Department of State Atomic Energy Files

Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. Lincoln Gordon12

secret

An informal discussion was held from 11 to 12:15 AM at Senator Austin’s office in the Hotel Pennsylvania13 at which the following were present: Senator Austin, Mr. Charles Fahy, Mr. Jack Ross, Mr. Wilder Foote of the General Assembly Delegation; Mr. Baruch, Mr. Eberstadt, Mr. Lindsay and Mr. Gordon of the AEC Delegation.

Senator Austin stated that, contrary to his earlier intention, he had [Page 970] now decided to participate in the general debate in the plenary sessions of the General Assembly.14 His speech will come toward the close of these sessions. In his speech, he will state that the United States proposes [opposes?] any amendment at this time of the Security Council voting provisions as set forth in the Charter.15 The United States will favor clarification and interpretation of the intent and desirable practice, particularly with respect to the peaceful settlement of disputes under Chapter 6, so that the unanimity principles will not hinder the peaceful settlement of disputes under this Chapter.

The subject of atomic energy will come up in the speech in the context of a discussion of specialized agencies of the United Nations. The speech will stress the Constructive activities of such agencies and the flexibility and breadth of the constitutional arrangement in their organizations. It will point out that the voting principles in the charters of these specialized agencies normally called for decision by two-thirds or simple majorities. In this connection, his speech will cite the proposal for an Atomic Development Authority as an example of the flexibility which is possible under the existing Charter. The ADA is to be given the necessary power to insure that atomic energy is developed only for peaceful purposes and to give protection for complying states against violations and evasions. These purposes, the speech will say, are in accord with the General Assembly resolution of last January setting up the Atomic Energy Commission.

At Mr. Eberstadt’s suggestion, and after some discussion, it was agreed that a sentence or two would be inserted into the speech saying that the United States position on the Security Council voting principles is entirely consistent with the United States atomic energy proposals as set forth by Mr. Baruch, in connection with which Mr. Baruch has repeatedly stated that there is no intention to modify the general requirements of Great Power unanimity in the Security Council substantive decisions.

It was agreed that Senator Austin’s position and ours are perfectly in accord on the voting question.

There ensued a discussion of the possibility of a debate in the General Assembly on the work of the Atomic Energy Commission and its future course of action. Mr. Baruch summarized for Senator Austin the substance of our progress report to the President of September 17, pointing out that after completion of the present discussion of controls, we would be faced with a clear choice and form of stalling on the one hand and bringing the basic questions of principles to a vote on the [Page 971] other hand. Mr. Baruch stated that he favored the latter course. He had been awaiting instructions from the President on this matter for six weeks, and felt it of the highest importance that the President make a decision promptly. He felt that the decision should favor a clear decision on principles unless broad considerations of international policy, of which Mr. Baruch is not aware, dictate the other course. Mr. Baruch stressed the importance of a decision before the change in membership of the Atomic Energy Commission early in January. He indicated that Senator Austin might be faced with the necessity of saying something on this subject, either in the General Assembly or at a later time in the Security Council.

Senator Austin pointed out that the subject was not now on the Assembly agenda. He agreed that, if it were raised (as suggested by the British), he could say nothing of substance unless or until further instructions from the President had been forthcoming. Mr. Baruch indicated his concern that the initiative on this subject might be taken by other nations, and in particular the fear that great pressure might be exerted to adopt the Soviet proposal for a mere convention, on the ground that this is something that could be done immediately.

Mr. Eberstadt reviewed in some detail the progress of the negotiations to date and the manner in which the policy questions are likely to arise after completion of the present phase of discussion on the practicality of controls.

Mr. Fahy raised the question as to whether, before pressing the policy questions to a vote, it might be desirable to discuss the Russian position privately with Mr. Molotov. Mr. Eberstadt indicated agreement with the desirability of so doing, if the President and Secretary Byrnes should be in accord. Senator Austin also felt that it was most desirable that any change in the AEC program be discussed privately with the Russians in advance, and stated that he was making it a point to have such discussions with Mr. Vyshinski16 on questions of General Assembly procedure.

  1. Staff member, United States Delegation to the Atomic Energy Commission. The source text is labelled “rough draft;” however, no subsequent draft has been found in the files of the Department of State.
  2. For information regarding the organization and composition of the United States Delegation to the Second Part of the First Session of the General Assembly, see p. 37.
  3. The “general debate” included inaugural statements of broad policy objectives by the heads of national delegations. This phase occurred immediately after the General Assembly organized itself.
  4. For documentation regarding United States policy with respect to the question of voting in the Security Council, see pp. 251 ff.
  5. Andrey Yanuaryevich Vyshinsky, Soviet Representative to the General Assembly.