Department of State Atomic Energy Files
Notes on a Conference Between Members of the United States and Canadian Delegations to the Atomic Energy Commission, August 1, 194626
| Present: | U.S. | Canada |
| Mr. B. M. Baruch | Gen. McNaughton | |
| Mr. John M. Hancock | Mr. G. Ignatieff | |
| Mr. F. Eberstadt | ||
| Mr. John Parks Davis | ||
| Dr. R. C. Tolman | ||
| Mr. F. Lindsay |
General McNaughton referred to the interrelation between current negotiations at Paris Peace Conference and negotiations here. The French have told him that they believe that the Russians may attempt to shift the focus of world attention from the Paris Conference to New York. They may try to condemn the United States for its failure to implement its professed desire to eliminate the atom bomb because of its refusal to sign the proposed Russian convention.
Ignatieff referred to the French move during yesterday’s meeting which resulted in diverting the questioning of Gromyko on his proposals.27 He believed that Parodi was simply trying to be helpful and to forestall any possibility of an immediate crack-up.
Mr. Baruch felt that possibly the various delegations did not even now fully understand each other. For the present, discussion must continue.
Mr. Hancock believed that the Russians would consider it to their interests to continue negotiations and avoid an open break.
[Page 872]Mr. Baruch stated there has been a tremendous change in public attitude toward Russia. We must do everything we can to reach an agreement; nevertheless, ultimately we must face the facts. If we have made every effort to reach an agreement, we can then face a break with a clear conscience. He further stated that the United States would not trade and that this problem was far too important to do any trading about.
Mr. Eberstadt agreed that our negotiations must be studied in light of concurrent negotiations at Paris and at the forthcoming General Assembly. He asked General McNaughton if he thought Russia had anything to gain by forcing a break at this time. General McNaughton replied that he believed that if Russia finds that she is going to lose the initiative at Paris with respect to her political domination of Europe, it may become advantageous to transfer the center of attention to New York.
Mr. Eberstadt believed there was an additional danger that the Scientific Committee might report that it was impossible to further consider the problem because of the refusal of the United States to make available the necessary scientific information.
General McNaughton suggested that the next meeting be opened by statement from one of the delegates requesting Gromyko to further elaborate his ideas on how effective control might be achieved through the Security Council. He added that Canada would assume the chair when the meetings would be resumed at Lake Success. He believed that it would be an opportune time to review the work that had been done and to re-focus the Commission’s attention on the basic problems to be solved. He asked whether or not the United States Delegation had any suggestions for such a statement.
Mr. Baruch said that the American Delegation would be glad to review the situation and to make suggestions to General McNaughton.
Mr. Baruch made a further statement that we must be fair and decent in our relations with the Russians, but that at the same time we must also be fair and decent to those people we represent.
Dr. Tolman arrived and reported that the Scientific meeting today had gone along more successfully than any previous meeting.
Mr. Hancock stated that he still had not a definitive answer to the question General McNaughton had raised at the previous meeting concerning the interpretation in the McMahon Bill on the provisions limiting publications of technical information.
Mr. Gordon stated he felt there was a danger that there might be a premature discussion of the Security Council during the next session of the Legal Committee and that this discussion might upset plans for discussion on the same subject in the next meeting of Subcommittee No. 2.
It was decided that the United States Delegation would discuss this [Page 873] problem with Van Kleffens28 before the Legal Committee meeting and attempt to work out a solution with him. Mr. Ignatieff said that the Australians appear to be pushing for a showdown and that he was quite concerned over this. Apparently Evatt had left instructions to the Australian Delegation to force the issue on the veto as much as possible.
General McNaughton said that he planned to leave for Ottawa on August 8 and to return the 15th. He would then have a few days before the first meeting at Lake Success during which he could work out with United States and other delegations a plan of action to be followed.
Mr. Hancock suggested that general report from the various American scientific societies outlining research projects which they had on their books might be helpful to the general situation. General McNaughton suggested that visits to a few laboratories or plants, or to the Canadian Chalk River Plant might be desirable.
- Drafted by Franklin T. Lindsay.↩
- For the summary record of the 4th Meeting of Committee 2, July 31, see AEC, I, Special Suppl., pp. 123–128.↩
- Dr. Eelco Nicolaas van Kleffens, Foreign Minister of the Netherlands; Representative on the Security Council and the Atomic Energy Commission and in the General Assembly; presumably, at the time the present document was drafted, Chairman of the Legal Advisory Committee of the Atomic Energy Commission.↩