USUN Files
Memorandum by Mr. John G.
Ross, Adviser, United States Delegation to the United
Nations General Assembly, to the Secretary of
State
46
top secret
[New
York,] November 3, 1946.
In the course of a long and cordial conversation on Monday, October 28, Mr.
Baruch sought Senator Austin’s support for the proposal Mr. Baruch had made
to the President that he be authorized to bring the United States proposals
to a vote in the Atomic Energy Commission before November 15. He expressed
confidence that the United States would win this vote by 10–2.
Senator Austin was noncommittal in his reply since neither atomic energy nor
disarmament were on the Assembly’s Agenda and since there was no evidence at
the time that anyone intended to propose these subjects for the Agenda.
On the following day, Tuesday, Mr. Molotov in his Assembly speech proposed
that the question of disarmament, including the control of atomic energy, be
put on the Assembly’s Agenda. On Wednesday, Senator Austin in his Assembly
speech welcomed this proposal.
Thus the two questions of Atomic Energy Control and General Disarmament,
which had previously not been considered together, were brought together,
and the Soviet proposal was approved for inclusion on the Agenda at a
plenary session of the Assembly on Thursday afternoon, October 31.
This whole matter, probably the most important question by far to be
considered at this Assembly session, thus became one of immediate concern to
Senator Austin, in view of his present Assembly responsibilities and in view
of the effect which any action taken by the Assembly will have on his
responsibilities after the first of the year
[Page 989]
as United States Representative to the United Nations.
After a long discussion with him on Friday it was decided that I should go
to Washington over the weekend to communicate his initial views and explore
the thinking in the Department on this subject.
As a result of discussions in Washington on Saturday with Mr. Acheson and Mr.
Cohen, in which Mr. Hiss, Mr. Marks and I participated, it was agreed to
submit to you and Senator Austin for approval the course of action which is
set forth in the first of the two attached papers. The second paper is a
draft outline of the speech on disarmament which Senator Austin might
make.47
[Annex]
Memorandum by Mr. John C.
Ross to the Secretary of
State
Conclusions and Proposals on Disarmament
- 1.
- The objective of Mr. Molotov’s disarmament proposals is probably
to obfuscate the fundamental issues which have been developed in the
Atomic Energy Commission in recent months. The purposes to be served
probably are:
- (a)
- to lead thinking in this country and throughout the world
away from the present emphasis on
control of atomic energy and other weapons of mass
destruction and the fundamental issue of whether we are
going to have international control with adequate safeguards
or national control without adequate safeguards;
- (b)
- to lead thinking into a maze of
technicalities concerning the size and equipment of armies,
navies, and air forces which come under the heading of
“general disarmament”;
- (c)
- to capitalize on the widespread sentiment in this country
and abroad for the drastic reduction of armies, navies and
air forces (and cessation of production of fissionable
materials)—a sentiment which does not take account of the
consequences of such action, in terms of our own certain
weakness vis-a-vis the Soviet Union, in the absence of a
system of international control with adequate safeguards
applicable in the first instance to atomic energy and other
weapons of mass destruction.
- 2.
- Negatively, we should avoid a course which would follow the Soviet
lead and which would commit us and the United Nations to involvement
in the technicalities of “general disarmament” at the expense of
loss of time and emphasis on our primary objective of international
[Page 990]
control with adequate
safeguards of atomic energy and other weapons of mass destruction.
Affirmatively, we should promptly develop a course which would (a)
counteract the adverse effects which the Soviet proposals (and the
manner of their presentation) have already had and which would (b)
regain the initiative and leadership for the United States in the
interest of the United Nations. A very important part of our
approach would be a well organized and effectively carried out
program of public education to dispel widespread misunderstanding of
the issues involved and to clarify and lead public thinking, not
only in our own country but throughout the world, with regard to
this whole subject. Our proposed course is set forth in the
following points, the timing and presentation conditional, of
course, upon the requirement of your work with the Council of
Foreign Ministers.
- 3.
- Mr. Baruch should be authorized to seek the vote he feels is
essential at this time in the Atomic Energy Commission. He and his
staff would presumably wish to re-canvas the other members of the
Atomic Energy Commission to make sure of getting the best possible
majority. It was our thought that this purpose might best be served
if we were to avoid the drawing of a final
issue as might be the case, for example, if we were to force a vote
at this time on the American proposals as such. It would be
preferable we felt to seek in this vote at this time to sharpen the
simple but fundamental issue of whether the Soviet Government is
intransigently opposed to international control with adequate
safeguards of atomic energy and other weapons of mass destruction.
Based on this objective a resolution could be framed so as to avoid
putting other governments under the formal necessity of voting for the United States or against the Soviet Union.
- 4.
- The proposed vote would set the stage for a major policy speech by
Senator Austin in which he would develop the objectives set forth
under point 2 above and chart our course for dealing with this
subject in the Assembly.
