Department of State Atomic Energy Files
Notes on a Staff Conference of the United States Delegation to the Atomic Energy Commission, New York, August 1, 1946, a.m.24
| Present: | Mr. Bernard M. Baruch |
| Mr. John M. Hancock | |
| Mr. F. Eberstadt | |
| Mr. John Parks Davis | |
| Mr. Lincoln Gordon |
This conference was preceded by a general discussion of the meeting of Committee No. 2 on July 3125 and the problems raised by the reference to the Scientific Committee of the question of the technical possibility of control of atomic energy and the most effective means of carrying out such control. There was some speculation as to the considerations which motivated Mr. Parodi in breaking into the discussion of the Soviet proposal with his suggestion for this reference to the Scientific Committee. Some concern was also expressed, particularly by Mr. Eberstadt, that the discussions in the Scientific Committee [Page 870] might eventuate in a complaint that the United States was impeding progress by withholding technical information necessary to an understanding of proposed control measures.
The conference then proceeded to a review of the present status of the work of the Atomic Energy Commission and the desirable course of action in the immediate future.
Mr. Baruch stated emphatically that he felt that we have no real cause for disappointment at the progress to date. He felt that we had come along as quickly and as well as we should expect at this time.
Our goal remains a unanimous report adopting the principles of the American Plan. He said that no alternative to this goal is now under consideration and that no member of the Delegation should suggest in any manner that any thought was being given to alternatives.
Mr. Baruch said that we must endeavor to draw out the Russians on their ideas as fully as possible, and that we must avoid at all costs any humiliation of the Russians—even to the extent, if necessary, of some personal humiliation to ourselves. If any breach in the negotiations arises at a later date, it must not originate with us, and we must make it crystal clear that we have explored every possible avenue of agreement.
Mr. Baruch also said that in his judgment our plan was generous and just, and that we had the right as well as the power on our side. He saw no reason to believe at this time that the Russians would not be brought around, when they had had an opportunity for complete understanding of our proposals.
Mr. Hancock then outlined four lines along which he thought work should progress. They were as follows:
- 1.
- Continuing Educational Work to attain complete understanding of the American proposals among the other Delegations. This should include a much more detailed explanation than had as yet been given of the considerations which led the Lilienthal Board members to the conclusions in the Acheson-Lilienthal report. He suggested the possibility of talks by Dr. Oppenheimer, Mr. Charles Thomas and General Groves to joint sessions of the scientific and political delegates. Mr. Eberstadt suggested that we lay out a specific program for carrying out this educational work. This will, of course, have to be preceded by clarification of the effect of Section 10 of the McMahon Act.
- 2.
- Informal Contacts with Other Delegations. Mr. Hancock noted that members of our staff had been making increasingly useful contacts with staff members of the other Delegations. He felt that there was a need for systematic informal discussion at frequent intervals with the heads of other Delegations by the heads of our Delegation. Mr. Eberstadt suggested that a regular timetable be developed for this purpose, so that we are sure that no Delegation is overlooked.
- 3.
- Treaty Drafting. Work is already under way on the early stages [Page 871] of drafting a treaty incorporating the American proposals, under the supervision of Mr. Fahy. Mr. Hancock suggested that Professor Manley Hudson might usefully be brought into this work. There was no decision on this point.
- 4.
- Stages. The elaboration of the stages in which the American plan would be implemented is a major substantive task for the Delegation at this time. Mr. Hancock felt that it may be desirable to develop our proposal on stages as part of the draft treaty. Mr. Eberstadt suggested that a Working Committee including Dr. Oppenheimer (or Dr. Bacher) and Messrs. Fahy, Volpe and Gordon devote a period of two weeks of concentrated effort to this problem, developing a memorandum for further consideration by the Delegation.