811.2423/11–3045
The Canadian Ambassador (Pearson) to the Secretary of State
Aide-Mémoire
The Canadian Ambassador is instructed to transmit to the Secretary of State the views of the Canadian Government, and to enquire [Page 79] Mr. Byrnes’ views, on the procedure for bringing before the United Nations Organization the proposals made in the statement on atomic energy signed in Washington on November 15th to set up a “Commission under the United Nations Organization to prepare recommendations for submission to the Organization”.
With regard to the method whereby the proposal for the establishment of a special Commission should be brought before the United Nations Organization, the Canadian Government is in full agreement with the view that the matter should be considered by the General Assembly. The exact means whereby it is placed on the agenda of the General Assembly is relatively unimportant. It would perhaps be appropriate for the parties to the Washington discussions jointly to propose its inclusion in the agenda, preferably after the Preparatory Commission has closed its session and before the date for the opening of the General Assembly. If, however, the matter is raised in the Preparatory Commission joint action could be taken by the delegations of the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada to sponsor a resolution adding the question to the provisional agenda for the General Assembly.
It has been suggested that the Government of the U.S.S.R. might be approached with a view to securing their sponsorship for the tripartite proposals. This would seem unlikely to bring any fruitful results. Past experience indicates that the Soviet Government would be unlikely to associate themselves in sponsoring a statement about which they were not consulted and might also complicate the whole procedure by insisting at this stage that the subject was one which should properly be considered by the Security Council. It would, therefore, seem best that the three governments directly concerned should reach agreement between themselves on the course to be followed. They might then inform the Soviet Government, privately in advance, of the action which they propose to take without inviting comment from the Soviet Government. If this is done, it would be well to consider whether similar notification should be addressed to the Governments of France and China.
The desirable composition of the special Commission is difficult to determine. Perhaps the easiest course to pursue would be to suggest that it should be composed of representatives of the governments serving on the first Security Council. It is, however, essential that Canada as one of the sponsors for the establishment of the Commission should be assured of representation on it, whether or not Canada is elected to one of the non-permanent seats on the Security Council. The Commission is likely to continue in existence for a considerable period and it would not be desirable that its membership [Page 80] should change automatically as a result of new elections to the Security Council. There might be included in it, initially at any rate, representatives of the five states with permanent membership, together with representatives of Canada, at least one Latin American country and at least one smaller European country. A wide degree of overlapping with the membership of the Security Council would be some assurance against conflicts over questions of jurisdiction within the United Nations Organization.
The terms of reference set forth in paragraph 7 of the Washington declaration cover matters falling within the scope of both the General Assembly and the Security Council. It might be that some of the proposals made by the Commission would require consideration by the Economic and Social Council and the collaboration of some of the specialized agencies to be brought into relationship with the United Nations, such as the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. The most satisfactory course may prove to be the submission of reports by the Commission to either or both of the General Assembly and the Security Council. Matters falling directly within the competence of the Security Council under Articles 24 and 26 of the Charter could be the subject of recommendations from the Commission to the Security Council alone if necessary. Quite apart from the specific allocation of functions included in the Charter (whereby some of the recommendations of the Commission would properly be for consideration by the Assembly), it is most unlikely that agreement could be secured among the members of the United Nations for concentrating wholly in the Security Council responsibility for dealing with the problems raised by the development of atomic fission.
It will be necessary to decide in advance on a suitable designation for the proposed special Commission. Under the Washington declaration the functions of the Commission would not be limited to questions of the use or misuse of atomic energy. They would include the bringing forward of proposals for the elimination from national armaments “of all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction” and also for the exchange between all nations of “basic scientific information for peaceful ends”. While the Commission might be generally known by the short title of the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission, the designation given to it in the resolution to be placed before the General Assembly should clearly indicate its broader functions.
Mr. Pearson will be glad to hold himself in readiness to discuss these matters further with Mr. Byrnes at the Secretary’s convenience.