Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, National Security Affairs, Volume II, Part 2

Atomic Energy files, lot 57 D 688, “IAEA Policies”

Memorandum by the Consultant to the Secretary of State for Atomic Energy Affairs (Smith) to the Secretary of State

secret

[Washington,] November 1, 1954.

• Subject:
• Proposed Reply to the Soviet Atomic Energy Note of September 22¹ and Further Negotiations with the Soviet Government on the President’s International Atomic Energy Agency Proposal

Discussion:

The President’s December 8 proposal and the March 19 outline² given to the USSR called for “pooling” of fissionable materials by nations possessing them. After the USSR had indicated a lack of interest in this proposal, we shelved the “pooling” concept. It is now contemplated that projects sponsored by the Agency will call upon “earmarked” fissionable material in national stockpiles.

When this modification of the original plan is announced next week by Cabot Lodge, the USSR may state an interest in participating in the work of such an “earmarking” Agency as opposed to a “pooling” Agency. On the other hand, the Soviets may attempt to exploit, for propaganda purposes, our shelving of the pooling concept.

The proposed reply (Tab A)³ to the latest Soviet atomic energy note dated September 22 has been prepared with both these contingencies in mind. It would “keep the ball in play” with the aim of permitting the U.S. to get on with the establishment of the Agency with the other nations principally involved. It attempts to probe Soviet intentions as to real participation in a cooperative effort to foster peaceful uses of atomic energy.

Informal consultation with the United Kingdom and Canada indicates their agreement that additional safeguards will be needed in the event of Soviet participation in the Agency as outlined in the October 6 document (the “earmarking” Agency).⁴ It seems likely that actual contributions of fissionable material will be required rather than mere reliance on a promise to earmark. (This would not be a reversion to the original “pooling” plan, which contemplated syphoning off of relatively large amounts from the weapons stockpiles from the USSR and the U.S.) The U.S. then would also have to “pony up” the amounts which we now have or may in the future agree to “earmark” for the Agency. The organization and authority of the Agency will be such as to permit its holding fissionable material in the event that this becomes necessary because of Soviet participation.

Recommendations:

1. That the draft reply (Tab A) be delivered to the Soviet Union immediately before the Lodge UN presentation next week so as to permit a statement by Lodge that the United States is continuing negotiations with the Soviet Union as requested by it on September 22.

2. If the Soviets seek to participate in the formation of the Agency, it is recommended the United States attempt to probe their intentions in the matter of contributions of information and fissionable material to the Agency—while proceeding to form the Agency with the other nations principally involved.

3. If the Soviets seek to make propaganda capital out of the change in U.S. plans for the Agency, it is recommended that we point out that the sole reason for the change was the Soviet rejection of the President’s proposal and that we stand ready to negotiate with them and the other nations principally involved on a true pooling arrangement as contemplated in the President’s December 8 proposal.⁵

Gerard C. Smith

1. The Soviet note is described in telegram 418 from Moscow, Sept. 22, p. 1518.
2. Ante, p. 1372.
3. Tab A does not accompany the source text, but for the reply transmitted by Secretary Dulles to Soviet Ambassador Zarubin on Nov. 3, see infra.
4. See footnote 3, p. 1543.
5. A notation on the source text states that the proposed reply to the Soviet aide-mémoire of Sept. 22 received the concurrence of John Hall and Paul Foster of the AEC and of General Loper and Colonel Carson of the Department of Defense.