Department of State Atomic Energy Files
Notes of an Informal Meeting of Members of the United States, French, Canadian, and Australian Delegations to the Atomic Energy Commission, New York, July 24, 1946, 3 p.m.
| Present: | United States: John M. Hancock, Dr. R. C. Tolman, John P. Davis, Lincoln Gordon, Frank Lindsay and Gordon Arneson. |
| France: M. LaCoste. | |
| Canada: General A. G. L. McNaughton, G. C. Lawrence and G. Ignatieff. | |
| Australia: Ralph Harry. |
Mr. Hancock felt that Committee #2 should be allowed to wither away since it is esentially a duplicate of the Working Committee. Mr. LaCoste and General McNaughton were in full agreement with this point.
As to the Legal Committee and the Scientific and Technical Committee, Mr. Ignatieff felt that they were primarily advisory and could operate most effectively if the chairmanship were made relatively permanent. Mr. LaCoste felt, and General McNaughton agreed, that if rotation was to be continued, then it should be among all members and not merely between two such as Gromyko had proposed.
Mr. Hancock suggested that the question of terms of office could be left to the Committees themselves with some provisions for continuity. Dr. Tolman thought that the chairman should hold office “at the pleasure of the committee”.
General McNaughton then stated that he favored allowing Gromyko to present his proposal for a convention at the next session.
Mr. Davis asked if Mr. Gromyko should be cross-examined on his proposal. General McNaughton felt that there was danger that the preparation of fixed questions would appear to be a gangup on the Russians. At this point Mr. Harry arrived and the plan to consolidate the Working Committee and Committee #2 was reviewed for him. Mr. Harry did not favor this consolidation and suggested instead that the Chairmen should be the same for the two Committees.
Mr. Gordon, in reference to questions that might be put to Gromyko, believed that a demonstration of the inadequacy of a convention should be stressed.
General McNaughton suggested that the question should be carefully phrased with the thought in mind that the record would be sent to Moscow and that it might influence the people who call the plays there. Suggested that the past experience of the U.S.S.R. with pacts of this sort should be brought out.
[Page 869]Mr. Harry expressed the fear that Gromyko will try to maneuver us into a position of refusing to sign a convention. Mr. Harry believed that ultimately there should be no bombs held by the Security Council or any other organization.
General McNaughton agreed.
Mr. Harry suggested that the Russians might ask for disclosure of the records of bombs produced and for the right to supervise disassembly.
Mr. Hancock expressed agreement, at the proper time.
General McNaughton suggested that we should indicate that it is not the U.S.S.R. we fear but rather some unknown government which may be developed at some time in the future.
Mr. LaCoste believes that the initiative now lay with the United States as a result of Gromyko’s reply to the United States’ proposals. He suggested that it was not [now?] up to the United States to state that a convention is essential, but that it is not sufficient in itself. He thought that Gromyko’s first speech was written before Mr. Baruch’s speech was delivered and that Gromyko’s plan must be fully answered at this time in order to force new instructions for Gromyko.
Mr. Ignatieff believed we should now concentrate on developing the questions or plans which had already been presented.