Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, General; the United Nations, Volume I

USUN Files

Memorandum by Mr. John C. Ross, Adviser, United States Delegation to the United Nations General Assembly

secret

[New York,] November 7, 1946.

Present Status—Formulation of Disarmament Policy

1. The United States has indicated (Senator Austin’s speech) that it welcomed the general disarmament proposals made by Mr. Molotov the day before. Our action in so doing has been publicly and privately acclaimed.

2. Considerable doubt has been expressed concerning the sincerity of the Soviet Union’s motives in advancing its disarmament proposals. Until this doubt is clarified it is essential that the United States restore and maintain its position of leadership in this field.

3. Up to the point of Molotov’s speech we were in a position of at least partial leadership based on the initiative we had taken and maintained with regard to atomic energy. Our proposal for the establishment of an Atomic Energy Commission, which was adopted by the General Assembly in London, covered two of the three areas of the disarmament field, namely, (a) atomic energy and (b) other weapons of mass destruction. We have made specific proposals concerning the control of atomic energy but we have made no specific proposals concerning the control of other weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, we have made no proposals at all in regard to the third phase of disarmament which concerns the reduction of armies, navies, air forces, et cetera. The Soviet Union has made proposals which cover this third phase as well as the other two. Although we have welcomed their proposals we must be honest with ourselves and admit that until we take some positive, affirmative, constructive action the leadership rests with them.

4. There is general agreement among us that adequate safeguards are an essential component of any system of disarmament. Exactly what we mean when we use the term “adequate safeguards” is not, however, entirely clear and this subject will require further study and development.

5. There is also general agreement among us that the United States must not disarm unilaterally. Here again our meaning is not entirely clear and will require further study and development.

6. Beyond the area of agreement concerning adequate safeguards and unilateral disarmament there is a considerable difference of views as to what policy we should pursue generally with regard to this whole subject of disarmament and, more specifically, what action we should take in the current Assembly.

7. One view which, generally speaking, Senator Austin seems to have held consistently for a long time is that the disarmament field must be considered and dealt with as a whole. Atomic energy, other weapons of mass destruction, armies, navies, air forces—all of these and perhaps more are closely related aspects of a single problem which, in turn, is closely related to other problems such as the provision of armed forces under Article 43 of the Charter, and the Soviet agenda item concerning troops on foreign territories. This generalized approach was stated in effect by Molotov in his speech. It is an approach which has very widespread public support in this country. Molotov was presumably not unaware of this fact, which is evidenced by public and governmental reaction to Senator Austin’s speech. The principle of general disarmament has also received much support in the Congress. At the last session a considerable number of Bills on the subject were introduced, Senator Tydings’ proposal for a general disarmament conference to reduce armaments by January 1, 1950 down to the level of the peace forces required under the Charter being perhaps the most notable. With a Republican and economy-minded Congress the additional and very natural motives of Republican Party leadership in the Congress and economy through reduction of armaments (by far the largest item in our national Budget) must be added as strong factors to the already strong desire for general disarmament. Unless there is real responsiveness to all of these factors through adoption of a policy which is at once bold, imaginative and creative, positive, affirmative and constructive, there is a great danger that we shall be caught in a wave of irrational, unilateral disarmament without any quid pro quo from the Soviet Union or the rest of the world generally, a situation which would immeasurably weaken our capacity for self-defense, our position in the United Nations, and in our whole foreign relations program. Even if this danger were not great, even if the risk were only a very small one, we cannot afford in this vital area of our national security to take lightly even the smallest risk.

On the other hand the broad, sweeping approach characterized by Senator Tydings’ Resolution may fairly be described as an oversimplification of an exceedingly complex problem. Moreover, it would be more appropriate for the United States to take the initiative in the establishment of appropriate machinery within the framework of the United Nations rather than having our President, as suggested by Senator Tydings, convene an international conference. Furthermore, the job of disarmament is a very tough as well as complex one and an international conference is not the best machinery for this kind of job.

A broad generalized approach would be most responsive to Molotov’s proposals. This might presumably be considered as a fact that would facilitate the negotiation and speedy conclusion of mutually satisfactory arrangements with the Soviet Union and other United Nations. However, while we want to be as responsive as possible to Soviet views the Molotov proposals are stated in very general terms and carry no assurances that would be considered essential by us. We cannot, therefore, risk jumping to the conclusion that virtually complete responsiveness to the Molotov proposals will produce satisfactory results and allow ourselves meanwhile to be sidetracked and lose the advantage we have gained and hitherto maintained, through our atomic energy proposals. I believe Senator Austin and everyone else would now agree, therefore, that whatever else we may decide to do, we must re-focus attention on the necessity of international control and development of atomic energy with adequate safeguards against diversion for non-beneficial purposes.

8. If I understand correctly, Mr. Herbert Marks feels strongly and Mr. Acheson tends to agree that the emphasis should be placed on atomic energy control to such an extent as virtually to exclude any action at this time with regard to other aspects of disarmament. If correctly represented this seems to be a somewhat extreme position. It would not be sufficiently responsive to the Russian proposals to offer real hope that progress could be made with them even in the atomic energy field. It would not be sufficiently responsive to public and Congressional opinion in the United States to avoid the danger of unilateral disarmament referred to above. It would not be sufficiently responsive to the general sentiment in the Assembly in favor of disarmament. Finally, it would in effect repudiate what was said in Senator Austin’s speech about disarmament.

9. A less extreme alternative is embodied in a resolution drafted by Alger Hiss and reviewed by Ben Cohen (copy attached).⁶⁶ The essential parts of this resolution are contained in the first three paragraphs. The first paragraph reaffirms the desirability of general disarmament and “recommends that the Security Council give prompt consideration to the practical measures essential thereto” and recognizes that disarmament must be general and not unilateral. The second paragraph recognizes the necessity of “effective safeguards”. The third paragraph re-focuses attention on the atomic energy problem and “recommends that the Atomic Energy Commission expedite its deliberations”.

This draft resolution accomplishes the purpose of re-focusing attention on the work of the Atomic Energy Commission. Beyond that, however, it could hardly be considered as responsive to any of the various elements referred to above; on the contrary it is a very weak response. It is hardly to be expected that the Security Council which is already heavily burdened with work could at this time be expected to take on this additional very big and difficult job and discharge its responsibilities toward that job very effectively. Furthermore, the veto would be a serious deterrent to real progress. As in the case of atomic energy, specialized machinery consistent with the Charter and the responsibilities of the Security Council with regard to disarmament is necessary. (See Quincy Wright’s letter.)⁶⁷

10. This leads to the suggestion that we propose in the Assembly a resolution which would (a) emphasize the necessity of expediting the work of the Atomic Energy Commission, in this connection underscoring the essentiality of international control with adequate safeguards, (b) emphasize the close inter-relationship of all phases of disarmament, including atomic energy, other weapons of mass destruction, armies, navies and air forces, and the provision of armed forces, the presence of troops abroad, et cetera, (c) emphasize the necessity of close correlation of all of these factors as parts of a comprehensive whole in the development of a rational program along parallel and integrated lines, and (d) propose, in order to achieve this correlation and establish the broad political principles and objectives which are necessary to achieve practical results at the technical level (tonnages, et cetera), the establishment of a Permanent Disarmament Commission related to the Security Council in much the same way as the present Atomic Energy Commission is related to the Council. The best organization of this Commission would be as indicated on the attached Chart No. 1,⁶⁸ namely, a Commission composed of three or more panels to deal respectively with atomic energy, other weapons of mass destruction, armies, navies, et cetera, and possibly related questions such as armed forces under Article 43, et cetera. This Permanent Disarmament Commission might best consist only of the Members of the Security Council in view of the Council’s particular responsibilities.⁶⁹

[Here follows a detailed description of the proposed Permanent Disarmament Commission and of parallel United States machinery to facilitate participation in its work.]

66. The draft resolution under reference is not attached to the source text and has not been found in the files of the Department of State. See, however, the text of the resolution ultimately introduced by the United States, p. 1076.
67. Letter not identified.
68. The chart is not attached to the source text and has not been found in the files of the Department of State.
69. In regard to the proposal contained in this paragraph, see the USUN draft resolution of November 26, p. 1061.