department query about the Jupiters, U.S. Ambassador Raymond Hare observed that “if proper means could be found, good case could be made for removal of Jupiters from Turkey as counter for removal of Soviet missiles from Cuba.” Yet, withdrawing the missiles as part of a Cuban Missile Crisis arrangement would pose a problem that was “partly psycho-political” and “partly substantive.” With reference to the “psycho-political” problem, Hare’s explanation was framed ethnocentrically: The Turks “are proud, courageous people who do not understand concept or process of compromise.” In that context, the U.S. would lose much “if in process of Jupiter removal [the] Turks should get the impression that their interests as an ally were being traded off in order to appease an enemy.” He recommended several alternative solutions to the problem; for example, if the missiles are phased out, the U.S. could provide Turkey with a backup, such as the proposed Multilateral Force (MLF) or Polaris missiles. If Italy gave up its Jupiters, he suggests, that could help with an approach to Turkey. 

The Chinese delegation stresses that Soviet social-imperialism is the main offensive threat to world peace today. Europe is its main target to win over the US in the global hegemonic race. The Soviet Union is in an offensive posture while the US is on a defensive one. It also describes China's position on the conflict with Vietnam.

The document analyzes the state of East-West relations in the aftermath of the Reykjavik Summit. There appears to be an openness to continuing dialogue by both sides, but many unknowns still persist regarding Europe and the Middle East.

This document summarizes Ambassador Nitze's speech on the issue of security and disarmament, and provides a rather detailed description of current U.S. position vis-à-vis the USSR in the field of disarmament and global security.

A comprehensive analysis of the Soviet position in the upcoming disarmament negotiations regarding SDI, FNI, MBFR, and chemical weapons. Overall, there seems to be increased willingness on the Soviet side to free up economic resources from military sector.

This note by the Italian Foreign Ministry provides an overview of issues to be discussed with Secretary General Lord Carrington during his visit to Rome. Of particular interest are the upcoming Geneva negotiations between the USSR and the US regarding SDI .

Analysis by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding Reagan's (May 26, 1986) letter to PM Craxi. It discusses intended American responses to Soviet violation of SALT II treaty, and calls for consultations with NATO member states.